So what did you guys think of 'HANNIBAL'? (1 Viewer)

[Inspector Hammer!]

I just watched it tonight, and must say, I liked it alot. Anthony Hopkins was deliciously (pun intended) evil once again, and even though I once thought differenly, Julianne Moore was a very decent sub for Jodie Foster, I think she's more attractive as well. What is their to say about the effects!? Oh man this film was disgusting, in particular, the ending scenes!

I mean you'd think he would have at least felt a draft!

As for the original, I never really cared for it to be honest, the best thing about it was Anthony Hopkins, but I liked this one much more. So, if I may pick your brains

, what did you guys and gals think of it?
------------------
God bless the USA and the men and woman of our military and their families!

 

[cafink]

I hated it the first time I saw it. It was stupid and boring. I love Anthony Hopkins, he's absolutely my favorite actor, but even he couldn't save this film.
Nonetheless, I saw it again, as I was out with some friends who wanted to see it. I kind of enjoyed it this time. I still thought it was dumb, but there was something about it… I didn't enjoy the movie, but I enjoyed WATCHING the movie, if that makes any sense.
I bought the DVD when it came out, and now that I've seen it three times, I really like it. The plot is still kind of dumb, but this movie has GREAT atmosphere. It's just such a bizarre and surreal film. The plot is still dumb, but it's fun to watch.

 

[Paul_D]

Everything about this film is excellent, apart from the source material, and thus the script! Ridley Scott's direction along with John Mathieson's cinematogrpahy is wonderful. The performances are (to my mind) the best they can be given the material, and the score and sets are all great. But all of this cannot save Hannibal from being a boring, waste of a film. In creating a sequel, they've taken all that was threatening and shocking about Hopkins first portrayal of the character and throw it out, replacing it with crappy jokes and burts of stupid OTT violence.
If they hadn't shown any violence in Hannibal, and allowed the audience to nuse their imagination, it would have created a much more elevated sense of what he's capable of.
Part of his appeal in SOTL was that he was a gentile doctor, encaged in a dungeon! and the fact that the extent of his mentel illness, and his genius, are only illuded to.... not crudely demonstarated as they do Hannibal.
The ending... including the pig sequence and the dinner party is far too abrupt, and though I didn't dislike the ending as much as I did the film as a whole, the aftermath of the dinner party is totally unbelievable in terms of character. I mean HE'S A PSYCHOPATH.
The only shot of Hopkins as a truly free man in SOTL is at the end and accompanied by a joke - practically his first of the film. It wasn't a bad one either, maybe Hannibal would have been a bit better had this calibre of joke been continued through to the second part, instead of inserting 'okey-dokey' into the script every now and calling it humour.
I think its a real tragedy that Ridley Scott's baroque world has been wasted on this 'unrequited love story'. On a visual and technical level its a masterpiece. As a whole, I'd give it 1/5.
Hoping the new Red Dragom will be better.
------------------

 

[Arun Vajpey]

It is a good, classy film but that's about it. The script itself is less intelligent than "Silence of the Lambs" and also less involving. Hopkins is excellent as he always is, but in "Hannibal" he seems mortal and less menacing than the original. As for Moore, she may be better looking than Foster, but as Clarice Starling she falls flat on her face. Her acting prowess is obviously limited and the role is far too strong for her to be convincing.
Another thing that I did not like about the film is the cinematograhy, the lighting to be specific. If it was an attempt at creating a neo-Gothic atmosphere, it fails.

 

[Keith_R]

straight out I'm going to say I dis-liked this film greatly. I rented it on DVD and saw it twice and after the second time I didn't like it anymore than the first time. I just thought the movie was boring and stupid.
------------------
-Keith-

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I enjoyed this movie. It's hard to compare it to the original, as they are two completely different films. I will have to disagree with the above post. This is one of the most technically competent films I have ever enjoyed. It looks and feels better than the script deserves. And the script is not bad, it's just never as good as SOTL.
And most importantly, as much as I admire Julianne Moore, she perfomrs decently, but is not a replacement for Jodie Foster, and I don't think anyone could ever be. JF was the heart and soul of the first movie.
And I think she is absolutely beautiful to boot.
Just my two cents.
Chuck

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

My biggest beef with Hannibal was that they showed the Mason Verger character right off the bat. I would think a bit of shadows and hiding his grotesque nature would've went a long way towards building suspense and made his introduction much more shocking. As it was, it came off as almost flat and pointless. Add to that, it looked like they had Hannibal on the loose and really didn't have an idea on how to approach that. He was FAR less menacing and intelligent than he was in SOTL. But, it wasn't a total waste and there was some great atmospheric scenes. Overall...a C grade.
Bruce
------------------

Welcome aboard the Satellite of Love

 

[Tom-G]

This film, like most Ridley Scott films, has some wonderful visuals and atmosphere, but really lacks in story and substance. The cinematography in Italy was breathtakingly beautiful.
The main problem is making Hannibal the cool, hip, good guy. He kills with a debonair demeanor. All for the unrequited love of Clarice? Didn't work for me. Part of the beauty of Silence of the Lambs was the fact that Hannibal was the antithesis of Clarice. She needed his intelligence, he needed her ability to give him a chance of escaping. This all added to a great atmosphere and incredible suspense in the final act.
In this film, it turned into a freak show and gore fest of sorts. The over-the-top violence did nothing to scare or disgust me. It was laughable. Sometimes things are better left to a one's imagination as was done in Silence of the Lambs.
A horror/love story is not what I needed. I don't like horror movies and I don't care much for love stories either. This film failed at most levels, but wasn't terrible either. Given the talent involved, it should have been better than what the final product was.
------------------
As for the bad rap about the characters--hey, I've seen space operas that put their emphasis on human personalities and relationships. They're called "Star Trek" movies. Give me transparent underwater cities and vast hollow senatorial spheres any day. --Roger Ebert on The Phantom Menace

 

[Seth Paxton]

I thought that both the screenplay AND some directorial decisions were more than a little lacking. Example - do we really need the outcome of a scene so horribly telegraphed with a hack cliche like a bunch of Asian tourists with cameras conveniently placed outside.
Trust me, that wasn't just "the script". Scott let that go through, one of many choices like that, and it turned the film into a Bruckheimer production (not in exact style, but in terms of cliched filmmaking).
Very disappointing to me. And the script was loaded with lots of "iffy" dialog.
On the other hand, it made me appreciate Manhunter and SotL more.
------------------
Greetings from the Humungus! The Lord Humungus!
The Warrior of the Wasteland!
The Ayatollah of Rock and Rollah!
[Edited last by Seth Paxton on September 23, 2001 at 08:36 PM]

 

[Patrick Sun]

I just wished they had the courage to go through with the original book ending because there's all this build-up, and no place to relieve the pressure at the end of the film.
------------------
PatCave ; HT Pix ; Gear ; DIY Mains ; DIY CC ; Sunosub I + II + III ; DVDs ; Link Removed
[Edited last by Patrick Sun on September 24, 2001 at 08:39 AM]

 

[Brook K]

I enjoyed it as a horror/comedy movie. Once I latched on to the fact that you have to completely separate it from the previous two movies, just like SOTL has no real relation to Manhunter, I was along for a fun ride.
------------------
"It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen"
S&S Challenge: 72 ...25
DVD BEAVER

My DVD Collection

 

[Joe D]

I really liked it. The movie is the third movie in the Thomas Harris trilogy, and all three movies are very different. As soon as you realize that this isn't Silence Part 2, I think you can judge it fairly.
Hannibal is more of an exotic picture to me than Silence was. The director realizes that Hannibal has escaped, so he shows Hannibal the Cannibal out on the town (what did you guys want, for them to capture Hannibal so it could be the same atmosphere as Silence of the Lambs.)
The movie is a thrill to look at, the pacing is great, the characters are great, as well as the music. Speaking of the music, this adds a much more emotional side to Hannibal that Silence lacked. Silence had music that worked towards scarying the viewer, while Hannibal doesn't try to do this. I guess I just loved the romantic music to Hannibal, while I didn't really care for Silence's music that much.
I personally feel that Manhunter and Silence are similar in how they're set up, in the sense that they're hunting for a killer, and they need to consult with Lector to find him. And I think that Manhunter suceeds in creating a better mood than Silence, so I prefer to Manhunter to Silence. Hannibal is totally different, so I rank the films:
1.Manhunter
2.Hannibal
3.Silence of the Lambs
------------------
Joe Dahlen
"Take hold of the flame, you've got nothing to lose, but everything to gain."

 

[Gruson]

I agree with Keith on this one. This movie did not move me or anything like the original did.
Oh well.
Hopkins sure has aged in 10 years too

 

[JonZ]

I agree the source material was the problem, they should have taken the best parts of the book and done something else with it.
I really did like the last 1/2 hour though.
------------------
Visit My Pathetic WebPage
"....With that in mind,I humbly add my own prophecy of
what the dawn of the new millennium shall bring forth-
one thousand more years of the same old crap" Jose Chung
[Edited last by JonZ on September 24, 2001 at 09:47 AM]

 

[Alex Spindler]

I enjoyed this movie a great deal, but primarily because I didn't expect SotL 2. In fact, I would have been disappointed if Thomas had created yet another variation on the 'consult with dangerous psychopath to capture a killer' that was used for the two previous novels. This novel was titled Hannibal for a reason, it is focused on Hannibal as the central character. It's not surprising that those wishing him to be I found it refreshing to make this a novel as much about romance as it is about capturing an escaped killer.
I loved their settings, especially those in Europe. This is exactly what I would have expected Hannibal to do when he was left to his own devices. The concept of having using Clarice as bait on a hook and then the conversion of her to Hannibal's rescuer was also a nice touch. And I find the exploration of a psychopath in love is also something unusual.
To put simply, I think this movie stands on its own, even with the more audience friendly ending, as a good addition to the series. But that is because I expected the characters to be different (given the several years that had passed).

 

[Stephen_M]

Joining the chorus - the problem is the book. I read the book after seeing the film and I was surprised at how badly written it was. The book's finale is simply unbelievable.
The movie was definitely no SOTL but I felt it was worth a viewing because director Scott and screenwriter Steven Zaillian improved the film much in the same way that "Ammerican Psycho" was made filmable by Mary Herron. And, darn it, it was darkly amusing at times particularly when Lecter tosses a towel over Ray Liotta during "the scene" - that was as darkly funny as dark humor can get - in fact, during the DVD commentary, Scott audibly snickers.

 

[Jefferson Morris]

quote: JF was the heart and soul of the first movie. And I think she is absolutely beautiful to boot.[/quote]Agreed. No one has ever photographed her better than Demme and Tak Fujimoto did in SOTL. And as wonderful an actress as Julianne Moore is, Foster simply IS Starling, as far as I'm concerned.
The brilliance of SOTL was underscored for me recently. I stumbled across it on A&E, panned and scanned, interrupted, edited for content...and still found that I couldn't watch five minutes of it without watching the whole thing.
That said, I didn't despise Hannibal as some did. I used something of a Phantom Menace tactic on this one--knowing that the general fan reaction was disappointment, I waited a few weeks before seeing the film in the theater, providing time for the heat of my own expectations to dissipate.
Ultimately, I enjoyed Hannibal on its own terms, although it inevitably suffers in comparison with SOTL (and Manhunter, for that matter). Not a suspense film or police procedural in the conventional sense, I see it more as a perverse comedy-drama (with a bit of romance thrown in).
It's still fun to watch Hopkins play this part, although having Lecter on the outside, running free, inevitably robs the character of much of the controlled menace he exuded in SOTL. I would, however, agree with those who say this film was about as well directed as it could have been. It had a beauty and elegance to it that almost allowed it to transcend its source material...in fits and starts.
--Jefferson Morris
[Edited last by Jefferson Morris on September 24, 2001 at 11:31 AM]

 

[Ricky f]

I thought Hannibal was a very good movie.
I was expecting something else, It was different but I still like it. Most reviews I read have said " Horrible " or " Boring " it seems to me they are still hung upon SOTL.
Give Hannibal a chance, It is a good movie.
Regards,
Ricky
------------------

www.petitiononline.com/UncutDVD
Thank you WILL K for the banner

 

[Hubert]

Oh well, what can I say. I hated it. Bad script, plot holes, etc. To me, it's nothing more than an exercise is grossness and gore. It seemed the entire purpose of the movie was to shock people. If that's what it meant to do, it succeeded. The first was a classic. This one is not even close. The only thing I liked about it were the performances by Hopkins and Moore.
As for the problems, I agree the book was the problem, not Scott. Another major problem with this movie is that Lecter is far more interesting behind bars than he was running loose. That was part of the appeal of the first movie. It was creepy and made your skin crawl, yet it succeeded without showing so much graphic content. Your imagination made you picture many of the horrid events.
[Edited last by Hubert on September 26, 2001 at 12:51 AM]

 

[Rain]

OOPS
[Edited last by Rain on September 25, 2001 at 12:35 PM]