Hannibal

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)

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)

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%. (26/10/2008)

As a standalone film, Hannibal (thanks mainly to Scott's imaginative direction) would certainly stand up better than as a sequel to Silence of the Lambs. I think what I missed most were the prison conversations with Lecter and Starling, which I really enjoyed in the first one. Hannibal is a much more action-packed, but also much less suspenseful sequel than its predecessor. The first had an excellent script and a mediocre director, the second has a below-average script and an excellent director – but the original wins hands down, despite the undeniable acting (yes, Hopkins is still just as demonically perfect) and directing quality (gorgeous shots of Florence and a great opening action scene). Julianne Moore was okay, but Jodie Foster delved much deeper and more impressively into her character. (08/06/2010)

Oh, man, this somehow went off the rails. Hannibal is far from a bad movie, but hand on heart, what would it all be worth without the evil Anthony Hopkins, who this time stole the show for himself and let others just clean up what he did? It doesn't make much sense either way, but at least it's appealing enough, beautifully atmospheric thanks to Scott's direction and Zimmer's music, and ultimately, of course, irritatingly debatable enough to give clever critics and fans of the first instalment plenty to talk about for a long time. And I can’t say I was disappointed. The absence of Jodie Foster was very hard to swallow and the script is not even close to the first one, but as a great admirer of Sir Anthony's acting I just couldn't get bored even for a moment. And Gary Oldman? You just have to see it. 65% (04/03/2013)