Hannibal (2001)
After having successfully eluded the authorities for years, Hannibal peacefully lives in Italy in disguise as an art scholar. Trouble strikes again when he's discovered leaving a deserving few dead in the process. He returns to America to make contact with now disgraced Agent Clarice Starling, who is suffering the wrath of a malicious FBI rival as well as the media.
Watch Trailer
Cast
Similar titles
Reviews
In this film I nurtured a love-hate of Lecter. I hate him for sadism (which shows when he eats the brain of a living person) but at the same time I love it because I think that behind all that malice there is a good part, which shows us when he saves the Starling and when he cuts his hand instead of that of the woman. overall nice film, but the previous one was more beautiful.
It doesn't quite touch the same standard as silence of the lambs, but it is a good sequel all the same. With a lot of new characters to indulge in and the setting of Italy provides a great cultural backdrop to Lectors extravagant taste.
"Hannibal" continues the saga of Dr. Hannibal Lecter from "Silence of the lambs". Hannibal meanwhile escaped to Italy where he lives as curator of a prestigious library. Being chased by both a former victim and the police, he contacts Clarice Sterling to continue their morbid chase.If you take away the prominent franchise, what you get is pretty much a very explicit but also quite basic thriller. There is an agent thrown out of service, a corrupt colleague, a very intelligent but arrogant villain and a personal connection between killer and investigator. There are also some big logical gaps that are somehow explained but not really to a point where no questions remain. Lecter moves around so obvious, killing people on open street without the slightest attempt to mask himself that it is truly painful. Also with all due respect to the special role Sterling plays in Lecter's mindset, I don't believe him losing his hand for her is something very likely to happen. However there will be many people with many intelligent explanations for that and so this is surely debatable.All in all I just don't think this film adds much to the franchise or would have been necessary. It is, more or less, just a basic thriller that takes profit from the prominent set of characters it is able to re-establish.
Sequel to the acclaimed "Silence of the Lambs", the problem with this movie is that it as such an awful script that nothing else can save it; which is a shame given the big names involved.Ridley Scott is one of the best directors ever, and although he manages some interesting sequences, he is not a miracle worker given the awful script that he has to work with; besides, the pace is slow and for 2 hours, in this regard, less would be more given the awful script that he has to work with.Anthony Hopkins is the only reason to watch this movie, still managing to deliver charisma to his character; the problem are the scenes where he kills: has always to say some 'clever' line before the kill (which is utterly stupid and unrealistic) and some attitudes are inconsistent with his personality and this is because of... you guessed it, the awful script.Julianne Moore does what she can with the awful script and dialogue given to her, but simply can't make forget Jodie Foster.Gary Oldman delivers a bizarre performance, and I mean it as a compliment (he is always good at that :D), and Ray Liota is always cool to watch.This movie is more gory, which I don't mind, but those scenes seemed more comic than frightening, with one exception... the ending...Recomendable just to those really interested in the franchise.