SICK, DISGUSTING, AND DISAPPOINTING. Please do not take children to see this violently disturbing movie.

Having had the experience of literally choking back my rising gorge through parts of this movie, I can now understand why Jodi Foster turned down a reprise of the role of Agent Starling. This sequel posessed none of the depth of the original "Silence of the Lambs." The almost formulaic "Hannibal" had little real suspense and drama, and no real character development. That creepy feeling audiences were left with after seeing "Silence" is totally lacking here. Instead, the director has chosen to build a formulaic and mostly predictable plot around periodic attempts at making the audience wretch in disgust. This movie should definately have received an "NC-17" rating, instead of the "R" given it in the U.S. (it WAS rated "MA" in Australia and "18" in the UK.)

One of the endearing qualities of "Silence" is the "emotional bond" that was developed between the protagonist (Foster, as Agent Starling) and the audience; no attempt at developing this bond was made in "Hannibal" by director Ridley Scott. Instead, the film relies on a standard "good cop, bad cop, misunderstood cop" formula in an attempt to develop a sense of sympathy for Moore's character.

Substituted for "Silence"'s verbal accounts of Dr. Lecter's forays as a gourmand of human flesh are gruesome and vivid on-screen depictions of cannibalism. The most disturbing and disgusting of these is a scene in which a restrained, fully-alert man has his skullcap removed, his brain carved like a turkey, pan-fried, and fed to him.

Hopkins, in an interview, reported that he was pitching the idea of a third "Lecter" movie to De Laurentiis. I pray it never gets beyond the "pitching" phase. Hannibal is not suspense. It is not even horror. It is vile.

very disappointed in this movie. expected alot more out of it. would make a decent stand alone movie but, for a sequel stunk.

the first one, in my opinion was better because it was more of a thriller. this did have some very graphical scenes too. i think it needed a buffalo bill type character in it.

dont get me wrong, anthony hopkins and julianne moore did a great job but she isn't jodie foster. i would wait to see it on dvd or video. doesn't live up to the hype. oh well maybe next one :)

I felt the movie was a big dissapointment, the speed was far to slow and it didn't live up to all of the hype.

There were a few good scenes and one liners but it wasn't what I expected, wait and rent it you wont have to wait in the long lines at the theater.

I read the book and I thought the movie was done fairly well. Except for the ending which they changed way too much and disappointed me very much.

Julianne Moore was wonderful, but Jodie Foster was missed. There should have been a little more about the involvement to railroad Clarice out of the FBI and I think that Mason could have been made to be a bit more of a mystery. Hopkins was excellent as usual.

I believe that the book was too big for the movie. But it was still good and woth seeing. I loved the part when Lecter brushed her hair on the mery-go-round. Original ending would have made it an original movie.

Don't compare this movie to "Silence of the Lambs" as THIS screen play does not have the oomph of that one. That being said, the movie was pretty good.

Anthony Hopkins does his usual best. Without details I must caution those with weak stomachs that this movie does not have the subtltey that the first did with violence and gore. This movie is designed to be even more shocking than "Silence"....or maybe the producers felt they must go even further than that film. It did keep me on the edge of my seat.

Hannibal, the sequel to Silence of the Lambs is enjoyable to watch, thought-provoking and action-packed, but will no doubt offend many Christian viewers with its anti-Christian messages.

I walked into this movie expecting an experience like no other. The buzz surrounding this movie had a life of its own and everyone was talking about it. I remember feeling so amazed at Silence of the Lambs with its intelligent script, great music, and ominous atmosphere. I was very disappointed when I left the theater after Hannibal. I felt let down and shortchanged. Somewhere along the line, the dream was lost.

I won't bore you with the details. I will leave that up to the other reviews. What I expected to see was an intriguing, intelligent film which would have a life of its own and enthrall me like the first one did. Instead, I was greeted by a film which laughed at itself and in spite of itself. Hannibal seemed nothing more than a black comedy with some gross out and scare scenes thrown in so it can call itself a thriller. Anthony Hopkins and Julianne Moore were good as usual--Ray Liotta too. But what could they do with this piece of trash? Alas, not much. Very disappointing as a sequel to the original and as a stand-alone film.

The cinematography was excellent and the aforementioned actors were excellent. But this film was a waste.

DON'T BOTHER...this movie (I use the term lightly) SUCKS!

It starts out OK...then you find yourself wondering when something really scarry is going to happen... I feel that Anthony was wasted in this film. I feel the money spent by myself was really wasted.

DON'T BOTHER...this movie (I use the term lightly) SUCKS!

There isn't really anything positive to say about the movie. It is a big flop.

DON'T BOTHER...this movie (I use the term lightly) SUCKS!

I just wonder what the film makers are trying to do? You actually sorta feel sorry for "poor" Hannibal. He does have feelings, and he would cut off his hand for you...if he really liked you.

DON'T BOTHER...this movie (I use the term lightly) SUCKS! (get it)

It is Rated R, and the Title "Hannibal" refers to Doctor Hannibal Lechter, nicknamed Hannibal the Cannibal. Need I say more?

But, undeniably it is a very well done thriller, with intelligent wit, dark storyline and some great acting. (All the makings of a great movie hmmm?)

Let me just say this folks.... HE IS CALLED HANNIBAL THE CANNIBAL!!!

Do you go to a movie like this expecting to see no violence?

I went with no expectations, like I do with all movies. Sure it was gross, (Like a dozen other movies I have seen).

What this movie is not...
This is not a chick flick, not a good first date movie, and definately NOT a "let's take the whole family out to see some wholesome family entertainment" (morons) type of movie.

What this movie is...
Standalone or sequel, this movie shocked me, with twists, gore, and great cinematography, musical score, and acting. Yes, I said it, acting!

Jody Foster was not missed like most will tell you. She was great in Silence of the Lambs no doubt, and there is no question as to her acting ability. But having said that, this movie would have been alot less without Anthony Hopkins as opposed to Jody Foster.

Julianne Moore was great in her part, I'm glad she didn't try to be Jody Foster.
There is nothing is worse than an actor or actress spending the first 30 minutes of the film trying to get us to believe they were in the original and not someone else.

If you think your girlfriend or wife, (or the children you take to a Rated R movie), might be offended by such a thing as gore. Then please don't take them to see this movie. It is not a movie for the squeemish. But, it is a damn fine move none-the-less.

Yes, go see it now. Just don't take your children, but I didn't have to tell you that one. (did I?)

I read the book and thought the movie followed the plot pretty well until the end. The book ending was great but the one in the movie was acceptible.

What really made the movie as enjoyable as it was to me was watching "SILENCE OF THE LAMBS" the night before on TV. There were a lot of references made in this movie to "Silence". The blood and gore were to be expected. (After all he is who he is) and that is how the book was written.

I am looking forward to a third movie. Hopkins was terrific but I did miss Jody Foster.

I have never seen a sequel so terrible to a part 1 which was so good. It seems like the younger croud was more into this movie.

It is really horrible. If you are extremely bored, go for it. 2 hours of boredom, 11 minutes of cool film.

This movie is a MAJOR DISAPPOINTMENT it made no sense at all. It jumped around
trying to make a story but failed,the movie should be shelved forever!!!!!!!!

Not as good as Silence of the Lambs. Slow moving,at times boaring.
This film misses Jodi Foster.

Hannibal is not as good as the movie by Thomas Harris. Through out the film Hannibal Lector is portrayed as a hero because those he kills deserved to die in their own way.

This takes the monster out of the character and replaces the horror genre to just thriller.

Julianne Moore is good as Starling, her accent is cleverly portrayed and she replaces Jodi Foster well.

But the film lacks that crucial crunch instead we are given a sequel rather inferior to the original.

The idea is clever Anthony Hopkins is as usual brillant as is the unreconisible Gary Oldman as Mason Lector's victim.

Sadly the strength of the film dosen't quite match 'Silence of the Lambs', but the film remains enjoyable, with some slick gory scenes for the horror fans.

Good but not superb.

With all the hype surrounding Hannibal, I had very high hopes for it. Unfortunately, it didn't really come close to meeting my expectations.

In it's credit, I will say that the acting was superb. Hopkins was great as always, and Moore did a nice job filling in Jodie Foster's shoes, but to me the real treat was Gary Oldman. He stole just about every scene he was in. But this is basically where all the good things in the movie end.

One main problem here is that Hannibal just didn't create the same kind of creepiness that Silence of the Lambs did. It seemed as if everything in this movie was just done for shock value. The director seemed to be more concerned with making us sick rather than putting out a quality psychological thriller. This is most evident in the final scene which is just so ridiculous I can't even begin to describe it.

So, if you are going to see this movie, I encourage you to wait for the rental and see it for it's one redeeming quality: the acting.

The film is a little better than the original. Ten years ago I saw "Silence of the Lambs" and it wasn't up to oscar contender. The plotline involving a serial killer, had distracted me from the real story of the movie and that is Hammibel Leter, the most intresting character in the film.

And now 10 years later, we get to see the character in a more disturbing way. His insanity has been exposed and we had to sit there in the theatre watching him. We just can't take his eyes off him.

We can't really expect the same magic from a sequel we all know
that. Especially when a new actress takes over such a plum role.
Julianne Moore does a fine job taking over Jodie Foster's signature
role. Anthony Hopkins is as horrid and villianous as before and the
suspence and action leave you gripping your arm rest tightly.

No Hopkins and Moore do not share the same chemistry as Hopkins
and Foster, but they both did well and this could be another
Oscar winning role for Hopkins and maybe another nod for Moore.

*** 3 stars (out of four)

being a fan of 'Silence of the Lambs' i felt compelled to see this movie. i figured, since this sequel is based on the book's sequel it couldn't be that
bad. However, i don't think i could have been more wrong had i gone in thinking it was cooking show.

i won't say i hated it because A) that's an awfully strong word, and B) i have a strange fondness for Dr. Lector himself but, as far as the movie and it's
various plots go, it was pretty disappointing.

the gore really wasn't anything the average cinema-goer hasn't seen before. the really extreme stuff (thing people complained about) looked exactly that: extreme. as most fans of b-movies might recognize, there is a very fine line between gory and tacky when it comes to on-screen violence. unfortunately, the violence in this film crosses to the tacky side with little to no redeeming qualities. you know, when on screen violence has that cheesy "hey, this'll
gross 'em out" kinda look that just makes it so unreal that it's actually gross-out factor drops quickly from a 10 to a -8. add a few carnivorous pigs and you've got a pretty unconvincing piece of movie.

not to mention the ever terrible Ridley Scott and his damned change of camera speeds (a la the waste of celluloid some call "Gladiator") in totally ineffective, unnecessary places. seriously, that man needs to find a new director of photography as soon as humanly possible to save his already horrible filmmaking career. like gladiator and all it's phallic symbols and slow-motion wheat, this film as all sorts of needless slow motion and speedy, poorly lit trees reminiscent of a Blair Witch scrap.

if you're a fan of the series and you NEED to see it, trust me, i'll understand. but save the couple of bucks and wait for the rental. you'll be glad you did. just thought you'd like to know.

Despite a creditable performance from Anthony Hopkins, this is a disappointing sequel to 'Silence Of The Lambs'

Unfortunately it appears that over the ten years since the first movie the producers have forgotten what made it so exciting and successful i.e. the Clarice Starling character tracking down a serial killer via forensics and the brilliant mind of 'Hannibal the Cannibal' The mystery, the intrigue, the horror and just a smattering of violence.

This time around they have made the same frustrating mistake that so many TV and movie producers in America ALWAYS seem to make.......... That is, take a successful TV show/movie find out which character/situation is the most popular. And, whose inclusion incidentally is nearly always just a portion of what makes the whole thing gel completely.

Then, after heaps of market research without actually listening to what people want, make the next series or movie sequel solely around that character/situation.

You might liken this to asking what it is that people like about a chocolate gateaux and then providing them with a bowl of whipped cream. Very nice for the first mouthful but you soon get sick of it.

So there you have it. This time around there’s less mystery, less intrigue (ergo less thinking to do!) but more horror and violence.

5/10 glenk@foxit.com.au (Feel free to contact me)

Unauthorized publication or distribution without the consent of Glen Kimberley is actively encouraged. (As long as you let me know) I will not track you down, kill your family, rape your dog, burn your house down or bang a supermarket trolley into your car door.