Carson Huelle The more you watch Hannibal, the more you question its existence. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) is now living in freedom after his escape in Silence of the Lambs. He lives in Italy and is a curator at a museum, sounds thrilling right? The same protagonist arises from its predecessor, Clarice Starling. Except for one change, Julianne Moore is playing her and not Jodie Foster. Her job throughout this film is really unclear and it doesn't help that Julianne Moore and Jodie Foster look nothing alike. Between the change of actress, messy plot and awful makeup on Gary Oldman's character, this movie seems to never find its stride. It was purely put out for the purpose of making money, not following any advice from its predecessor in the process. What made Silence of the Lambs great was the relationship Clarice had with Hannibal, helping her stop Buffalo Bill. We get none of that in this movie, all dull characters with no purpose. Part of the characters not having any significance is because of whoever cast this movie deserves a Razzie award. The film peaks in it's "dinner scene" but is ruined by Ray Liotta being in the movie, why is Ray Liotta in Hannibal? The world may never know. The only actor who puts on an above average performance is Anthony Hopkins, but nothing near his Oscar winning performance in the previous film. That is the only reason in watching this movie, curiosity. Curiosity in if Hannibal has any reminiscence of Silence of the Lambs.

Alanjackd Firstly..I think Lecter is the champion of all screen baddies...somebody who would eat your living flesh is, for me, the ultimate horror.Secondly...don't think of it as a sequel and hold it against SOTL, because that was all about Starling...this is about Lecter...so it's not a sequel...just an opening of a bit part from the 1st movie. While the 1st movie dealt with the horror and misgivings of the bad guy...this dealt with the horror and misgivings of the good guys...and pointed out there's not much difference in them both.Beautifully acted and very well directed...this delves more into the wheres and not the whys...some of the dialogue is fantastic while dealing with sexism and office bullying.For me, Tony Hopkins dominated the 1st movie without hardly being in it....and he does the same again with a lead role. I also think in both movies the women are very strong characters..and that adds to the realism about Lecters lack of his mother in his life...if that makes sense. The violence is almost invisible , which makes me wonder why it was an 18 cert in the U.K..Excellent storytelling with excellent performances all round. I look at the average score and I notice very lows and very highs...as I said in my summary...you either love it or hate it...I loved it and will watch and watch again.

Pauliina The first thing that stood out when I watched this movie is how boring it was. Halfway through the movie, I was checking how much time is left, and wishing that I was sleeping instead. None of the characters were interesting, and the plot was quite thin. The addition of the detective took away time that could have been used to develop Hannibal and Starling.I feel like the character of Hannibal is overrated and underdeveloped. The only things we know about him are that he is a cannibal (for no reason), he likes to kill rude people (for no reason), he's classy (more like pretentious in my opinion), and he can instantly psychoanalyze anyone by just looking at them. A character who knows things that should be impossible to know isn't smart, he's just good at guessing or is the author's pet. And sometimes he really is the smartest person in the room, because everyone else is so stupid. I've seen much better serial killer and genius characters in other movies.The brain-eating scene was one of the most disgusting things I've seen. It was also scientifically dubious. Apparently being a surgeon and an anesthesiologist are included in Hannibal's Gary Stu skills. Watching Starling wobble on high heels on morphine was painful to look at, and cemented my opinion that the Hannibal/Starling romance is disgusting.

jbusquet I have to say that I watched the movie after reading the book and it has deeply disappointed me. I only wanted to watch it for seeing on a screen the end of the book but the screenwriters have changed the end so for me this movie has no sense. They have also deleted one of my favorite characters:Margot (one of the most important in the book). I can't understand why they have done so many changes to the plot when they had such a big novel in front of them. The movie seems a bad summary of things that happens during the novel. They have changed so many things that in the end nothing makes sense. It's like they hadn't had enough time to do things well. This is also a pity because the actors did a great performance (specially Hopkins). I think this movie could have been something big. Please do not watch this movie, buy the book instead. I know it's more expensive but I promise you it is worth.