Hannibal

After the tremendous success of The Silence of the Lambs, it was quite logical that we would not have to wait long for the sequel, and both the film studio and the fan community had high expectations due to the attractiveness of the material. To a large extent, these expectations were not fulfilled, although it is true that the first installment of the series set a very high bar. This is mainly due to the screenplay and the quality of the dialogues, where the element of tension - so strong in The Silence of the Lambs - simply did not work in the majority of scenes. It is interesting that even though in The Silence of the Lambs, the main antagonist, Dr. Lecter, was in prison and seemingly completely powerless, every shot he appeared in was charged with emotions and suspense, as well as the dark anticipation of the viewers, whereas in Hannibal, Lecter is free and has a really wide scope of influence, but you rarely feel afraid or drawn into the plot. Lecter lacks one important element, and that is a truly worthy opponent. Perhaps only the scene with the disposal of the pickpocket gets under the skin. The direction itself is skillful, Ridley Scott is experienced, and from what the screenplay gives him, he does a good job. The recasting of Agent Starling is not essential because Julianne Moore is a quality character actress and embodies both the time gap from the first installment and a certain internal transformation of the burnt-out main protagonist. Otherwise, the literary source is more appreciative on the one hand, but also more pandering and with its ending rather a pulp affair, so if the film followed what the book offered, it could have turned out worse. In the book, Agent Starling becomes the lover of Dr. Lecter, and the book ends with a feast where they both savor their defeated enemy... Overall impression: 55%. (27/10/2008)

If I had to rate Hannibal in one word, it would be: worthy. Hannibal is certainly a worthy sequel to a legendary film. It gives Hopkins plenty of opportunity to stay on the screen and to develop a very enjoyable relationship with his favorite agent. Yes, Julianne Moore is different than Jodie Foster, but that's actually a good thing. Clarice has matured a lot in that time, and as an audience bystander, I don't require her to have the same face she had during her studies. The setting of intellectually snobbish Italy also works as a nice touch for me. Now it’s time for Red Dragon. (21/09/2012)

"What do you think? Does Lecter want to kill her, eat her, fuck her, or what?" - "Probably all of the above. It depends on the order." This is the sequel to The Silence of the Lambs, and it did not reach the high standard of its predecessor, but it does still have something to offer. Hannibal earned my attention with Scott's impressive narrative direction, the gorgeous Florence scenes, the unforgettable "nastiness"... Well, why not? "So what's it going to be - guts in or out?" (19/06/2010)

Dr. Lecter returns in a bloodthirsty style, but satisfaction is not present this time. The worst possible start is all the actions of Clarice, who with her tired face, forced me to fall asleep with every line about "shooting at a woman with a child." Thanks to the perfect Hannibal and surprisingly skillful Liotta, the seemingly unnecessary movie eventually becomes a sufficiently thrilling thriller, but the lengthy silent parts condemn it to be labeled as a violently stitched sequel. (19/03/2006)

Ridley Scott simply missed the mark. Jonathan Demme showed us that it's not just about the great character of Lecter, but also about how the film is approached as a whole. It's not enough to just take relatively depraved scenes and add them to a sterile story. The only thing you will remember is those disgusting scenes. This is not very good. It's a shame. At least I remember much more from "The Silence of the Lambs." This is how a cult becomes an ordinary film. But even "Red Dragon" showed that having Lecter in the background is not enough, it simply needs something more. (13/11/2013)