Hannibal...very dissapointing

[Wilheilm]

The actors where great but the movie as a whole sucked!

The Movie wasnt even wide-screen, at least not where I watched it.

How can this be? cos Gladiator was so good!

[PackBacker]

You might want to give reasons why you thinked it sucked so people can agree/argue with you a bit more rationally.

[Mr. Ugly]

how can u think it sucked? it was pretty good i thought

[GJ]

I did not think it sucked, but I was definitely disappointed. I think that's the main problem with this flick; people's expectations are just too high. And there is the media to blame for by spreading rumours that a few drunk Italians fainted during the movie, but they don't tell that there were some airconditioning-problems in that theatre. And because of that the whole world wants to see it, because if people start to faint during their theatre-visit, well, then it must be one hell of a movie.
Personally, I watched 'The Silence of the Lambs' right before I went to the theatre and I knew right away what it was: There was a whole lot more guts and gore but less tension that terrified everyone in 'The Silence of the Lambs' and that is a real pity. I had no problem with the actors and actresses but they just didn't get any material which they could put their teeth into(well, at least some of them didn't).

[Snert]

This was good!

[herculeez]

Now this movie had exellent direction, superb cinematography and quite a humourous touch to it, but there was still that missing something...a little somehting that could have made it a good movie.
I still haven't quite established what hat thing is yet which didn't make the movie good but there's something.
Anyway outcome - Dissapointing 4/10

[HomerSimpson]

Hannibal was so-so, it doesn't suck but it's not worthy to be the sequel of the far superior Silence of the Lambs. A lot of stuff that made Silence so great was missing in Hannibal, and the ending sucked. Personally, I don't see why everyone likes the cinematography so much, I didn't find it to be that great.

[Witchproject]

Well, Hannibal was dissapointing, especially to those who read the book. They did try hard to keep true to the story line. But I dont think it was as bad as some people say. I suppose thats because everyone went in there expecting something marvelous.
I'd give it 7/10.

[Crazy Ol' Loomis]

You know what, I would have agreed with you guys 4 weeks ago, but I have seen the movie more than once, and that's what you need to do. Hannibal was a great sequel to the superior Silence and had great acting. I really recommend that all of you spend a few more dollars to see it again (or just sneak it) but you really need to see it once or twice more. Even if the movie still blows in your mind, it's worth it to hear Anthony Hopkins say "okey dokey"!!!!

[The Professional]

Hannibal was a terrible movie because the plot was like a block of swiss chease, It lacked any taste(heheh) what so ever, and the performances and ending lacked the intesity of the original. It was a glorified slasher movie. (5.5/10)

[playgames]

I guess people here really want the truth.I saw the movie Sunday and I was a little disappointed.I thought the film was beautiful,but I think Jodie foster looks a lot better than J. Moore.I kind of missed her in the film.My main problem,Like hurculeez,was that something was missing.It was like eating food with no seasoning,and trying to figure out what it was.The ending came out of nowhere.Several people in the theater said out loud,"Thats It?".You may not believe this,and I dont want to offend a fan,but I probably won't ever watch this one again.If Jodie did read the script for this one,I can see why she didn't do it.

[This message has been edited by playgames (edited 03-19-2001).]