Hannibal (2014)

This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

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.

This sequel of "The Silence of the Lambs" is well done, with this time an Hannibal Lecter always played by Hopkins, who is at the center of the film. He's in Florence and lives a "normal" life, if I can say this, while Agent Starling tracks him. With an involved atmosphere, Ridley Scott shows us a monstrous Hannibal but this time, more physically whereas in the first opus, it was the psychological that was put forward. This is good sequel to Silence of the Lambs which deserves a good 7/10. Hannibal the Cannibal.

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.

Firstly, no spoiler alert warnings necessary in my reviews. The second movie in the series if you don't count Manhunter which you shouldn't. I have watched this 4 movie series starting with Silence of the lambs, then this one, then Red Dragon, and finally Hannibal Rising. The entire story line runs like this, starting with SOTL, then a sequel, then a prequel, followed by another prequel. Silence was certainly a good place to start. That's a good movie which I gave 8/10. I feel a movie has to be an absolute masterpiece to score 10. Hannibal was an OK movie. It feels like a cash grab a little bit. The plot is a little...meh. It has more gore than suspense this time around. I will say (without spoilers) it has one or two delightfully original set pieces.Anthony Hopkins is as good as always. Not so good that I would call him Sir, but very good. Julianne Moore was just OK. She has been better in other movies. She plays the role of Clarice Starling, previously played by Jodie Foster. I get the feeling that she could've benefited by studying the previous movie a little more. Jodie Fosters version had more poise and self control. I enjoyed watching this movie overall. For me, it was OK. Not great but OK.