Customer Reviews

Hannibal

5 star:		(227)
4 star:		(148)
3 star:		(111)
2 star:		(109)
1 star:		(97)

 

 

This review refers to the Special Edition DVD of "Hannibal"(MGM)...

After the first viewing of this film I had it set in my mind that this was a three star movie.I thought it was pretty good, but it was no "Silence". I watched it again on this outstanding DVD, and viewed it as a seperate story from "Silence of the Lambs".I am glad I did, because it was the second time around that I realized what a great movie it is in it's own right.Under the direction now of Ridley Scott,a terrific screenplay by David Mamet and Steven Zaillian,stunning photography by John Mattheson, the haunting score by Hans Zimmer, and with a brillant cast, "Hannibal" is a thrill ride you won't soon forget.

Based on the novel by Thomas Harris,the story picks up 10 Years after Dr. Lector(Anthony Hopkins) has made his escape. He is living in Italy and seems to be quite restless. After learning that his "beloved" Clarice(Julianne Moore)has been disgraced in a botched drug bust, he comes out of hiding and cleverly draws her into his web once more.The story is a bit more complex than that though.Along the way Clarice must deal with a cunning Agent(Ray Liotta) who is out to humiliate her, and a wealthy man who was a victim of Dr. Lector's, survived quite disfigured and is now out for revenge.Then there's the Italian Detective who has discovered the identity of Lector as well as the huge reward and decides to try his luck as well.Well, we all know by now what happens when you mess with Dr. Lector.You will never think of Ray Liotta as a "goodfella" again after you see what the Doc has planned for him! The story is a roller coaster ride of thrills and chills.Lots of suspenseful and nail biting scenes. This film is definetly not for the sensitive viewer.

There is no one else who could ever be Dr. "Hannibal" Lector other than Sir Anthony Hopkins. He's as terrifying as ever. Julianne Moore does a perfect take on a tougher and more mature Agent Starling.It's a departure for Ray Liotta from his usual style but he is perfect as the despicable nemesis to Clarice.I would also mention Giancarlo Giannini gives a great performance as the pitiful detective. The make up and special effects are so good, that I won't even mention who performs such an excellent job as the angry disfigured millionaire. I did not even realize who it was the first time until the end credits, and don't want to give it away for first time viewers.

Fans of this film will delight in this DVD. First of all the transfer is gorgeous. All the beautiful cinematography of Italy and it's famous historical landmarks are breathtaking, The picture is in the theatrical release widescreen. Choose between DTS or Dolby 5.1 Surround. The sounds are clear and distinctive and the score will take your breath away. Images and colors are excellent as well.This is a two disc set. There's a ton of goodies to watch. You can spend all day with Hannibal or watch a different feature each time you view the film. I especially enjoyed "Breaking the Silence" which runs well over an hour and encompasses every phase of the making of the film(it's broken into segments if you have something particular you are interested in.) The segment with Hans Zimmer was wonderful.For a full list of the featurettes please see the tech. info.It may also be viewed in French or Spanish and has subtitles in those as well as English for those who may need them.Altogether a dynamite package.

Get reaquainted with Dr. Lector,but remember..mind your manners at dinner!....Have fun...Laurie

I read the book Hannibal and thought it was unfilmable. I was pleasantly surprised therefore to find that two superb screenwriters, David Mamet and Steve Zaillion, were able to make the changes necessary to delete the parts of the book that didn't work while keeping the essence of Thomas Harris's exercise in dark malevolence.

Hannibal Lecter is the boogie man. He is the distillation of the nightmare villain...brilliant, cultured, educated, refined, erudite and thoroughly ruthless and bloodthirsty. He is a creation of fiction, no more real than Dracula or Professor Moriarty. He bears no resemblance to actual serial killers, who by and large are a drab, colorless, undistinguished lot. Maybe that's why we are fascinated by Hannibal, all that talent and charm put to wicked uses.

Please note one thing, the book and the movie take place 10 years AFTER Silence of the Lambs. Clarice Starling is not the wide-eyed innocent of Silence, but a street-tough working cop that is getting jerked around by the bureaucracy she has served faithfully and well. She is the only truly moral person in an unjust and cruel world. It is that morality that ironically is her attraction for Hannibal. It would have been interesting to see, but I'm not sure Jody Foster could have brought that toughness to the role. Julianne Moore did fine.

Anthony Hopkins owns the role. As in Silence, it isn't him jumping out and going "BOO!" that makes us uneasy, it is the sinister stillness and self-posession of his Hannibal that frightens and chills. All that evil nastiness contained within that can be unleashed at any time. Hopkin's Hannibal is a marvelous creation of wit and charm, ridding the world of "free range rude".

Speaking of nastiness, the movie is wickedly funny with lots of nasty tidbits. "Okee dokee, here we go now" as matter-of-factly as an usher or a tour guide, "bowels in or out?".

I don't know if Thomas Harris was trying to write a sequel so over-the-top lurid as a challenge to Hollywood "I dare you to film this" or if he looked around at a culture so harsh and unjust and cruel and crass that he decided to pour all of that into his book and pull a terrific stunt...make the cannibal the hero. Regardless, he gave us a deliciously wicked read that Ridley Scott has transformed into a stylish and wicked movie.

Not for everyone's taste (pun intended) for sure, and not with the broad appeal of Silence, Hannibal exists on it's own terms and has it's own pleasures and rewards. The supporting performances are all fine, cinematography excellent. Finally, the material ultimately is not as emotionally engaging as Silence, and for that it just misses 5 stars...but another encounter with Clarice and Dr. Lecter is more interesting than most.

Writing this movie off as a senseless catalogue of horrors does a terrible injustice to it. In this version, Lecter is free and living in Tuscany, which automatically involves a shift in the tone of the film. No longer the caged animal, Dr. Lecter is living the high life in Florence as an expert in Medieval and Early Renaissance Literature. Lecter free is Lecter happy, and Anthony Hopkins admirably portrays his verve. I thought Julianne Moore portrayed an older, more world-weary, Clarice Starling with skill, and is by no means just a second-choice-after-Jodie-Foster. Foster's Starling was inexperienced, though promising. Moore shows the flowering of that promise superbly. Gary Oldman played as he always does, with a brilliant conviction. But enough, anyone can test the truth of this by viewing the movie.

What I thought was missing in previous reviews, and which spurred me to write this one, is an explanation for the violence of Hannibal. It was sufficient to turn many viewers' stomachs, and I'm not entirely sure that they were wrong, albeit one can see equally graphic video of *real live people* with the top of their head cut away while undergoing brain surgery--in some cases they are still conscious and talking! In the other cases, the cinematography shows very little. The disfiguring of Mason Verger is in blurry and shaky camera work, the attack on the nurse (referred to in Silence and played in video here) is entirely obscured by Lecter's back and the bodies of two orderlies, and the final end of Mason Verger is again primarily not seen, only enough is shown to give us an idea of the horror. That so many reacted so strongly suggests that Ridley Scott achieved his probable goal in showing us little, but making it seem like much more. The violence is not gratuitous, nor does it detract from the psychological aspects of the story, rather it allows us to delve into the psychology of Lecter as never before. Hannibal is Lecter's murderous fantasies made flesh, just as the equally mad Mason Verger nurses his plans of revenge by flesh-eating boars. In each case, these wealthy, cultured men seem to take their inspiration from their reading, and here's the irony in the previous reviews which decry Hannibal as an expression of everything that is wrong with American culture and cinema: Hannibal's violence comes straight from the classic literature and arts both he and Mason Verger live on. The analogy between the death of Rinaldo Pazzi and the end of Judas Iscariot is made explicit, but there are even more instances of literary borrowings. Adonis was killed by a man-eating boar, and even eating brains has literary precedent: Ugolino della Gherardesca, the Count of Donoratico, was of a Ghibelline family, but double-crossed them to raise the Guelphs to power in Pisa. When the Ghibellines seized control, he was dispatched to prison by Archbishop Ruggieri degli Ubaldini where he died. They both betrayed something, the Archbishop his acquantance, and the Count his country and family tradition, so Dante put them both in Cocytus in Canto XXXIII, where the Count was forever eating away at the brain of his treacherous friend. Thyestes may also be another model, in this case the Thyestian banquet is made even more ironic by the fact that Krendler is unaware of his self-cannibalization. This is the sort of stuff Lecter and Verger learned, and it's not ultimately unsurprising that they'd fashion their revenges and violence on classical models, which allows us insight into the way they think. Far from being less psychologically interesting than its predecessor, Hannibal becomes more so, because we are able to see their motivations made plain by each act of violence.

So, for those who are still offended, be careful not to look to closely at classic literature, Greek and Roman myth, the works of ancient historians, and don't ever attend the opera!

Ta ta.

Thank goodness that Red Dragon is NOT included in this set. The set includes Michael Mann's excellent "Manhunter", Jonathan Demme's "Silence of the Lambs" and the surprisingly good "Hannibal" directed by Ridley Scott. I hate to say it, but Red Dragon was a bomb; it was a pale imitation of Manhunter and I am thrilled that, due to its release by another studio, it has been left out. If you have never seen Brian Cox's performance as Lektor in "Manhunter", you will be chilled to the bone. Anthony Hopkins actually seems to have emulated Cox when he first starred as Lektor in "Silence". This set is such a deal. "Manhunter" and "Silence of the Lambs" are true masterpieces and Hannibal does not disappoint - it is Hopkins' film -- a shame that Jodie Foster refused to reprise her role as Clarice Starling in "Hannibal". This is your rare opportunity to get the theatrical release of "Manhunter" in widescreen. Never, and I mean never, waste money on director's cuts of "Manhunter" on DVD. I have seen the director's cut and it is not worth it . . . thankfully it is out of print.

Like the novel, Ridley Scott's Hannibal is a journey into Lecter's universe. Julianne Moore said it best: this film is like an "hallucination". The hallucination of a madman (in this case an almost godly-superhuman madman not your real-life serial killer) in which the madman is the hero.

The Silence of the Lambs was basically about Clarice Starling. Hannibal is more than ever about Hannibal Lecter, and so the movie must be as morbidly perverse as the doctor himself, because this is his world. It's his movie. Starling had her chance to be the star in Silence of the Lambs. Now Lecter gets his in Hannibal.

Director Ridley Scott is able to capture the essence of Hannibal's universe, FIRST through beautiful, luscious visuals (this film is much more beautiful than Demme's Silence - hope John Mathieson will not be forgotten come next year's Oscars), THEN through classical music (without sounding pretentious I think Hans Zimmer's original score also has a very classical root - hope Zimmer is not forgotten come next year's Oscars - this is a masterful score), and FINALLY through gruesome, shocking images. I'm sorry but the violence was necessary for this film, because, again, it is Lecter's world we are entering. Frankie Faison (who plays Barney) also said something interesting that brings further understanding of this film: "Silence of the Lambs was more in your head, while Hannibal is more in your face", and that's exactly right. Since this is a madman's hallucination it wouldn't make sense to hide us from its true horrors.

I'm disappointed, not by the movie, but by the reaction of most critics (but thank you Mr. Corliss). I'm not going to use that old excuse and say critics didn't understand it, but your enjoyment of a movie depends on the way you perceive things.

My only problem with the film is that the supporting characters lack the depth of the novel, particularly Cordell Doemling and Krendler. I would have liked to see Mason's sister Margot who was erased for the film. The film's ending is an interesting one, although very different from the novel. As different as the ending is the last two minutes WERE in the book, only it doesn't occur at the same time in the story.

Hannibal has flaws, but it remains a strong, moving (I was moved by the dynamic between Lecter and Starling, especially when it all comes together in the end), sensory experience. Hopkins remains hypnotic in most scenes (the Academy, remember this). Julianne Moore delivers the goods, particularly in the emotional scenes. Gary Oldman as Mason Verger is chilling with his rusty, raw voice (hope the makeup for this film is not forgotten come next year's Oscars, that would be a crime).

...let Hannibal haunt you!!! And don't compare it too much to Silence of the Lambs, because it's not the same kind of movie and its aims are not the same.

Note: Hope the studio goes all out on the DVD and make it the ultimate Hannibal Lecter collector's edition. Documentary, deleted scenes (I think there's an hour of unused footage, so put it there please), in-depth commentaries, behind-the-scenes photos, maybe a little word from Thomas Harris (that would be a dream come true Mr. Harris), and so on, and so on.

Too many people have gone into this movie with the expectation of watching Silence of the Lambs rehashed. I haven't ever anticipated a movie so much, and I was very nervous that it wouldn't live up to my expectations. It exceeded them.

Hannibal cannot be compared to Silence because they are completely different. Silence was a crime thriller, while Hannibal was suspense and a little romance. The motivating forces are different, as well. In Hannibal, there is no race against the clock to save the day. The pace is very laid back, and the story unfolds in its own time.

Returning to the lead character, Anthony Hopkins delivers a performance as good as I've come to expect. In Silence, we didn't get to learn much about Hannibal, because he was behind the glass for most of the movie. But this is his movie, and Hopkins does it well. He's not as scary as he was in Silence, but that was ten years ago, and he's mellowed out a lot. Don't get me wrong ... he's still scary. But he can also be a lot of other things as well.

Julianne Moore replaced Jodie Foster, and to tell you the truth, I didn't miss her. Except for the scene with the recordings. But other than that, Julianne Moore was truly excellent. I had always liked her as an actress, but this movie made me truly respect her abilities.

The score by Hans Zimmer is absolutely beautiful. It's been a long time since I've bought a movie soundtrack, but this one was worth it. I really hope there's an isolated score on the DVD.

All in all, it is a very entertaining movie. There's a little bit of everything, from suspense to a little horror to romance. Just remember, it's not Silence of the Lambs.

I had been wanting to see this film for a long time, ever since the 1991 Academy Awards when Billy Crystal asked Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins about the sequel and both confirmed it was coming. Upon the release of Michael Mann's Manhunter and Demme's Silence of the Lambs, this film seems poised to come under incredible scrutiny, which it did. Manhunter was more police procedure suspense film, which veered into the more horrific parts of humanity; whereupon, Silence took that notion and fleshed it out even more. Police procedure became horror film and vice versa and the door was left open with Lector walking away peacefully in Jamaca. Now comes Hannibal, the inevitable conclusion to this series and takes its subject directly into the horrific. The last two films combined had locked doors, pits, bugs, sharp teeth, cannibalism, etc and the terror was built out of your mind's eye (with the exception of Lector pulling the face off the victim in the back of the ambulence; which detractors of Hannibal tend to forget), and now comes the almost operatic notion of criminals on the run being pursured by FBI, perverts and money hungry and fame seeking detectives, not to mention killer pigs. The series was building up to this nightmarish series of images and taken as a whole, this is the most distubring horror series possibly ever made. Hannibal, seems more like a foreign film than the blood and guts slasher film that everyone seems to think it is. Is it bloody? Yes, but enough so--not overly. This isn't Dawn of the Dead, people. The ironic thing was that alot of attention was made that the filmmakers changed the ending of the book, which they did--and it works beautifully; however, the ending of the book probably would have worked in this adaptation of the film. The idea of Lector and Starling together would not have seemed out of left field coming out of this film. All in all, though--this film will be thought well over time and if not chalk this up with other great horror films that no one seems to pay any attention to (Mute Witness, Opera, Blair Witch 2, Cherry Falls). Take what you want from this film, but I feel this is one of the best and strongest horror films in recent memory; so if you are into bubblegum horror--please stay away.

In response to the review below, the reason Red Dragon isn't in this set is because it was a Universal movie, whereas these three films are owned by MGM.

I can't wait for this set either...I've been needing to add Hannibal and Manhunter to my collection.

I love the Hannibal movies. So I bought the three disc edition. The thing that was a little disappointing was that these dvds had NO BONUS FEATURES. I understand maybe Manhunter or even Silence of the Lambs probably wouldn't have any. But Hannibal definitely was released in the time frame to have special features. Regardless, they're still great movies, and I really enjoy them.

Let me start by saying that unlike most who have reviewed this film, I am a huge fan of the movie Manhunter. As far as I am concerned, Michael Mann's adaptation of Thomas Harris' Red Dragon is by far the best of the 3 films based on Harris' novels. To this day I do not know how Silence won 5 academy awards while Manhunter was completely forgotten.

All that being said, I purchased Hannibal at a video rental shop for $10. I purchased this film mainly to complete my collection of Harris Films. Now I will tell you that there is no other real reason to purchase this film.

Hannibal is the third book in a series of novels by Thomas Harris, all of which feature FBI agent protagonists tracking Serial Killers. In the film version of Hannibal, Anthony Hopkins reprises his academy award winning role as Hannibal Lecter, believed by basically everyone in Harris' world to be the most dangerous man who has ever lived. If you loved Hopkins outrageously over-the-top theatrics in Silence, then will still like him in this film. Hopkin's lecter was apparently perfect the first time around, because he hasn't changed a lick in 10 years. Julianne Moore takes over the role of naive FBI cadet Clarice Starling, now 10 years into a career at the FBI. Moore is a very beautiful and talented actress who is completely thrown away in this movie. Aside from doing a very good Impression of Jodie Foster's accent from Silence, She doesn't figure into this film very much. Hannibal is basically the story of Lecter's only surviving victim, A mutilated cripple named Mason Verger, who is hunting lecter for revenge.

The biggest problem with this film is that it has no substance. All of the secondary characters are black-and-white cardboard cut-outs without so much as the depth of a kiddie-pool. We have the Male-chauvanist Justice Dept. rep who is intent on destroying Clarice because she has rejected his sexual advances. We have the greedy, immoral older policeman in Italy who is forever trying to fulfill the desires of his beautiful young wife and pays the price. We have the higher-ups at the FBI who crucify Starling immediately upon her very public participation in a wild-west shootout for which she is IN NO WAY RESPONSIBLE. We have the never-ending series of tough, male G-men who insist on treating Starling (who by all rights should be an FBI living legend after the events of silence) like an insipid little girl. But in the final analysis, what we are missing is the consummation of a formula that has worked in the past, and always will work...in this movie, the guilty are not punished. Manhunter and Silence work so well because of the fact that they are straightforward morality tales of using a pet monster to catch a monster that is on the loose. Hannibal Lecter works much better as a dangerous insect under glass who can be consulted when his unique and terrifying knowledge and viewpoint are needed. In this movie, we have no heroes and no villian. Is Verger a villian? It seems to me that twisted as he is, he is bent on doing the world a HUGE favor by ridding it of Lecter. What we have here is a movie that does not follow the formula of good guys chase bad guy, catch bad guy, and punish bad guy. The film simply breaks down on multiple levels.

Now I've had the discussions with people that this film is all about Lecter and Starling, and their mutual fascination with one another. If this were the case, they might actually be expected to share more than one scene together. If this is the story that Harris was trying to tell, either he or the screenwriter failed utterly.

OK. So I have massive problems with the plot and structure of the film. There is an upside. This film, like all of Scott's films, is both absolutely gorgeous, and technically wonderful. If there is a film-maker alive today with a better command of the art of making films look good than Ridley Scott, I could not tell you who that person is. The sets, locations, costumes, lighting, color, framing, composition, yadda, yadda, etc. are amazing. This is one of the best looking films of the year. What a shame that this basically means it is exquisite wrapping paper with an empty box inside.

In conclusion, I have to say that as hard as I have been on this film, I did not hate it. I sat through a film that was pleasant enough, all the while bemoaning the masterpiece that might have been. In the final analysis, this movie turns out to be a B-movie thriller with an A-list cast, and that is it's final shame. Unless you saw this movie in the theater and loved it so much that you cannot live without owning it, pass on the DVD.