I saw this b4 the original 'Silence of the Lambs' & i have to say that i liked Hannibal better. Hannibal is gross at times but amusing in a way. There are some great scenes, especially the opera & museum sequences in Italy. The chick who plays Clarice was kinda haggy & annoying but i enjoyed Anthony Hopkins usual stellar performance in the title role & the disfigured rich guy played by Gary Oldman was actually quite a character & the major focal point of the movie. Ray Liotta's bad cop is so twisted & evil i even wanted to hack his brain myself cos he deserved it! I can't wait to see 'Red Dragon' now (the 3rd in the trilogy), i'm heading to my local video store 2nite, but i will forever be scarred by big angry hogs from now on - lol....

Frankly, I think Hannibal was one of the better movies released that year, in comparison to the other tripe put out, like jurassic Park 3, jeepers creepers, or scary movie 2. Ridley Scott follows the book accurately, except for a few scenes which I would have LOVED to see, and Hopkins does a great job playing Hannibal, though he does lack the creepiness he had in Silence... All I really have to say is, I wish people would toughen up. Some scenes are definately gross, I agree, but please! The "Oh dear god, drug use! oh no, a naked picture! This will corrupt our pretty minds!" crap is going too far. You wanna live in a world like in Escape from LA? 0 tolerance for ANYTHING? Suck it up and enjoy the movie for what it is, entertainment.

I waited to see this movie on DVD (I'm cheap I know)I had read alot of reviews prior to seeing the film and read how gross it really was. I had no idea How sick the ending was going to be. I fast forward after the point of the eating of Ray Lotta's brain by Hannibel. The film to that point was OK, but after that I was done. If there's a sequal (& I know there will be) I be skipping it.

With the advantage of 21st century effects, Hannibal creates a different, but equally stunning impression as the original. Anthony Hopkins is as creepy as ever, and the scenes of violence serve to develop the cruelty of Harris's characters. Gory as it is, no one should be shocked to see this from the creator of Silece of the Lambs. This movie brillantly brings the novel to screen and is magical to fans who appreciate the genre.

This is either a love it or hate it movie. I loved the "Silence of The Lambs", but I found the sequel to be completley unneccessary. The plot to "Hannibal" was idiotic, and it was far more boring than it was exciting or scary. Even worst, this movie disgraces "The Silence Of the Lambs". And does anyone find the attraction between Agent Starling and Hannibal Lecture to be a tad too cheesy? The ending is completley predictible, you know that the directors want to make a third film. If you've seen "The Silence of The Lambs", don't bother watching "Hannibal". This movie destroys a once-classic film.

Hannibal was a pretty good film. A little less gore though. the "brain scene" was something that keep you thinking about it for a while. I like the fact that it deals with Hannibal more.

I though The Silence Of The Lambs was brillant,it had everything,Suspense,Human Drama & Emotion,The girl that would direct Eve Bayou's and a truly chilling performance by Hopkins.Well Hannibal has none of that.It is a boring,dull,sluggish,badly acted supposed to be thriller,Why cast Juliane Moore when she's not even in half of the movie,also Hannibal is not that scary in this the thing in the 1st was he could hurt anyone even behind bars well of course he could out of bars I mean my god how stupid can you be he this gets all of his credbillity taken away.

Althouth this film kept me very much interested and I thought Anthony Hopkins was sensational I also thought it lacked a certain something. 'Silence of the Lambs' was so interesting because it managed to be chilling without being gruesome whereas 'Hannibal' really does rely on that age old formula of blood and guts to be scary. I often felt sickened rather than scared. However saying that I did fnd the gory scenes very effective and thought Gary Oldham's much over looked in his sinister role as one of Hannibals victims.

I met the cast of "Hannibal" this past summer when they were filming in Richmond, so I may be biased, but I loved this movie. I was so intrigued that I had to go back to the movie and see it again. The dinner scene is breathtaking. I must admit that if filmmakers had used more details that are in the book, it would have made for even better movie. But all the same, I'd see it again.

OK at first but from the point in time Hannibal makes the German Shepard cower in the corner through the scenes where the hogs bypass him to eat the tough guys and he carries on a conversation with Paul while he is carving up his brain are so ludicrous that only an moron would believe it.

"Hannibal" is nowhere near as memorable or special as its classic predecessor, "The Silence of the Lambs." Rather than concentrating on a strong storyline with basically talk of the violence, which was done in "Lambs", this sequel has one gratuitous gory scene after another. Anthony Hopkins stays in character as Hannibal Lecter, but here, as a criminal on the loose, he is required to camp it up rather than just talk about his and others' violent behaviors, which he did in a jail cell in the first film. Julianne Moore is nowhere as convincing as Jodie Foster, who, after reading about the gruesomeness in the script, wisely chose to skip this bloodbath. And the final dinner scene is one where the viewer is to judge if it is in good taste or bad taste. This sequel is recommended for those with strong stomachs only!

I as many other people believe that sequels have a lot to be desired. Hannibal, is an huge expception to this. I found the story line exceptional, the characters, very believable, and the special effects more than real. I for one will be haunted by this movie, and will be watching for it to come on DVD!

Almost all crimes committed in the united states are lifted from film. the nasty little book and it's accompaniment, the movie only contributed to the problem. A small boy in Montana or Wyoming, was recently tormented and murdered, then he was eaten by his predator. Hollywood has to take responsibility. They know that film makes an impression: for example the propoganda films shown during the war, film can be used as brain-washing and is known to be a social- shaper. If anyone in the film industry can "whip-up" an ounce of compassion for the very people harris calls the "lambs" then create something other than yet another monster-hero for the sick and depraved to worship.

I would say it`quite an interesting film! Julianne Moore is very good, even if it wasn`t easy to take Jodie foster`s role! Anthony Hopkins is always very impressive and the main plot pastes you in your armchair! It`s one of the best "second part" I`ve ever seen!

I actually thought the movie was equal to the first in many ways. Although I prefer not to see violence just for the sake of seeing it, this was a horror movie not a frieking comedy. So it was horrifying. The scene at the end, as gross as it was, was not any different than scenes you can see on TV on a daily basis. They just call it educational. Have you not seen the brain surgury on the infant, where the cut the top of his skull off. At first I thought it was an autopsy, until the brain began bleeding. Anyhow, it really was outstanding. Perhaps not as deep as the first but certainly excellent for HORROR.

Boring, Stupid, lack of suspense... Just carnage, no terror

A disappointment. The "most intense twenty minutes" promised at the end did not materialize. The only reason we were on the edge of our seats was waiting to go home. The violence depicted did not add to the story, but was merely violence for violence sake. Hannibal in a public role as curator was totally unbelievable.

Strange how nobody's review had anything to do with the film's stance on religion. At one point I was even insulted that Hannibal even had to go as far as to explain Judas to us like we didn't understand the simliarity between the disemboweled hanging guy and Judas of the Bible. Also, deranged serial-killer turned Jesus was a little hard to swallow at first, but when you see what he does to Paul when he gives him a taste of his own intellect, it is a bit more palletable. Honestly, can't anyone see the archtypical characters making statements through artistic expression? If there's a Jesus, this movie says he's pissed!

I watched "Hannibal" the first week it came out in Oz. I hadn't seen "Silence of the Lambs" before, but still got the movie. However, I'm 16, and I can safely say that it was the most horrifying movie I had ever watched. I agree Anthony Hopkins and Julianne Moore both acted excellently and it was a good movie, but the violence just overwhelmed and sickened me. I believe it should most definitely be rated R18 as in Australia, currently any 15 year old can see this, and I hope that the 15 year olds are desensitised enough by violence to not be distubed by the film and its themes. I sure am lucky I have seen violent movies before, otherwise I'd be having nightmares every time I sleep.

I loved this movie so much! Supported by the brilliant Anthony Hopkins, it was a thriller that had just the bite that I wanted. Though I would've liked a bit more of the "real" Hannibal, meaning a bit more violence, but if there was then I probably wouldn't have been allowed to see it, which would've been terrible. I can't understand how anyone could think Hannibal is a mindless killer, he isn't, that's what makes it so good, because he harms those who are rude, or worse. And he doesn't kill the one he loves, Clarice. If he did, then I could understand. This is a true masterpiece of hollywood, but the only bad thing is that Jodie Foster wasn't in it. OH well.

Whilst at no time would this movie be considered a turkey, but still this cant disguise the major flaws that exist in this film. One of the problems here is Julieanne Moore (a talented actress in her own right) who seems at times to be weighed down by the ghost of Jodie Fosters oscar winning turn as Clarice Starling in Silence of the lambs. Hopkins as well seems to have regressed from the caged and understated menace of the first film to camp pantoesque villain, character development is sacrificed for a series of gimmicky set pieces, the shoot out at the fish market being a prime example, Scotts ommissions from the book are glaring ie Mason Vergers muscle bound sister and her relationship with Barney, which could have been interesting addition to the film and the changing of Thomas Harris's original ending (obviously with an obligatory sequel in mind). Also the fact that Lecters background is not touched upon as in the book dissapoints. This is not to say that Ridley Scotts post Gladiator turn is without merit espousing stunning Florentine visuals and some gory effects as well as (the under used) Gary Oldman as Lecters arch nemesis Mason Verger, a role that hinted at much more depravity beneath the skin than the audience was allowed to see. Viewed as a singular piece of work Hannibal is entertaining enough...but lacks the long term chill factor and sheer quotability of Jonathan Demmes (Silence of the lambs) or even Michael Manns (Manhunter).

Well, I'll say the movie was okay. Despite how unrealistic some scenes where. ***SPOILER**** Julianne Moores Character was completely annoying when she went and rescued Hannibal. The Man was a Psychotic Killer and I think he deserved a little bit of torture at the very least. When I want to know is how she hoped to capture Him when she had previouly recanted how 'Hannibal' had killed 3 cops while incarcerated. She didn't act like a trained FBI agent, and I was truly disappointed about how much the truly sick Hannibal was glorified in this movie. Also would like to know why the Hogs did not eat Hannibal, but merely watched him walk out. My boyfriend thinks it was because they sensed that he was fearless ...puhlease, if that isn't corny I don't know what is. ****SPOILER ENDS*******

I loved this movie! I do not understand how people are rating it so low. Granted the absence of Jodie Foster made me a little less partial to the film, Anthony Hopkins completely blew me away! He can reach deep into his soul and make it seem like he is Hannibal, not a private little man. I think this film deserves 4 stars, not 2!

I loved the movie; although many of the scences were a little too grusome for me, it had all the suspence of "Silence of the Lambs." I wish Jodie Foster could have been Clarice again (it would have added more authenticity), but Julianne Moore did a great job! The movie kept me on the egde of my seat and it was amazing. Anthony Hopkins did a great job, and he kept himself just like the old Hannibal Lecter.

I live 10 minutes from where Thomas Harris grew up (Rich, Miss.) His mother, Polly C., was my biology teacher. She used to talk about her son back then (1967). She said he was sick then, so he must be terminal now. Seriously, the movie is unreal, just like Silence of the Lambs.

BORING!!! None of the suspense of Silence of the Lambs. I have to admit that I was ready to blow chunks after the dinner scene. I was very disappointed.

This movie does not deserve an R-Rating, and thankfully in my country it is only rated MA-15. This movie sucked me in from the opening scenes with Clarice (hello Clarice), to when we all gave a little cheer when we first saw Dr. Lecter himself. Anthony Hopkins is brilliant in this movie, his portrayal of Hannibal is flawless. If this film doesn't have it all it at least had an awful lot. It had suspense, depth and the sardonic humor that I had been waiting for in a film. 'Hannibal' is a treat for people who like their movies with a little more bite.

I think this is a movie that you will either hate or love. I loved it! First of all what was intriguing to me about it was that in several ways Dr Lecter seemed more human and civil than his frenzied, selfish opponents. I remember he often looked compassionate. And of course he preferred to only "eat the rude" whenever feasable. I guess I was the only one that appreciated all those aspects of irony in the film, because I have yet to encounter a review that mentions it! I mean, how could people miss that? Anyway, Clarice, and rightly so, was the only character that was on a equal plane with Dr Lecter. I thought it was very interesting that no matter what she did she still had his respect and protection. It was almost sexual how protective he was of her. Let me add that I think that idiotic teenage American horror films such as "Scream" have trained Americans just to appreciate raw fear and not irony and character interaction.

Eeeeeewwwwwww.

Anthony Hopkins is an amazing actor, but less is more. I felt the movie was disturbing - I think there are some things we really do not need to see. Torcher and idea of being conscious and talking while your brain is sliced off and then fed to you, is one of these things - Little makes me ill or upset but this movie achieved both. What does this say about our culture that nudity is bad yet explicit acts of violence are ok. The one refreshing thing in this film was that for once animals were not slaughtered by the mad man and at one point they get even - this of course from a vegetarian's point of view.

It kept me in suspense to the end. My wife left before the last banquet scene, because her stomach could not take it, but I hung on to the end. That Dr. Lechter alluded law enforcement just one more time made the movie appealing just to know there will be another sequel someday. I did not feel the same intensity as the first movie, but Anthony Hopkins was masterful throughout the movie.

I was truly impressed by this movie. It's an intellectual horror film and therefore wasn't appreciated by main stream America or it's critics. It presents the actions and judgements of psychopaths (and I'm not just talking about Hannibal) in a light such that they are easy to follow, even if you, as a person, don't agree. Hannibal gives you the sense that it's ok to sympathize with the psycho-killer and I think that strikes people in the wrong way. The sophisticated nature of the scenes, the very beautiful combined with the very macabre, evokes feelings, emotions, and empathies that the average moviegoer doesen't encounter but they are incredable and very real. Above all, Hannibal is a sorrowful and twisted story about power. The power of the characters to control their own destinies and circumstances. Intrepid Julianne Moore wants the power to bring justice, lackey Ray Leota wants power over the justice system, madman Gary Oldman wants power over his circumstances, and the cannibal Anthony Hopkins wants power over the world by eating those who aren't worthy. This movie is haunting and true to form. Perhaps it's simply because America can't hate the derranged and terrifying Dr. Lecter, it can't appreciate Hannibal.

It was a good movie.. It had a well thought out set up.. Other than it being somewhat graphic and gruesome it was to my liking.

Excellen acting. Gorgeous actress. But why do we focus so much on these gory things? The movie is simply sick. You get absolutely nothing from it after it's over./

Unwatchable. Total garbage.

This movie lacked the suspense of "Silence of the Lambs" and turned the storyline into a twisted romance. The only thing that saves it is the incredible performance of Anthony Hopkins.

I found this adaptation to be right on the money. As a fan of the novel, I was reluctant to see a filmed adaptation, as I was terribly disappointed with the screen version of Harris' initial Hannibal story "Red Dragon". That film was called "Manhunter" and was in severe contrast to the novel, especially the finale. And with that in mind, I was certain that the "Hannibal" film would also alter the finale. In a strage political climate in which hypocrites spout their rhetoric about screen violence and movie studios alter their films to down play the violence therein, films in which violence is a plot motivated event nessessary for story flow have become little more then watered-down TV movies of the week. As an adult, I do NOT need some politician telling me what is and isn't suitable for me to watch. And I certainly don't need a movie critic doing it. But, thankfully "Hannibal" the film doesn't shy away from the violence nessessary for charicter development and story flow. In fact, a considerable amount of the novel is in tact here... which is in and of itself not something Hollywood normally does. So as a fan of the novel, I must say that this is one of the best novel-adaptations ever made. And certainly one of the greatest horrific films. Any fan of "Silence of the Lambs" will see this film, but it should also be seen by others as thus far this decade, this is the best film to come out.

I now understand the real reason why Jodie Foster decided against appearing in Hannibal. It's a shame that Anthony Hopkins chose to reprise his role in this unpardonable excuse for a film. It just goes to show to what lengths Americans will go to to shape graphic gore into what Hollywood considers quality filmmaking. And you wonder why American culture is going to the dogs and why children think nothing of taking a gun and shooting their classmates. America, wake up and smell the capuccino. This film simply glorifies sickness and violence.

Hannibal was one of the most perfect movies I have seen in a very long time. After "lambs", I have been eagerly awaiting this movie, and after reading the book, I have been on the edge of my seat waiting for the movie. The first minutes of the film were so necessary to establish Clarice on her own, and althought still very FBI, still a feeling and believable character. Only through these events, can she be once again, be consumed (no pun intended) by the hunt for her old friend. We find Hannibal living a life of art and class, doing his best to fit in, undisguised and free. Make no mistake, he is still the monster we love to hate, and has to be shown as such. The story and scenery sweeps you away in Florence, a place where Hannibal can stroll the streets and enjoy life once again. His return to America is less an escape and more like some last ditch effort to be reunited with his soul mate. I can't remember how many times the audience erupted with laughter, how can anyone resist such a man? The ending was different, but perhaps even i was glad of that. I had no trouble seeing it when I read the book, but I couldn't imagine it on screen. There was one gasp "thats it??" when it was all over, but i don't think any of us were disappointed, we just wanted more. Overall Hannibal hit all the right buttons, the gore, the disfigured Verger, the unending chase. Best of all, he's still out there........righ

Where is all the gore that all these critics are talking about? I just came from seeing "Hannibal", and I enjoyed it. I thought "Silence" was more gory than "Hannibal." The part in "Silence" where he strings the guard up from the cage is very gory. The end scene in "Hannibal" where he's eating Ray Liotta's brain, come on. I liked "Hannibal" because Sir Anthony was more human. The movie was good, but could've used more blood and madness like Hannibal was in "Silence." And saying that there was drug use in the movie...It wasn't like someone was 'shooting up' Dr. Lecter gave Clarice a shot of morphine during the stitching up of her wound. That is not drug use. This by NO MEANS should be called a HORROR movie.

Your critic is a buffoon. "Hannibal" was a most enjoyable film. Comparing it to "Silence..." is unjust - it is a much different type of film; in many ways superior to the previous Lechter outing. As far as toning down the violence in films is concerned, there is a great distance between the mindless slashing in flicks like "Scresm 5" and the stylistic slaying in "Hannibal". Your critic needs to get a little more red meat in his diet, and crank up some more "jazz" music.

OMG What a sleeper. There is none of the suspense that the first movie had. The characters are already developed in the first movie but they are boored to death in this one. Or at least I was. I asked several people on the way out if they also thought it was boring. And ALL agreed. My vote: No Redeeming value whatsoever. Ken.