Hannibal

[Femme_Fatale]

I would just like to have a gloat that i saw Hannibal on Friday....and it is FANTASTIC!!!! Go see it. ive just read the book before it, and i have to say i am SO glad they changed the ending!!!!! anyone looking forward too it? its well worth the wait...trust me /ubb/smile.gif

[unicorn207]

How did you get to see it before everyone else?

[kerryanne]

What do you mean the changed the damn ending? Shite... I thought the ending in the book was pretty cool. Oh well, thats pretty cool that ya gotta see it femme. There is another dicussion going on that "People Magazine" said it sucked...I knew I could count on a schmoe to put it right.

[Femme_Fatale]

unicorn-i cant reveal my sources...but i have a friend who can get you absolutely ANY movie ever made. and some that arent even finished! latest rumour has it he has a copy of the Harry Potter movie.....lol
anyway, i just asked him if there was anyway i could get to see it (i was kidding) and sure enough the next day he turned up with it on my doorstep!!!!!

Kerryanne- the studio MADE Thomas Harris write a whole new ending (did he even write the script?! well it sed him in an interview i read) because no one would touch the script with that ending. it hasnt gone too far off the mark. i actually prefer Julianne Moore as Clarice too. Hopkins is a genius!

[kOr]

Hopkins is a genius! He makes a fantastic serial killer, and it will be so friggin awesome when it comes out!

[nasty67]

i'm so looking forward to seeing that movie. i want to see maybe that special scene or thing that (unfortunately) made jodie foster walk away of the project.

[Danzig Misfit]

I also had to buckle under and see the sneak preview of the film at Man's Chinese Theater in Hollywood CA, and I was thouroughly impressed!!!
Anthony Hopkins was AWESOME as usual, and . . . what's her name was good as Agent Starling. The atmosphere of the film was very thick, and dark as they really tried, and it was good!
The changed ending was REALLY good, and you sre talking to someone who read the book. The only reason that I wont say what it was is to keep you all who haven't read the booki or seen the movie guessing. I am usually a movie spoiler, but this was too damn good!!!
Hey, Anthony has also signed on for Red Dragon as well!!! (The Remake of Red Dragon for the literature inclined!)

[Femme_Fatale]

they already made 'Red Dragon' as manhunter! i cant see them doing it again, as the 1st one is awesome and only came out about 15 years ago!

[jameskilbirnie]

Hey guys, I work at a movie theater and we just had an employee showing of HANNIBAL tonight...overall the general reactions were mixed. My opinion is that the movie looks great and of course is acted very professionally...Hopkins has created a cinematic icon with his character and, here, he knows it.

The major problem with the film is that the characters never really go anywhere new; obviously we already know what Hannibal is capable of...here the character plays by the numbers too often and seems bored for half the film. As for Clarice, the character goes NOWHERE this time out....she really seems almost like an extra besides being Lecter's reason for coming out of retirement. There was never a moment where she made a vital decision that brought new elements to her personality. As for the climax, it felt rushed and, while indeed quite disgusting, was never truly intense like the original film. Instead, it's as if the impact was based more on shock value from the gore, rather than advancing the story in a specific direction.

The composer, Hans Zimmer, remarked that, if anything, HANNIBAL is a very dark romantic comedy. I'd have to agree.

[Gore 4 All]

YES!!

First in line to see Hannibal and I was not disappointed. Gore galore. I just love Anthony Hopkins. This movie doesn't have the psychotic edge that Silence did, but it is far superior to most of the crap in the theaters nowadays. Go see it now!

[AntonioDelLago]

HANNIBAL (2001), the much-anticipated sequel to Jonathan Demme's Oscar-winning "The Silence Of The Lambs" (based on the novel by Thomas Harris), lives up to the all of the hype and controversy which has engulfed the production since day one.

The story takes place ten years after "Lambs", with escaped psychopath Dr. Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) living in Florence, Italy under the guise of a museum curator. One of Lecter's victims (the only one who survived) Mason Verger (played by Gary Oldman under heavy makeup that you have to see to believe!), schemes to lure Hannibal out of seclusion by using his former would-be paramour, FBI Agent Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore, in a role originated by Oscar-winner Jodie Foster), as bait. Once Lecter learns of Starling's career troubles (as concocted by Verger and a sleazy FBI bureaucrat played by Ray Liotta) and Verger's scheme capture him (with hopes of feeding him to carnivorous wild boars), he returns to the States to intervene on Clarice's behalf. An excellent subplot concerns a greedy Italian detective (played by the sublime Giancarlo Giannini) on Hannibal's trail after learning of Verger's quest.

This film has it all: Ridley Scott's exquisite direction; lush Italian settings; a score by Hans Zimmer comprised primarily of opera and classical music; a top-flight cast
(Hopkins' portrayal of Lecter is reminiscent of the Cheshire Cat in "Alice In Wonderland", Moore is more than capable of filling Foster's FBI boots, Giannini is a revelation); and a sky-high violence quotient (the wild boars, the disemboweled hanging, and that ending...WOW!...in all my days, I have NEVER seen anything like it!).

Overall, the film matches its two predecessors (the first being Michael Mann's "Manhunter" in 1986) as a trilogy of killer psychodramas! I felt as though I was sitting in an opera house, or touring an art museum. HANNIBAL is a work of art.

Of course, critics and viewers alike will compare this film to "Lambs", and while "Hannibal" lacks the original impact or depth of its predecessor, it stands alone as another masterpiece from a collected group of superb artists (director Scott; novelist Harris; actors Hopkins, Moore, and Giannini; and screenwriters Steven Zaillian and David Mamet).

My grade: A


[This message has been edited by AntonioDelLago (edited 02-21-2001).]

[the night watchman]

Rrrrrrrreal disappointed. It wasn't a terrible movie, but it wasn't nearly as good as it could have been, or should have been. Ridley Scott's over-indulgance in empty style ruined the pace and distracted from the story. I was pining for Jonathan Demme's simplicity.

On the other hand, the boars were about the scariest things I've ever seen on film, and the dinner scene at the end made my jaw drop. That scene alone was well worth the price of admission.

[ColonelColinCaine]

Just got back from seeing it, and I wasn't disappointed. It's not as good as "Silence...", but it's still good in it's own weird way.
Julianne Moore didn't really do anything for me as Clarice. The only other character I gave a sh*t about other than Hannibal was the Italian detective who tries to turn Hannibal into the authorities for cash. Gary Oldman just gave me the creeps as Mason Verger.
My only real complaint about the movie is that nothing happens for the first hour. Things don't really pick up until the second hour, when things really start to get gory.
I'm sure you've heard everyone talking about the final fifteen minutes, and how they almost puked. Call me a sick bastard, but I didn't think it was that bad. Yeah, I cringed at first, but I've seen a helluva lot worse. Still it was a great gross-out scene, and I'm sure we'll be hearing about it for a while. Funny as hell, too!
And the ending, oh, the ending. It's not really a shocker like the original, but it's still pretty damn sick.
All in all a good time at the movies. It didn't even come close to living up to the original, but I don't think anyone really expected it to.

(8/10 stars)

[This message has been edited by ColonelColinCaine (edited 02-10-2001).]

[the night watchman]

I have a prediction: The dinner scene is going to be so talked about, parodied, and copied, that when "Hannibal: the version you've never seen" hits theaters in thirty years, teenage schmoes of the time will be commenting, "What was the big deal? I thought it was dumb."

Mark my words.

[NomoPutzy]

But I love Ridley Scott's empty style! I love the pigeons and the colonnades and the fog perpetuum, and the way the Renaissance sunlight hits Lecter's face and somehow turns him into Mason Verger. By the way, the middle Florence sequence is Superb: the pickpocket scene, the hanging, Pazzi's yummy deep bosomed wife. I do agree with the ickiness of the penultimate scene however; yech, Hannibal serving leftovers!

[Skaboy18]

I haven't seen Hannibal just yet, but I'm making some plans at the moment to go tonight. I hope it is different from the book. The book was extremely amaturish, and unentertaining. It's good that they've changed the ending. And from what I've heard, there is quite a bit of gore. Can't wait. Hasn't been a good gore film in a looooonnnngggg time.

[the night watchman]

The book was amateurish? Compared to what? "Ulysses"?

[Drained_Insane]

I havent seen it yet but many friends saw it and said it was really gorey but not much to the story, boring kind of during the first hour. Ah well, I loved SOTL so I will join the club and go see it.

[emmozanjo]

I didn't mind the film. The problem is that we've been innundated with genius monster types for the last 10 years so we're used to the clever quips before the next victim drops. I also thought that Ridley could've booked a bit more time in the editing room as well. Although... the same problem presents itself--we've got 10 years of threads to pull together and we need enough time to lend credibility to the dememted Mason Verger.

I didn't mind some of the character omissions in the movie (Mason's sister, the gypsy woman with the baby) and they served to streamline the story a bit more. (Clever how they also got around the point of Lecter's extra finger on the x-ray.) What really disappointed me was the total omission of Jack Crawford. As far as I could tell there wasn't one mention of him even in passing for the entire film. And that was too bad indeed.

The last scenes? I guess I was expecting something different since there was hardly a mention of Starling's father and the role he played in shaping her life. That was a BIG part of the last scenes in the book and one of the main reasons, I think, that Clarice eventually endorsed what Lecter was. So, without that whole section in the film... it wouldn't have worked. And I wouldn't have minded a mention of Lecter's own nightmare as a small boy in the last days of WWII.

But of course... all that would've meant a 3 hour movie.

In all honesty... I would've rather seen Will Graham and Clarice Starling reluctantly teaming up to find Lecter instead. Think of it... so much chance for friction and mistrust between them... each having to find Lecter for their own reasons. I never liked the idea of the Mason Verger character. But that's another post....

[AntonioDelLago]

They're bringing back the Will Graham character in the sequel (believe it or not) that Thomas Harris is currently penning. I'd like to see he and Clarice team up as well.
Maybe since William Petersen (Graham's originator in MANHUNTER) has enjoyed success and a mini-comeback with the hit CBS series "CSI", he could be recruited to portray old Will again. If not, then either Tom Sizemore or George Clooney could fill his FBI boots.
Just a casting thought.

[nasty67]

this movie was pretty good but not great (8.5/10). of course, there's no "oscar materials" in there like "the silence of the lambs" but it's great entertainment. the final scene is awesome but it didn't make me lose my appetite at all. in fact, it almost looks good at one point.

hopkins looks like is having one hell of a blast as dr.lecter. he's the perfect serial killers with a taste for the best thing in life like art, wine, opera and of course, food.

and... one last thing, will clarice finally admit to herself that she's actually in love with that cannibal and that she just can't help it.

[the night watchman]

>> emmozanjo: "I would've rather seen Will Graham and Clarice Starling reluctantly teaming up to find Lecter instead."

You completely hit the nail on the head, dude. I was making predictions before the book came out that that's what Harris was going to do. I was wrong, obviously, but I think it would have made for a much more satisfying novel.

[Redeemer]

Julianne Moore suck some serious ass as Clarice. I would have definitely preferred Jodie Foster.

[emmozanjo]

I don't know if Ms. Moore "sucks ass" as Clarice... I feel sorry for Julianne more than anything. She had a pretty thankless job to do and I think she did the best that any actress could possibly have done with the material she was given. The way Starling is in this movie... it's like she's reacting to things as opposed to activating them. I didn't mind her performance at all.

And the "prequel" they're planning to reshoot... I thought "Manhunter" wasn't bad at all. I can see their desire, though... didn't "Hannibal" just have the best Feb. opening weekend in history? Just the thing to get the studio suits hopping. Who knows... maybe they'll reshoot "Red Dragon" SHOT BY SHOT like the original "Manhunter," a la "Psycho." (Yes, I'm joking.) I've just never approved of remakes on principle....

But if they plan to actually write a new story with Will Graham (William Pedersen (sp?) should ABSOLUTELY get first dibs on the role--he was outstanding before) and Starling teaming up... that would be cool.

[William1972]

I was tremendously impressed with Hannibal, as evidenced by the fact that I have now seen it twice. I really believe that people that don't like it don't really get all the psychological subtext. Imagine the depths of depravity that had to represented by Mason Verger to turn Lecter into the hero. Now that's some dark shit. Lecter was turned into a crusader for politeness, mand we need a lot more of that.

[Snack Boy]

Although I enjoyed Hannibal, in a perfect world:

a)Jodi would kick it w/ A.H. again (just for old time's sake and her deeper voiced Starling...
b)Silence's Tak Fujimoto to have filmed this.
Although Ridley and his 'Gladiator' cinematographer had some good moments, I would have prefered the grittier, edgier look of Silence over the bluish, shiney, MTV meets Miami Vice look of Hannibal.
c)Margot Verger-Mason's blonde/bodybuilding sister gave Hannibal a little extra muscle...
d)BOOK SPOILER HERE: When Margot feeds her brother his eel was just so cool. Maybe it wouldn't work on film, but damn that moment ruled on paper.

Now to what I LOVED about Hannibal:

Loved the death of the Italian police officer. Hopkins was great, he spilled the poor guy's guts beautifully, and Clarice not quite saving the guy by the bell..."Clarice? Ahhh, hello Clarice."
Beautiful.

Gary Oldman was funky fresh as Verger and I loved his make up and voice. Everytime he lit his own face up to get a reaction from somebody, I had to give him some props.

Julianne was overall ok as Clarice, but I loved her scene around the FBI table as she gave her jerky "peers" some southern hospitality. She did so much with just a few small facial gestures. One moment of the film where I didn't miss Jodi.

Some nice eye candy and good gore, but I'll stick with my Silence DVD. It's deeper, more subtle, scarier, edgier, and smarter.
CAn I get a Hallelujah?

[Sean]

Hannibal is not a bad movie.Infact,it's an enjoyable, beautiful, very twisted and darkly comic, all around well done film.The problem is, this is a sequel to not only a movie that won best picture, but one of the best horror films ever made.So by comparison, well, there is no comparison. Silence is more effective in every aspect. Hannibal does the smart thing of not trying to be like the first one.It's very, very different. Many seem to agree, it's a little too different. Julianne Moore can never really be compared to Jodie Foster because her role is so much smaller and we learn little about what's been going on with her for the last ten years,beyond the fact that she has shot and killed more people than any other agent. I can say that the film would have worked much better if Foster had returned. Her absence caused the history between these two to not be felt the way it should have been. Also, Lector is not as frightening as he once was. I don't blame Hopkins, I blame the director and the script. One or two darkly comedic lines may have been fine, but they over due it and Hannibal loses some of his kick. Oldman is great, it's uncomfortable to look at him and his performance is believable. Basically, the problem is Ridley Scott made the film a little too toungue in cheek and a little too flashy. The film has more sick laugh's, much more gore, (I wish the MPAA was so light on every movie) but less character drama and substance. I'd give it a 3/5.

[Brock Landers]

Brock's Quick "Hannibal" Review:

"Fully Erect! Hopkins and Moore give performances worth a thousand hard-ons!
Their presences when dressed are powerful and demanding, when stripped to the
bone they're more eruptive than a volcano on a bad day!"

...more later...

[the night watchman]

Hallelujah, Snack Boy.

[NomoPutzy]

Okey dokey.

[Evanfx20]

Overall, it was pretty good. I'm not one to get queazy over movies, but the ending was enough to make me thankfull I hadn't had a big dinner. Dear god that looked real!Anyways I loved the subplot with the Mason character and the detective. I heard there was a scene where Starling goes back to the old asylum( which is abandoned) where she first met Hannibal, to try to find some records or something,.She finds an old patient who still lives there. They cut it out due to time constraints or something. That kinda sucks.

[Femme_Fatale]

Evan- that scene is in the book. i never knew it was gonna be in the movie, though!

[emmozanjo]

Yes, Femme... some of the trailers have a snip of the scene where Starling goes back to Hannibal's old cell to find some records... and we see his ghostly image for a couple of seconds.

[Hypnotic Eye]

A very disturbing film! Hopkins IS a genius! I really liked this movie, although I still perfer Silence of the Lambs to it. Overall its a great sequel!

[Mr. Ugly]

yeah hannibal was VERY well done.. good movie all around... and the ending is definately better than the books! ... and also, with this ending.. they have it set up for another sequal... it they choose to make one.