Carson Huelle The more you watch Hannibal, the more you question its existence. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) is now living in freedom after his escape in Silence of the Lambs. He lives in Italy and is a curator at a museum, sounds thrilling right? The same protagonist arises from its predecessor, Clarice Starling. Except for one change, Julianne Moore is playing her and not Jodie Foster. Her job throughout this film is really unclear and it doesn't help that Julianne Moore and Jodie Foster look nothing alike. Between the change of actress, messy plot and awful makeup on Gary Oldman's character, this movie seems to never find its stride. It was purely put out for the purpose of making money, not following any advice from its predecessor in the process. What made Silence of the Lambs great was the relationship Clarice had with Hannibal, helping her stop Buffalo Bill. We get none of that in this movie, all dull characters with no purpose. Part of the characters not having any significance is because of whoever cast this movie deserves a Razzie award. The film peaks in it's "dinner scene" but is ruined by Ray Liotta being in the movie, why is Ray Liotta in Hannibal? The world may never know. The only actor who puts on an above average performance is Anthony Hopkins, but nothing near his Oscar winning performance in the previous film. That is the only reason in watching this movie, curiosity. Curiosity in if Hannibal has any reminiscence of Silence of the Lambs.

blumdeluxe "Hannibal" continues the saga of Dr. Hannibal Lecter from "Silence of the lambs". Hannibal meanwhile escaped to Italy where he lives as curator of a prestigious library. Being chased by both a former victim and the police, he contacts Clarice Sterling to continue their morbid chase.If you take away the prominent franchise, what you get is pretty much a very explicit but also quite basic thriller. There is an agent thrown out of service, a corrupt colleague, a very intelligent but arrogant villain and a personal connection between killer and investigator. There are also some big logical gaps that are somehow explained but not really to a point where no questions remain. Lecter moves around so obvious, killing people on open street without the slightest attempt to mask himself that it is truly painful. Also with all due respect to the special role Sterling plays in Lecter's mindset, I don't believe him losing his hand for her is something very likely to happen. However there will be many people with many intelligent explanations for that and so this is surely debatable.All in all I just don't think this film adds much to the franchise or would have been necessary. It is, more or less, just a basic thriller that takes profit from the prominent set of characters it is able to re-establish.

zkonedog "Silence of the Lambs", the movie from which "Hannibal" is spawned, was an exercise in creepiness from beginning to end. The scenes with Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins are almost alive with tension, while the overall plot is well-executed and creepy enough to make you legitimately "weird-ed out" on more than one occasion. Sadly, this sequel fails to live up to any of those previous benchmarks.For a basic plot summary, "Hannibal" sees Clarice Starling (now played by Julianne Moore) as an under-appreciated F.B.I. agent. Out of the blue, Starling is contacted by Mason Verger (Gary Oldman), an old victim of Dr. Lecter, who portends to have some new information regarding the whereabouts of Hannibal (Anthony Hopkins).Though difficult to pinpoint exactly what is wrong with what could have been a blockbuster sequel, I believe it is the combination of "little things" that really do this movie in. For instance...-The tension in "Lambs" comes from the fact that one can never quite "figure out" Hannibal. At times he seems like a civil genius, yet obviously he is also quite twisted psychologically. This produces a sense of fear in the vein of "what will he do next". This movie holds none of that intensity, with Hannibal being portrayed as an "old romantic" instead of a cutting-edge personality.-The lack of scenes involving both Hannibal & Clarice is also unforgivable. That is where the first movie really succeeds, and here it comes both late and not enough.-Maybe it is the writing, but Foster's Clarice was much more interesting than Moore's doppelganger. Whereas Foster was vulnerable and conflicted, Moore is just "straight arrow" with no compromises or shades of grey. Either character would work in the context of the films, but it is the sudden shift between them that makes Moore's performance just seem wrong.-Finally, the "Buffalo Bill" main plot line of "Lambs" far outshines anything this film has to offer. The visuals of the faceless Verger are striking, for sure, but his character is terribly developed. He is built up to be the "primary villain", but I found myself not caring about him whatsoever.In essence, "Hannibal" (while not utter, 1-star type trash) is a failure due to the fact that it changes the formula so much from its predecessor. The tension is gone, the interesting characters are gone, and what remains is a lot of police procedure and talking. A shame, considering the potential that was wasted.

trevenco24 Firstly, no spoiler alert warnings necessary in my reviews. The second movie in the series if you don't count Manhunter which you shouldn't. I have watched this 4 movie series starting with Silence of the lambs, then this one, then Red Dragon, and finally Hannibal Rising. The entire story line runs like this, starting with SOTL, then a sequel, then a prequel, followed by another prequel. Silence was certainly a good place to start. That's a good movie which I gave 8/10. I feel a movie has to be an absolute masterpiece to score 10. Hannibal was an OK movie. It feels like a cash grab a little bit. The plot is a little...meh. It has more gore than suspense this time around. I will say (without spoilers) it has one or two delightfully original set pieces.Anthony Hopkins is as good as always. Not so good that I would call him Sir, but very good. Julianne Moore was just OK. She has been better in other movies. She plays the role of Clarice Starling, previously played by Jodie Foster. I get the feeling that she could've benefited by studying the previous movie a little more. Jodie Fosters version had more poise and self control. I enjoyed watching this movie overall. For me, it was OK. Not great but OK.