Hannibal (2001) Movie Reviews

Yojimbo 05/26/2012 (0 of 0 found this helpful)

Rating of
3/4 

Hannibal Lecter has left the United States and began a new life posing as an art historian in Italy but when a local detective discovers his true identity he returns to old habits. Being a huge Ridley Scott fan I'm probably biased but I prefer this to the over-rated Silence of the Lambs. It reeks atmosphere and has a grand, almost operatic atmosphere that transcends its pulpy origins. I found Hopkins' more restrained and less glib performance more menacing and I also preferred Julianne Moore's Agent Starling with Ray Liotta's "typical sexist male" as the only weak link in an otherwise very well performed and intelligent Gothic horror show.

Snoogans 12/14/2011 (0 of 0 found this helpful)

Rating of
2/4 

A letdown of a sequel that lacks the suspense of the first and piles on the gore. Despite many shortcomings, it's still kind-of entertaining.

mitchellyoung 08/02/2011 (0 of 0 found this helpful)

Rating of
0.5/4 

It's difficult to believe Ridley Scott directed this. Hannibal Lecter was scariest as an intimidating prisoner - manipulating from the inside. Turn him loose and you are left with just another slasher villain. The film obsesses over its gore to disgusting degree (the Ray Liotta scene made my stomach turn), but it doesn't have the scariness and the plot to back it up. Combine that with the fact that it is a sequel to one of the greatest thrillers of all time, and it was an epic disappointment for me.

sapien 01/28/2010 (0 of 0 found this helpful)

Rating of
3/4 

It was, by no means, as good as S.L. But, it was still pretty good.

The Movie Man 05/23/2009 (0 of 0 found this helpful)

Rating of
2.5/4 

Hannibal is a pointless sequel to a Brilliant film. This "cat and mouse" tale is not suspensful. it is Badly Written. embarrassingly Acted(with hopkins character being written more 'nice', this time.) and with Julianne Moore (badly) taking over the character of Clarice Starling. Ridley Scott(who took over for Johanthon Demme) sadly directs this movie. It is even over-long. The one thing about this movie is the end scene with Ray Liotta(that's all i can say, without ruining it.). Hannibal isn't terrible, just not a worthly sequel, to a great film.

jmoney1776 10/28/2007 (0 of 0 found this helpful)

Rating of
0.5/4 

Hannibal. Wow. What a terrible movie. If movies can be worse than this I don't want to know. This movie fails in every possible way and just when you think it can't get worse, Anthony Hopkins feeds Ray Liotta pieces of his own brain. This is absolutely the WORST movie I have ever seen. If you like the Silence of the Lambs, don't watch this. If you like good movies, don't watch this. Seriously, just don't watch this. If you haven't seen it then just stay away. If you have seen it...I feel your pain.

GGauthier 09/10/2007 (0 of 0 found this helpful)

Rating of
3/4 

I've mixed feelings about this one. I like Scott. I do think that he's not a balanced filmmaker. He has his masterpieces, and his average flicks. And this one pretty much mixes both sides of him. You see that effort of making money, doing easy going characters, not taking risks... obviously made for certain audience target. But, you also see this tiny effort of being true to himself, using some fantastic cinematography at times, and some good script and dialogues. But always some. The movie could have been better if they would pay the dang money to Jodie. Same happened with Duvall at Godfather III. Pity. Still, watch it for fun.

JayFilmCrave 09/06/2007 (0 of 0 found this helpful)

Rating of
1.5/4 

Even though Ridley Scott, who is arguly a brilliant director, couldn't impress me with this one. One of the worst things about this film was it had a horrible time following the book. I felt like I was watching something that should have been much more complex not only for Anthony Hopkins, but also for Jodie Foster. The movie was so poor at displaying Clarice's transformation they couldn't even use the books original ending. I felt that the movie was a mere overview of the novel and never got down to its roots, whoever adapted this screenplay, even if it was Thomas Harris, did an utterly horrible job.

Chris Kavan 02/22/2007 (0 of 0 found this helpful)

Rating of
2.5/4 

The gore increases, the story suffers. Hopkins is still Hannibal, but it's like a caricature of the original. Not nearly as fun this time around.