Hannibal

Dr. Lecter returns in bloodthirsty style, but there's no satisfaction this time around. The worst possible start is all the actions of Clarice, whose tired face forced me to fall asleep with every line about "shooting at a woman with a child." Thanks to the perfect Hannibal and the surprisingly skillful Ray Liotta, this seemingly unnecessary movie eventually becomes a sufficiently thrilling thriller, but the lengthy silent parts condemn it to being just a violent patchwork sequel. (2006.03.19)

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%. (2008.10.26)

If I had to rate Hannibal in one word, it would be: worthy. Hannibal is certainly a worthy sequel to a legendary film. It gives Hopkins plenty of opportunity to stay on the screen and to develop a very enjoyable relationship with his favorite agent. Yes, Julianne Moore is different than Jodie Foster, but that's actually a good thing. Clarice has matured a lot in that time, and as an audience bystander, I don't require her to have the same face she had during her studies. The setting of intellectually snobbish Italy also works as a nice touch for me. Now it’s time for Red Dragon. (2012.09.20)

Comparing Hannibal with The Silence of the Lambs is nonsense, they are two completely different movies, their only connecting factor is the main character, Hannibal Lecter. It is clear that the visually talented Ridley Scott took on the directing duties, and it was not a mistake at all. The plot is much simpler and more linear, with more focus placed on combining visual elements (captivating Florence) and brilliant atmosphere (Hans Zimmer's music, excellent camera work). The opening raw shootout stands out in this delicately crafted film sore thumb. Anthony Hopkins benefits here primarily from his voice rather than actual acting, which may disappoint true Lecter fans, whereas Gary Oldman in the role of Mason is outstanding and the makeup artists once again excelled. (2003.10.26)

I don't really know what went wrong, if anything at all. The Silence of the Lambs is a concept and after such a film, people simply have nonsensical expectations. The problem is that, to be honest, the first part didn't really resonate with me either. It is definitely an excellent film, undoubtedly, just like this "Hannibal", where you can feel a certain creative vision, but similar thrillers just aren't my cup of tea. For me, Anthony Hopkins IS Hannibal Lecter, who disgustingly indulges in his victims, and since I also watch the series, I have a certain connection to the material. However, I don't need to return to the film, or rather the whole series, anytime soon...60% (2015.01.26)