Hannibal on DVD (2001)

More interesting when he was behind bars

Northernsky from Halifax [Highly rated reviewer] , 08/06/2004

The main fault of this film and it’s not really the films fault at all, is the book it was sourced from.

“Hannibal” was a book too in love with its main protagonist, so much so it had the heroine, the intelligent and principled Clarice Starling run off with him. Thankfully the film dumps this preposterous premise. Unfortunately it cannot avoid over eulogising Dr Lector and surprisingly has just not strong enough a character to carry a film on his own.

This is primarily down to Anthony Hopkins portrayal. His camp pantomime approach strips him of his icy charisma. Compared to Brian Cox’s steely sarcastic cameo in the superb “Manhunter” this is cartoon villainy. He wanders round Florence looking like Henry Blofeld and exuding all the danger of the plumy voiced commentator.

Julianne Moore is an excellent actress but doesn’t sit right as the driven Clarice and Gary Oldham’s Mason Verger looks like a half melted waxwork of Skeletor.

The plots too silly to convince, again the fault of the book, and it finally ends with an attitude that says Lector is a bit of a rogue who just happens to horribly murder and occasionally eat people. The rascal.

It seems even the talented Ridley Scott could not make anything worthwhile with this risible material. The sooner Lector is behind bars again the better. He was far more interesting then.

Read all reviews

Gemma#24 from LEEDS , 23/09/2004

Now, I feel the need to have a mini rant about this film, as i think its seriously misunderstood. I feel that essentially, Hannibal is a dark and unconventional romance. If people could just accept hannibal for what it really is (a stylish and visually stunning film) rather than trying to compare it to silence of the lambs, they would probably really like it. Try to watch this without predjudice and treat it as a stand alone film rather than part of a trilogy, and you may just fall in love with it.

Read all reviews

davinder#4 from RUSHALL , 22/04/2004

I thought this was part 2 of the movie- it is only trailers, reviews etc. Ordered by myself in error. Thanks

Other than that, my first experience of videoisland has been very good. Great service.

Read all reviews

Hannibal Gets Hamstrung

David Stone-Haigh from Salford , 05/01/2005

Slick to the point of you can't see what's going on due to the gigantic glint shimmering off the fantastic production values and stunning cinematography. Shame Mr Scott et al forgot to slap on a good script, with some fine acting, some quality scares and a half decent plot (as apposed to a half baked one, shot so full of gaping holes you could get a whole fleet of buses through.) Go rent the much better 'Manhunter' instead and leave the Lector story where it should have ended- I blame you, Mr T Harriss esq, of 'Money Needed to Pay My Big Yacht Mooring Costs at Monaco' and Mr R Scott of, 'I Wish I'd Directed Alien III Instead of That Nice Young David Fincher Chappie' Land

Read all reviews

Hannibal

SAI81 from Tonbridge [Highly rated reviewer] , 18/03/2007

Dr Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) has been hiding in Florence, Italy for 10 years now. Back in America, Mason Verger (Gary Oldman), Lecter's sole surviving victim, wants revenge, by any means. He plans to draw Lecter, using, as his bait, the one thing he cares for: Agent Clarice M Starling (Julianne Moore).

WARNING: Before watching this film put all thoughts of it being as good as Silence Of The Lambs out of your mind.

Heed this warning and Hannibal is (for the most part) a good experience. I never expected this film to be better than it's classic predecessor, but it really is not as bad as has been reported. The biggest problems with Hannibal stem from the source novel, but to them later. What are the good points?

Perhaps the film's greatest asset is Ridley Scott. While his CV is by no means free of turkeys Scott always makes beautiful films and Hannibal is no exception. The look of the film is perfect, right down to the stock chosen for separate scenes (for example the film is notably grainier during the shootout at the fish market, lending the scene a documentary realism). As always with Scott the editing (by Pietro Scalia) is precise and well paced, never making the mistake more and more common today of cutting too fast in moments of action, rendering them nonsensical.

Julianne Moore makes a wonderful replacement for Foster. I shook in my boots when I heard the list of possible Starlings, such as Angelina Jolie, and Hilary Swank. Thank God for Julianne Moore, she's one of a very select few actresses working with the talent to match Jodie Foster. And match her she does, her accent is flawless and she gives a powerful, credible performance, particularly in her scenes with Ray Liotta. Moore's performance has been heavily criticised, other than the fact that she is not Foster I fail to see a reason for this.

It's sad to say but Hopkins' Lecter is far less impressive now. He seems not just to chew the scenery, but to ask for a second helping. This has removed much of the menace that he exhibited in Silence Of The Lambs and the film is the poorer for it.

The supporting cast is full of good turns by gifted performers. Ray Liotta (enjoying a renaissance with this and Blow) is excellent as Clarice's nemesis Paul Krendler and, as I said before, brings out the best in Moore when he is on screen. Frankie Faison reprises the role of Barney from Silence Of The Lambs I always liked Barney and Faison won my sympathy again here. Giancarlo Giannini impresses in a relatively small role as Inspector Pazzi.

With all these performances that are so good it is a shame to have to complain about an actor as gifted as Gary Oldman but his (stunning) make up seems to drown his performance.

So why is this review not overwhelmingly positive? It goes back to the book. The ending of the book and the ending of the film are not at all similar (at least as to the events). This is fortunate; the last 30 pages of the book were the worst, most mystifying, written in a very long time. Unfortunately the film's ending is no better. Indeed the film doesn't really end; it stops, inviting a sequel. This is a real shame, until the last 10 minutes or so Hannibal is good (if not great), then it falls at the last hurdle.

Read all highest rated reviews

Hannibal Gets Hamstrung

David Stone-Haigh from Salford , 05/01/2005

Slick to the point of you can't see what's going on due to the gigantic glint shimmering off the fantastic production values and stunning cinematography. Shame Mr Scott et al forgot to slap on a good script, with some fine acting, some quality scares and a half decent plot (as apposed to a half baked one, shot so full of gaping holes you could get a whole fleet of buses through.) Go rent the much better 'Manhunter' instead and leave the Lector story where it should have ended- I blame you, Mr T Harriss esq, of 'Money Needed to Pay My Big Yacht Mooring Costs at Monaco' and Mr R Scott of, 'I Wish I'd Directed Alien III Instead of That Nice Young David Fincher Chappie' Land

Read all highest rated reviews