maxcarnage I found this movie to be unnecessary the plot is interesting but is executed very poorly and is just boring everything was predictable. I absolutely despised the characters they all seemed life less and generic and forgettable compared to silence of the lambs which had some of the most iconic pop fiction characters. The main problem with this movie is that only the first 20 minutes and the last 30 minutes really matter since the rest is just filler to fill the 2 hour 9 minute screen time the filler is so boring i would rather stare at the DVD cover for 2 hours and 9 minutes. This movie is an absolute disgrace to the masterpiece that was silence of the lambs. I hope with all my heart that this review will save the poor souls who are about to watch this.

arhandasad While the beginning is quite good, too much is cramped into too little, taking too many liberties with the book. Here are the problems i have with this film1. While Gaspard Ulliel's acting is brilliant as a person who knows he is going to be a vicious serial killer, not good for a damaged person who has still to completely embrace his dark side as in the book. 2. A large part of the book deals with Hannibal trying to remember what happened in the lodge, the cool part about creating a mind palace. In the film, that is given very little time.3. Too much background music.4. The major problem is that the acting and story is set like a prequel. It is as if the characters know already the events of "Silence of the lambs". That is the whole feel of the film.5. Too much grandiose acting. That is one great thing about SOTL that all the films in the Hannibal saga got wrong. All of them tried to be too grandiose. Whereas, SOTL had a more realistic treatment. 6. Lady Murasaki seems smitten by Hannibal and weak. The book however gives her a lot more character.

SnoopyStyle It's 1944 Lithuania. Mischa and Hannibal Lecter are the children of aristocratic parents. They abandon their castle as the Russians close in. They're caught in the crossfire as they hide out in their country home and the parents are killed. A local militia working under the Nazis turn to looting for themselves. They come upon the Lecter children and does something horrific. Eight year later, Hannibal is haunted by nightmares of Mischa. He's living back in Lecter Castle which has been turned into a state orphanage. He is bullied but he stabs his bully. He escapes to Paris to live with his aunt Lady Murasaki Shikibu. It's a long journey of revenge against those who killed Mischa.I love the kids. It could have been a great horrifying horror. The first thirty minutes are terrific. The movie insists on moving on and on. The orphanage is another possible chapter but it just rushes forward. Thomas Harris wrote this which just goes to show that being the originator doesn't mean being the best going forward. Gaspard Ulliel is no Anthony Hopkins but then again, nobody is. The story simply grinds down and down. This could have been a great little horror with kiddie Hannibal. It is the law of diminishing marginal utility. The more explaining Harris does about the origin of Hannibal, the less satisfying it becomes.

Filipe Neto This film is a prequel to "Silence of the Lambs" and seeks to tell how the young Hannibal Lecter, affected by the dramatic events of World War II, became a dangerous cannibal. Directed by Peter Webber and written by Thomas Harris, this film has a cast headed by Gaspard Ulliel, Gong Li and Rhys Ifans.This film is not bad, but its too far from the success and quality of "Red Dragon" and "Silence of the Lambs". It cannot be analyzed as a horror film because never frightens us. Its closer to the thriller or police movies.It has a dubious script, which explains the reasons why Hannibal is what he is in previous films. This is its first problem: it want to transform a perfect villain in a dubious antihero. The idea simply does not stick with anything that the character will do in the movies played by Anthony Hopkins. The idea of ​​inserting Japanese elements in the story also seems a wrong option, something that does not fit properly, despite the good acting of Li Gong.In fact, speaking of actors, she seemed to me the best performance of the film, discreet and elegant as called for her character. The actors who played the villains was reasonable. Gaspard Ulliel, in the leading role, is a casting error: although he managed to give its character lots of coldness and cynicism, he wasn't able to give it charisma and sense of taste, striking personality traits of Lecter that are quite visible in Hopkins movies.The film contains several intense action scenes with moments that may hurt some people's sensibilities, so be warned. Still, its far from violence and gore visible in "Hannibal". Its a film that focuses on action and romance, not on blood. The special, visual and sound effects are good and get better as we approach the end. The soundtrack seemed to be regular, fulfilling its role without stand.