hyped garbage

A waste of 90 minutes of my life

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

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.

it seems be a pretext for a new meet with the characters. and an exercise to give a frame to an unique story. and this is its basic sin - the desire to give another dimension to a perfect story. the bad thing remains the temptation to compare it with "The Silence of Lambs". it is the motif for be more than critic about "Hannibal". and it is not fair. because each actor does a good work. because Anthony Hopkins explores, in wise manner, each trait of his character. because Julianne Moore tries to act in reasonable way a role who is far to be comfortable for her and Giancarlo Giannini propose a fascinating character sketch, the sin for this status remaining to the script. it is strange the desire to shock for convince. terrible scenes, tension and a not coherent story are tools for compensate the status of poor copy of "The Silence of Lambs". nothing wrong. but this strategy transforms "Hannibal" in a pretext for explore the success of the first part of the series.

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.

Silence Of The Lambs was creepy almost in a classic 1980s fashion like its predecessor Manhunter filmed in the 80s. Hannibal, on the other hand, has an updated feel most likely because of the advancement of film technology from 1991 to 2001. Simply put, films just got better during that decade. Quite a few critics like to contrast Silence with Hannibal, but there is no reason to do this. They are two different story lines shot completely differently from one another. What makes this film stand out over the other are the gruesome gory scenes filmed slowly, deliberately designed to test the squeamishness of the viewer. Silence is an amusement park haunted house where no one ever gets hurt, Hannibal is that same haunted house in which a murdering psychopath lives undetected. I don't recommend this film to anyone who is sensitive to torture scenes or sudden violent death scenes, no matter his or her age. And children should not see this film until they are old enough to fully grasp that there is evil in this world which is beyond what most of us ever experience--at least physically. Psychically is another matter altogether. At the end of the film Hannibal makes the statement that St. Paul hated women. This is patently untrue, but we must consider the source of the statement--a man with a seared conscience who enjoys his kills with as much relish as anyone who immerses himself in his favorite hobby.The blatant child abuse at the end of this film could have been avoided since it added nothing to the story whatsoever. But once again, we must consider the source of the abuse--and steel ourselves against the human nature inside all of us which could, and very easily, create psychopathic destruction given the perfect conditions. More and more the world in which we live becomes that cesspool of perfect bacterial conditions.