I think that this film is the best out of the rest of the series. It is full of action and it keep you well entertained.

This is absolutely the best of the entire Hannibal Lecter film series thus far. Ridley Scott's dedication to making solid films and not movies really pushes Hannibal far to the forefront of anti-hero worship and in the most uncomfortable of ways that just get under every inch of your skin.

So when did it become cool to really identify and bond with these villainous anti-hero's like Dr. Hannibal Lecter? Maybe it goes back further than I can place as I write this, but not in modern film and literature has there been such a mesmerizing and indelible character that most viewers just cant seem to get enough of.

I can fully understand the brilliance of Jeff Lindsey, who knew that Thomas Harris wouldn't be able to satiate everyone's desires by writing fast enough and picked up the mantle with the Darkly Dreaming Dexter series. He successfully reproduces a creepy yet likable murderous psychopath in the vain of Dr. Lecter. If you haven't seen the Showtime presentation of Dexter, it's a must see.

As for Sir Anthony, I'm sure that I speak the sentiment of most when I say that it would be good to see him reprise his role once more and it would be equally cool to see it directed by Ridley Scott.

The extras on the disc are fantastic for those looking to purchase the 2 disc version. It's well worth the money. Ridley's commentary is fascinating -- he actually states that of all his films 'this one is my favourite'. I was pretty stunned by that as I'm a big fan of Blade Runner. He probably enjoyed making Hannibal, which would be the difference of the two, as most already know, regarding Blade Runner.

This movie is just as riveting as was the "Silence of the Lambs" and it does spend some time in my beloved Italy. Hannibal Lector will have yo spell bound. Moore makes you not miss Foster in this movie, nope not one bit, and in this movies the good guys are the bad guys, or is it the bad guys are the good, oh never mind. There are some moments that aren't for the faint of heart, but if you can hold through those moments you'll find this a great movie. Just a foot note here; The book was 10 times better than the movie with a better ending in my opinion. Read the book as well but leave the lights on.

Beautifully shot film visually. This is a horrific romantic piece and you have to in no way compare it to "The Silence of the Lambs" which is an entirely different film. It's so easy for people to say this is the sequel and compare it. You read some of the negative reviews on "hannibal" and the negative ones keep dwelling on it being a let down to the kind of film "Silence of the lambs" was. I did the same thing when I first read the newer book, I thought wow this is different. I really had to dwell deeper into an understanding of it on it's merit. Watching it I had to be completely removed from the "silence" film. I knew it was ten years later, but the focus is on completely different things than the other movie. Seeing it as it's own movie I thought, "this is pretty frightening, this is entertaining and pretty darn good." I was hooked and will never compare it to "silence", they're two different books and films.

Having read this book twice over a two year period, reveals some kind of fascination with the main character. The novel itself is the best of the series, and the film, directed by one of my all time favourite directors, Ridley Scott, had to be a perfect combination, and Scott's artistic sensibility as a methodical director, certainly shows in this gripping film.

There is so much in this film that needs to be pointed out in terms of its artistic "film" qualities: all aspects - score, location, costume, art direction, screenplay adaptation and of course the impeccable performance by Anthony Hopkins.

Ridley Scott began as an art student and is well adept at pen and ink. It is known that he would show up early on location in Florence, and know one, not even the producers or Hopkins for that matter, knew what he would do next: because he would sketch the scenes in his note book at night, visualizing every scene - from the camera angles to the actors lines... for Ridley Scott, film is a real & true art form.

Hannibal is one of the more interesting characters in popular literature/culture. An anti-hero of sorts, whose main reason for killing is rude people. In other words there seems to be a method to his madness.

My wish was that the film ended in the same way as the book: much more final and chilling - which made more sense.

Agent Starling relents in the book and through Hannibal's strength of will and power takes her to the dark side, both living quite well all over the world.

However censorship is alive and well...

For Starling to relent to Hannibal's hypnosis and power, to my way of thought, this was the perfect break through for a new story...rather than the terrible novel "Hannibal Rising" though the film however is exceptional; the tale should have moved forward rather than to its beginnings.

Most fans disliked this film for strange reasons...though it is the best of the trilogy.

This sequel is rather pointless and lacks most of what made Lambs great.
They spent the cash and got the pros---Scott, Mamet and Hopkins---but the lynchpin of the first movie has been removed and that kills it.
Jodie Foster made you care about her; Julianne Moore does not. She's emotionally flat and quite boring, and the movie suffers greatly due to her weak performance as the character Foster made fascinating.
Hannibal is also paced far too slowly and even when it's gory, in its faux-elegant way, it's not really scary. There's little suspense and the sudden weirdness of the last 20 minutes offers no payoff. Hopkins is good but without Foster's heart to play off there's not much to make this truly worth watching. Even the cannibal moments are kinda boring.
I usually love Scott, but his grand shots are mostly lacking here and Mamet's script is too plodding to keep one entertained.
Not even close to the quality of the original; if you really love that you might want to avoid this and Hannibal Rising. They add nothing to the story.

Silence of the Lambs is one of my all time favorite movies. I really liked and was impressed by Red Dragon, but this film is one of the best! I missed Jodie Foster as Clarice Starling, at first, but Julianne Moore's portrayal was excellent! I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. Anthony Hopkins, again as Dr. Hannibal Lector, was superb!

This movie started out with a scene that was powerful and lured you into the rest of the plot. F.B.I. Agent Clarice Starling is placed on restrictions and has to more or less take on finding Hannibal Lector after his escape. She meets his only survivor and fourth victim, Mason Verger (a wealthy pedophile), played by Gary Oldman, because he reported he has more information on Lector. Verger is severely deformed from maiming himself at Lector's request. Verger is a bit odd and this only adds to the excitement of the movie. Lector is hiding out in Italy. An Italian cop who overhears agent Starling's request for a tape, decides he wants to capture Lector himself to claim the reward. Things go worse for Starling and she has to turn in her badge and weapons, pending an investigation. At this point she is drawn in to find Lector. The rest of the movie is so action packed, I didn't even realize that this is over 2 hours long! This has plenty suspense, action and gore, yes, gore! Watch it and enjoy this it is a fantastic movie, but would you except anything less from Anthony Hopkins and Julianne Moore?

This was an unpleasant surprise - its a very good film.
It doesn't have the same gut level horror as Silence of the lambs, but there are nevertheless some nerve shredding moments.
The cast are all good and if Julianne Moore isn't quite as good as Jodie Foster, shes very close.
The other reason this film is a success is because of director Ridley Scott. The settings in Florence are stunning and the whole look of the film is great. Ridley Scott always had a great eye for visuals!
OK so the very end is a bit unlikely, but this film will keep you entertained, and holds up to repeated viewings. You should be able to pick this up cheap now, if so buy it!

I was pleasantly surprised by Ridley Scott's "Hannibal" given that the movie is based on the horrible book which I more than dislike. I see a writer as a God - he creates by the power of his imagination the new worlds and populates them with his creatures. Once, he created the world, he should give his characters free will; they should act by the logic of their personalities not by their creator's sheer caprice. What Harris did in "Hannibal" is unspeakable - he just showed his fans how much he despised them. Actually, he did two things wrong - the ending and his attempt to explain Hannibal, to look behind the mask. The film comparing to the book has several redeeming values: visually, it is a stunning work of a great director. I am yet to see Florence, the celebrated City of Flowers as dark, dangerous, and anti-tourist as in "Hannibal". Second, the movie did not try to "explain" Hannibal, to get inside his head and understand him. Harris attempted in the book to give us the reasons why Hannibal was what he was - it was weak and laughable. If he chose to present Hannibal as some sort of supernatural creature with almost animals' instincts, he should've left him as an eternal mystery. The best description of Hannibal belongs to Clarice. When asked, "Is it true what they're sayin', he's some kinda vampire?" - she replied, "They don't have a name for what he is". And finally, the film avoided the literally vomit-inducing, absurd, irrational, obnoxious slap in face book's ending - for this alone I think "Hannibal" is a very decent movie and a lot of fun.

3.5/5

I'm reviewing this movie as it stands on it's own rather than how it fits into the series.

In this installment, we meet Mason Verger, who is the sole survivor of the good Dr Lechter. Verger is a strange character with a strange story. His intentions are fairly clear from the outset, leaving the viewer only to watch how things unfold.

The movie remains fairly interesting throughout, as the escaped Lechter is identified and opposing forces close in on him. The table is set, however, about an hour in when we see Lechter dispatch his first would-be apprehender with a touch of "historical flair".

Lechter and Clarice are soon after back in touch again and the time finally comes where they meet and communicate without the glass between them. So we have Verger with retribution at heart, Clarice with justice in her interest and Lechter with his usual intentions: a tasty recipe indeed, with a main course as bizarre as you will come to expect.

This is a must-see for fans of the original and fans of the series in general.

ok i don't want to oversell this but:
THIS IS THE BEST FILM EVER EVER
A TRUE MASTERPIECE
BUY IT BUY IT BUY IT

I expect sequels to be somewhat close in calibre to the movies they are following. Well, HA!!! With this one, that expectation didn't even come close. To me, all this movie accomplished was gore & digust. What a shame that such a spectacular actor (Hopkins) agreed to lower himself and the character to this level. In my opinion, people should have been offered top dollar to waste their time and view this thing.

I really liked "The Silence Of The Lambs" with Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster in the famous roles of "Dr. Hannibal Lecter" and "Agent Clarice Starling". The characters and the lines were penned out great, and it was also directed very well, which ultimately led it to win best picture as well as several other academy awards.

However, the sequel is still good, but it is a little bit dissapointing. Hannibal has escaped and he is living in Italy. Ever since the last time, Clarice Starling encountered Hannibal, he has in a way cast a spell on her. She comments saying("I think about him for 30 seconds every day"). She isn't doing so well, she is asked to take time off from her job of being a cop, mainly because Clarice messed up an investigation. Hannibal is still living his life, he is very interested in art and he does teach a seminar to other people.

However, his moves have not flawed at all. He still has hunger to kill and eat people. A man who is in a wheelchair, desperately wants to catch Hannibal, mainly because he caused him to have a disfigured face. The story goes on and on, finally Hannibal decides to come out of his shell and he arrives in America.

Before, I continue. I must inform you that Jodie Foster, although she seemed interested in the beginning to reprise her role, she turned it down and gave various reasons. She was apparently concerned about how the character was going to be depicted in the sequel, after she read the book, and after she learned that Jonathan Demme, would not return to direct the film. Julianne Moore beat out several other actresses including Ashley Judd and Helen Hunt to the role after several auditions. I felt that she wasn't that convincing to begin with. The character, as Foster feared was not depicted well.

There is a lot of violence, that creates the fear allusion and leads up to its climatic ending. It is a good sequel.

This is a great film. Hannibal look's very nice in Italy!!! More blood and skin... I LIKE this film!!!

Julianne Moore is a phenomenal actress in other movies, but for some reason didn't bring the character of Clarice Starling to life on the silver screen for "Hannibal". Her portrayal of Clarice Starling was extremely flat and dead compared with Jodie Foster's performance of Clarice Starling in "Silence of the Lambs". So, I was sorely disappointed not to see Jodie Foster return to play the role of Clarice Starling in this movie as she gave a vibrant portrayal of this character.

I've also read the book "Hannibal" by Thomas Harris and was completely disappointed that the filmmakers of "Hannibal" didn't keep the ending of the movie in line with that of the novel. The ending of "Hannibal", the movie version, felt empty and hollow without the original ending for which the author had intended.

Plus other aspects of the storyline were a bit off too. Had "Hannibal", the movie version, had Jodie Foster playing Clarice Starling and other aspects of the movie, like the ending, been more accurate to the novel, I would have given it a higher rating.

Sure this movie was not as grand as Silence of the Lambs, but I thought it was an interesting turn of events in how it all panned out. There is an alternate ending on this DVD 2-Disc Collector's Edition, but I much perfer the original just the same.

Now, I may have a defected copy of this Steelbook Edition, but if not, be warned that the subtitles and Spanish and French audio tracks may not work. I sometimes like to read the English subtitles as I'm listening and watching the movie at the same time. However, I was not able to do so with this DVD packaged set. Not with either my Samsung, JVC, or Panasonic DVD players. The Steelbook Edition is a re-print of what has already been released, so I assume these features were lost in the re-printing process. However, all other bonus features and footages worked just fine.

Hannibal is a great movie, and it is worth watching. But, if you did not feel satisfied from the movies ending, then read the book. It will more than fill your appetiete for Hannibal Lector. Hannibal is by far the best book in the series and it has alot more information than the movie. The only reason I gave it four stars is because the book was so amazing.

Excellent movie especially in full screen edition and recommend it to all that enjoy psychological thrillers and why they do not adapt all of the movies in the 1:33:1 format as an alternative purchase from widescreen format for those consumers who prefer it I will never know

Anthony Hopkins returns as one of the great villains in screen history, Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter, in this riveting sequel to The Silence of the Lambs. Lecter's only surviving victim, the hideously scarred Mason Verger (Gary Oldman), tries to draw the serial gourmet out of hiding using the one person he cares about: Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore). Now, the novel on which this film was based had a slow pace and was nice and lengthy. If the film tried to be exactly like the book, it would have been at least 3 hours long, maybe longer. I would have enjoyed watching it.I thought the acting was excellent. Most of what's essential in the book in kept in the movie, though reading it ahead of time makes everything a little clearer. I was glad to see Ray Liotta here( specialy the brain eating scene lol, turned some peoples head!), and I thought Julianne Moore did a great job as Agent Starling. This film has almost "A Clockwork Orange" mentality as it appears to celebrate Hannibal's evil. True, Hannibal is always witty and polite, regardless of what terrible thing he is doing. The film is expectedly grotesque, which never bothers me. Hannibal is truly a different type of film than "Silence of the Lambs"; if you're looking for that, you should probably see "Red Dragon" instead (also good). My biggest complaint is the change they made to the ending of the story, which in the book was far more disturbing. And I'd like to say that Ridley Scott's direction isn't quite as suited to the material as Jonathan Demme's. Good and effective, but read the novel if you really want to get freaked out. I still recommend every one to watch hannibal if you haven't yet. Its truly a great movie. Also The music selected for this film was all that one would expect for such a thrilling screenplay, exciting, touching, unobtrucive and atmospheric. The highpoint for me was the scene at the Opera which left me spellbound. So delightful was the piece that I hummed it for days afterwards. The thrill was boosted by my finding out that a fellow Irishman, whom I had met often around Dublin over the past few years, Patrick Cassidy, hed written "Vide Cor Meum" especially for the scene. Woe of woes! I had hoped that it was an Opera which I could buy the next day. The good news is that the piece is featured on this soundtrack and Patrick is rumoured to be incorporating the piece into a forthcoming Operatic work. I can only commend you to his exceptional talent, recordings of which are available from Amazon and hope that you too will await the new work with my baited breath.
Hans Zimmer seems to be the composer of the moment in Hollywood, and why not? His score for "Hannibal" further proves that when he's on, he's really on -- his score for "Hannibal" is more entertaining than the film it has been written for, not to mention more haunting, scary and beautiful. But along with being a popular film composer comes the wrongheaded ideas that often get forced upon film soundtracks. Why are there dialogue snippets here? Sure, Anthony Hopkins is a wonderful actor and I love to hear his voice, but not when the music he is speaking over is superior to the film! Most dialogue tracks on soundtracks are annoying, and these are no different. Two big releases raped Zimmer's music in this fashion in the same year (remember "More Music from Gladiator"?). That being said, this is top-notch work from Zimmer and collaborator Patrick Cassady. Especially wonderful is the final track, an original operatic piece with a libretto taken from the writings of Dante Aligheri. Absolutely astonishing music in that last cut.

This was the worst movie I have ever seen, and I watch a lot of movies. My brother in law actually threw up while watching this movie. I don't understand the fascination with an evil serial killer, and I really don't understand how anyone could portray him as a sympathetic character, much less the savior of Clarice Starling.

first off they should of put Jodie Foster as Clarice Starling

I saw the first 2 movies and was overwhelmed. They were faboulous.

I thought this movie was sick. It was all about the gore. The first two were supposed to be like nightmare scary all in your head and it was. But his movie was omg who was incharge of making this movie? It was horribal to watch especially the dinner scene.

Also, it put shame on the previous movies, on what the movies made of the characters.

All in all I watched the movie and spat. It was a bad name to the people involed in this movie.

Ok storline, nice graphics, but all in all discusting.

I just couldn't sit there anymore....the movie was painfully boring, the storyline totally rediculous....the stuff they put in to shock us was amusing...and not in a good way.
This movie didn't need to be made.

I liked this movie. Most of it that is. Several things bothered me, one a lot:

(a) no Jodie Foster

(b) where's the part with the group home kid - we could have had an even sicker feeling about Mason.

(c) where are Margot Verger, the cattle prod and the eel?

(b) the rewritten ending! Having read Hannibal before seeing the movie, I was totally PO'ed at the (poorly) rewritten ending that to me completely disemboweled the original premise. I was left feeling short-changed.

So I enjoyed the portrayal of the parts true to the novel, but was very bothered by the changes to the storyline, which were NOT for the better IMHO!

This movie is great,Anthony Hopkins reprices his role(thankfully) as the creepy Hannibal,he is a inteligent,bold and evil killer.Jodie Foster should have played Clarice once more,but,appeareantly she was busy...
but julianne did a good job.This is a great thriller.

This movie is great,but, i still prefer jodie foster as clarice rather than julianne moore.Anthony, is creepy.This is a good thriller recomended for people who liked the silence of the lambs(like me),must buy this product!

While the first two parts of this trilogy easily allowed me to suspend my disbelief and enter the most bizarre mind imaginable, this last one is so graphic and unsubtle that I kept saying to myself, "oh c'mon." It seemed to me that this film did not have anything to add - afterall, how can you surpass "Silence"? - so it just got more graphically grotesque, in particular the final cooking scene. Then Lector is so brazen and nonchalant, toying with those who are pursuing him and barely escaping, that it is unconvincing.

Clarice develops, as she is older and disillusioned. Moore is a truly wonderful actress, so empathetic and believable. It really is a pity that the script is so weak, as this could have been a great film based more on her - and the way her career is messed up - than Hopkins cunning and skill at killing (and eating). The addition of Oldman does not fail completely, but his personality is somewhat undeveloped, though the way he lures Lector to him is quite subtle.

So this film has its good moments, just not nearly as good as it could have been with a better script.

Recommended with these caveats in mind, but only fans of Lector will want to own this.

This is well done film on so many levels. And works in many different styles of films. It's chilling and dramatic. It's wickedly funny and in the broadest sence a love story. Beast finds his beauty, but what if the beast's sins are too much to overlook for beauty. The movie plays out like an opera which is fitting for the character of Hannibal Lecter also.
Each act of the film served with perfect timing like a chef serves his meals. Yes, pun intended. But it's just a beautiful movie. Beautiful to look at, and beautiful to let it soak in to your mind and simmer. Well, there I go again, but it's a must own for fans of the books and character. Or just fans of Hoppkins who really sinks his teeth into the role.

I saw this movie just because I had to write a paper for school, and I have to say that I did'n like it very much, I liked "Silence of tha lambs" more. Maybe this one has more dialogue and less action, you know figthts and exciting scenes, but the few ones this movie has are incredible....the best one is the one with Pazzi's death... Whatever.

Anyway, personally I wouldn't see this movie again, but if you asked me if it was good, it was just fine

I have to say, it took me a while to getting around to seeing this. I thought "Silence Of The Lambs" was good - it featured a great performance by Anthony Hopkins, and the rest of it was....good. But that was about it, as far as I was concerned. It just didn't really click with me, and it wasn't anything near the great movie I'd been hoping for, so when its sequel was released I didn't feel any great need to rush out and get it as soon as it was released. A bit surprisingly though, I thought "Hannibal" was really great once I finally did see it. Everyone said it was more geared toward horror than "Silence..." (which is fine by me) and it may have been, marginally. But much more than that, it was just a Better horror movie than its predecessor, and it was also a better thriller and a better drama movie, in my opinion. Hopkins is just as good, if not better, than he was as Dr. Hannibal Lecter the first time around, and while I usually don't like recasting roles in a movie (unless the actor or actress is playing a creature or monster or something where you don't see their real face or hear their real voice, and even there they sometimes end up getting the mannerisms wrong) Julianne Moore did a great job stepping into the Clarice Starling role originally played by Jodie Foster.

The movie centers around the hunt to find Lecter by the only victim of his original, pre-incarceration, carnage to survive - a thoroughly despicable pedophile who avoided ever being charged for his crimes by cutting a deal with prosecutors to give evidence against Lecter. It seems like "Hannibal" has changed tract from "Silence" and is implying that most if not all of Lecter's victims May have been horrendous individuals who in some way brought his wrath down upon themselves. Whether that's the truth or whether it was just this one victim who was so reprehensible, the effect was to create a foil for Hannibal who's even more evil than he is. Hannibal Lecter himself is, well, he's not a 'good guy' in this movie; he is, though, presented in very cryptic shades of grey. His behaviors contradict one another but do so in a way that feels real, and he's much more interesting as a character this time around. Clarice also is; she comes across here as a character who's somehow traumatized, perhaps even mentally unbalanced, deep down but supresses it so well that it took a genius like Lecter to ever see it, and that's what so intrigued him in the first place. One possible interpretation of things overall (and this is just one of many potential takes on it; the movie briefly and subtly hints at so many different things that you could take away just about anything from it - making it a great source of conversation for movie-lovers) is that Hannibal Lecter is a person who had/has the potential for great goodness within himself but chose evil, while Clarice Starling has the potential for great darkness and Hannibal-level violence in her, but chose to be good, chose in fact to make her career in opposing those who give in to the same darkness. A lot of food for thought in this one (no pun intended).

Great performances all around; in notable addition to Hopkins and Moore the brilliant Gary Oldman plays Lecter's nemesis and the chronically overlooked and under-rated Ray Liotta plays an unlikable, rather creepy FBI agent who's constantly at odds with Starling. A very, very engaging and wel-made movie.

Most people hate this film; I love it....well, 95 percent of it, anyway.

The shame of it is that most people only remember the last 10 minutes, a totally gruesome scene in which the top of a man's head is cut off and he's fed a morsel of his own brain. Of course, it's disgusting and I don't find it easy to watch, either.

However, the first two hours of the film offers a feast, if you'll pardon the pun, for the eyes and ears that is not revolting except for one other three-second shot. This is one of the most beautifully-filmed movies I've ever seen and this DVD is fantastic. Scene after scene is just jaw dropping and features some of the best shots, outside and inside, of Florence, Italy, you could ever imagine. Ridley Scott is known for his stylish direction and that is certainly the case here.

The dialog is fascinating, led by Anthony Hopkins' famous "Hannibal Lecter" character, whose vocabulary and intelligent sarcasm and baiting are clever and entertaining to hear. Unlike "Silence Of the Lambs," there is little verbal crudeness in this film, very little profanity at all. On the third viewing, I played this with the English subtitles on, so I could catch all the dialog.

Although Jodie Foster performed well in the role of FBI Agent Clarice Starling, I preferred watching and listening to Julianne Moore play the part in this film. A "sleeper" here, too, was the great performance by Giancarlo Gianni, as the greedy Italian lawman, who winds up paying a huge price for his avarice.

Like "Godfather III," this is a very unjustly-criticized and overlooked third installment of a famous film trilogy.

Great movie!! Although Hannibal is the 2nd movie released in The Silence Of The Lambs trilogy, it is actually meant to be the final movie. Red Dragon follows Hannibal but Red Dragon is actually the prequel to The Silence Of The Lambs. I rate this movie equally with Red Dragon, 4 stars. Once again, Anthony Hopkins delivers an outstanding and brilliant performance as Lecter. Although Jodie Foster is not in this movie ( wish she would have been ), Julianne Moore does give a good performance as Clarice Starling. It's hard not to compare her to Foster in this movie but it doesn't take away from this wonderful thriller. Great horror and violence in this one! as we see Lecter re-emerge in Italy. But this time, someone else has it in for Lecter and Starling is now on the case, trying to locate Lecter. Alot of violence and blood in this one! It will truly keep you entertained from beginning to end. Very well done! Very well written! and truly delivers as the sequel to Silence Of The Lambs!!! A must see for Lecter fans!!

and i saw ishtar. cinematography and music are excellent. acting and writing are awful, julianne moore achieving a new low.
However the graphic depiction of the macabre subject matter and the extraordinarily graphic murders are positively sickening. One really should avoid this movie at all costs. Those persons who are finding psychological insights or other redeeming social value in this movie should really take a long look in the mirror and/or schedule some much needed therapy. It is without a doubt the most perverted and sickening movie I have ever seen. The key word here is "sickening."

I read the book - this junk bore little resemblance. The poor treatment of the subject matter made the tense scenarios that thrilled me in the book into laughably vague and sometimes unbelieveble scenes in the movie. And our dear Mr. Hopkins played it a bit too sinister this time around. Would Dr. Lecter behave so obviously when he was trying to evade capture?? Disappointing.

"Hannibal" is a film that many reviewers have mixed opinions on. Some call it a worthy if inferior sequel to "The Silence Of The Lambs", while others say it doesn't serve to share the name Hannibal Lecter. I, however, am going to opt with the former category. While nowhere near as good as "The Silence Of The Lambs", I still found "Hannibal" to be highly enjoyable.

The best way to view "Hannibal" is as a stand alone film. Despite a few references to the previous film, the only real similarity to the film is that the character of Hannibal Lecter (played brilliantly once more by Anthony Hopkins) is in it. Yes, Clarice Starling does indeed return (played here by Julianne Moore, who makes for a servicable replacement for Jodie Foster), but she is a very different character in this film. She is much more vulnerable and afraid this time around, thanks to a series of tragic events in her personal life.

The film picks up 10 years after the events of "TSOTL". The notorious killer Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter has taken solace in Venice, where he works at an art museum. His life seems to be going well. Thousands of miles away, things are going just the opposite for FBI agent Clarice Starling. After a drug bust goes terribly wrong, a public backlash against Clarice breaks out, causing disdain for her within the bureau, especially with the smarmy Paul Krendler (Ray Liotta, who is somewhat wasted in his role). However, Clarice gets a chance when Mason Verger (an uncredited Gary Oldman, whose wonderful acting abilities become buried beneath his overdramatic makeup job), Hannibal's only surviving victim, offers Clarice new info on Hannibal's whereabouts. Turns out Verger is not the only one interested in Clarice, as the good doctor himself is willing to reconnect with his old friend. There is another one who's interested in Lecter. Italian police officer Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini) has learned that there is $ 3, 000, 000 reward for the capture of Doctor Lecter, and is out to get it. Of course, his plan backfires, and an encounter with the good doctor leaves him a little, er, hung over. Lecter then returns to the United States to catch up with Miss Starling, who has been suspended from the force. This leads to an intense cat and mose game between Starling and Lecter. Mr. Verger, of course, has plans of his own as well. He enlists Krendler and his men to kidnap Lecter and feed him to a pack of wild boars. Clarice manages to rescue Doctor Lecter from a most terrible fate, and Lecter returns the favor with a candlelight dinner. Also present is Mr. Krendler. What happens to Mr. Krendler is not worth explaining in words. In the end, Dr. Lecter escapes once more, and the ending will leave you with shivers down your spine.

While nowhere near as good as "The Silence Of The Lambs", "Hannibals" still serves up some genuine chills. In fact, while I do consider the previous film the better of the two, I do consider "Hannibal" the more disturbing one, mostly because director Ridley Scott upped the gore factor considerably. The performances are rich and full of life. Hopkins is once again perfect as Dr. Lecter. The film does have some flaws though. For starters, Ray Liotta, as I said earlier, is wasted as Krendler. Also, Gary Oldman, while an amazing actor, doesn't get the chance to show off his abilites as the audiences focuses too much on his makeup job, which is very over the top and could've been toned down. (Personally, I would have liked to have seen what Christopher Reeve, who was originally offered the part, could've done in the role).

The dvd is crammed with extras. The film is great and I highly recommend to most people, though if you're squeamish, I suggest skipping it.

Director: Ridley Scott
Cast: Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, Giancarlo Giannini, Gary Oldman, Ray Liotta, Frankie Faison, Francesca Neri, Zeljko Ivanek, Hazelle Goodman.
Running Time: 131 minutes
Rated R for strong gruesome violence, some nudity and language.

When "Hannibal" was in the process of being made, it seemed like it was going to be a thrilling exciting follow up to the Oscar-winning, highly acclaimed "The Silence of the Lambs". Hopkins was back as Lector, Ray Liotta was to play the obnoxious Paul Krendler, Gary Oldman was the severely distorted and disabled Mason Verger and the film was being directed by the recent Oscar-winning director Ridley Scott (for "Gladiator"). Although Foster turned down the role of Clarice again, it went to Julianne Moore which seemed an astute move by the film crew. Unfortunately, "Hannibal" turns into a campy shockfest more concerned with orchestrating gory death scenes than actually creating a tense, atmospheric adaptation of Thomas Harris's critically supportive third installment of the Hannibal Lecter novel series.

Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore) is now famous for her work with Hannibal "the Cannibal" Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), the notorious killer who has since escaped to Venice. After a bloody drug bust resulted in a mother being shot while holding her child, Starling is tormented by her co-workers and various other people. Meanwhile, Mason Verger (Gary Oldman) is hunting down Lecter in hopes for revenge. Verger is the only victim to have encountered Hannibal and survive, but he's horribly disfigured from the experience and has become obsessed with Lecter. While all of this is happening, Lecter is living the good life in Venice, becoming a very respectable yet creepy fellow. Things become complicated though when Inspector Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini) finds out who he really is. Verger tells Starling that he may know where the great cannibal is and this sets things into motion. Now with co-worker Paul Krendler (Ray Liotta) breathing down her neck, Clarice revisits her experiences with Hannibal and starts to contact Pazzi. Unknown to her, Verger has paid Pazzi a hefty sum of money in order to catch Lecter alive. After the failed attempt resulted in a gory manner, Lecter comes back to America to visit Clarice and break the silence. Julianne Moore made little impression with her portrayal of Starling though that`s through little fault of her own because it`s always the most difficult job of an actor playing a role made famous by someone else , and Starling is sidelined in much of the film . As for the other actors, Hopkins is competent but by no means spell binding , Liota gives the impression that a robot played his role throughout the film, Giancarlo Giannini is good, but Gary Oldman absolutely steals the show as Mason Verger playing the role just the right side of camp complete with some great make-up .

As for the other aspects of "Hannibal", Ridley Scott directs with an almost operatic touch. You really do get the feeling watching this that Scott`s ambition in life is to do a remake of "Amadeus" with Hopkins in the role of Atonio Salieri; however, the one major flaw with "Hannibal" is the script by Mamet and Zaillian, only moderately staying true to the book and deviating from the original components that made "Silence of the Lambs" so efficient and engrossing, especially with the ending which is riducously over the top . Despite Scott's ability to make a visually stunning and intriguing film, we are still left with a lack of narrative thrust, so that while individual scenes, particularly those depicting Lecter at large in a gothically-rendered Florence of shadows and fog, have a certain fascination, they don't really join up to make a satisfying whole. Besides which, Anthony Hopkins does not seem to have re-discovered the inimitable creepiness as Lecter that he nailed in "Lambs". It seems that uncaged, Lecter lacks the coiled menace of his earlier incarnation, and Hopkins seems to have merely turned up to collect his paycheck this time round. Possibly the biggest problem with "Hannibal", however, is the absence of Jodie Foster. Into her shoes steps Julianne Moore, a fine actress in her own right, but a calm, almost ethereal presence where Foster was pugnacious, edgy and brittle. Foster defined the role, and Moore has a thankless task made all the more difficult by a script that gives her little to do but react to the machinations of the corrupt men that surround her. A major letdown from a big-time director and a usually solid group of cast members.