Hannibal
Tags: psychological, neo noir, gothic, murder, boring, violence, atmospheric, flashback, revenge

Plot synopsis:
The film takes place 10 years after the events depicted in The Silence of the Lambs. In the opening scene, Barney, one of Hannibal Lecter's minders at the Baltimore mental hospital, talks to a disfigured and paraplegic man, Mason Verger (Gary Oldman), about the conversations Barney had with Lecter and Lecter's relationship with Clarice Starling. Barney then shows Verger a boxed object he's brought with him: the leather restraining mask used to cover Lecter's face when he was being transported. Barney asks for a price of $250,000 for it and Verger eagerly accepts.FBI agent Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore) is in Washington DC, leading a raid to arrest an HIV-positive drug dealer named Evelda Drumgo (Hazelle Goodman). Though Starling has laid out precise plans to the arresting team, the raid is horrifically botched when one of the agents rushes Drumgo and her gang after Starling orders them to stand down because Drumgo is carrying an infant. A massive gunfight breaks out and most of Drumgo's gang are killed, along with a few of the agents. When Clarice orders Drumgo to surrender, Drumgo whips out a machine pistol and opens firing, hitting Clarice. Clarice responds reflexively and shoots and kills Drumgo, splattering the infant with her blood. Clarice, who had been wearing a bulletproof vest, recovers the child and washes it off with a nearby hose. Starling is disgraced by Justice Department official Paul Krendler (Ray Liotta), whose romantic advances Starling had rejected years earlier.As a result of the publicity surrounding the drug raid, Starling and her past connection to escaped serial killer Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) come to the attention of one of Lecter's victims, Mason Verger, who is also a wealthy, sadistic pedophile. Verger, who was left horrifically disfigured and paralyzed by a past encounter with Lecter himself, still seeks revenge for what occurred. He uses his political influence to have Starling assigned to the Lecter case once again in the hope that this will draw Lecter out of hiding.Verger claims to have new information about Lecter (an X-ray), which he is willing to disclose only to Starling, and she is sent to his estate to collect it and interview him. Upon her arrival, Verger tells Starling about his history with Lecter. They met when Lecter was assigned by a court as Verger's therapist after Verger's conviction on multiple counts of child molestation. Verger, the only one of Lecter's victims to survive, was tricked into mutilating himself by Lecter after being given a nitrogen "popper". In the same incident, Verger was also persuaded by Lecter into sexual excitation by strangulation. Verger is now bedridden and confined to his secluded mansion, but with the assistance of his personal physician Cordell (Zeljko Ivanek) and other minions, he is pursuing an elaborate scheme to capture, torture and kill Lecter.In Florence, Italy, Chief Inspector Rinaldo Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini) of the Questura is investigating the disappearance of the curator of the Capponi Library, a Renaissance palace that serves as a repository of rare books, historical documents and art treasures. In the course of his investigation, Pazzi meets the new curator: "Dr. Fell," who is actually Hannibal Lecter.As Verger surmised, Lecter soon learns of Starling's public disgrace and reassignment to his case, and he sends her a letter that is at once sympathetic and mocking. The letter contains no apparent clue to Lecter's whereabouts, but Starling detects a strange fragrance on it. She takes it to a perfume company, where the experts inform her that the writer used a very expensive skin cream that could have been sold in only a few shops in the world, one of which is in Florence.Starling contacts the police departments of the cities where the shops are located, including Pazzi's department, asking for copies of any surveillance tapes made by cameras installed in the shops. When Pazzi sees one of his men making a copy of such a tape for Starling, he recognizes "Fell" in the tape and decides to find out why the FBI is interested in him. Pazzi accesses the FBI's database of fugitive criminals and learns that "Fell" is Hannibal Lecter. He also learns that Verger is offering a reward of $3 million to anyone who assists him in capturing Lecter in lieu of turning him over to the FBI (who offer a $250,000 reward). Hoping to collect the larger bounty, Pazzi makes contact with Verger's people and agrees to help them kidnap Lecter. Starling, meanwhile, has received the surveillance tape from Florence, has recognized Lecter, and has learned that Pazzi has been using the FBI's database to check on Lecter. She calls Pazzi and warns him against trying to capture Lecter himself, but Pazzi ignores her warning.Pazzi coerces a local pickpocket into wearing a cheap bracelet and attempting to rob Lecter. The pickpocket follows Lecter through the streets of Florence. When he reaches for Lecter's wallet, Lecter grabs him by the wrist (and the bracelet) and slyly stabs the man in the upper leg, severing his femoral artery. Pazzi finds the thief and takes the bracelet from him, leaving him to bleed to death on the street. Pazzi sends the bracelet with Lecter's prints to Verger who has them confirmed as Lecter's.Pazzi and Verger's men try to kidnap Lecter after his scheduled evening lecture on the poetry of Dante to a group of scholars at the Palazzo Vecchio, but their plan goes badly awry. Lecter interrogates Pazzi, forcing him to answer several questions by threatening to kill and eat Pazzi's wife. Lecter murders Pazzi by first slashing open the man's abdomen and then throwing him off an upper floor balcony with a noose around his neck -- the same fate of one of Pazzi's ancient ancestors. Lecter then escapes, deciding to return to the United States to renew his acquaintance with Starling.Frustrated by the failed attempt to kidnap Lecter, Verger tries to draw him out of hiding once again by getting Starling into more trouble. He bribes Krendler to accuse her of withholding a note she received from Lecter. The ploy works, and Starling is suspended from duty. Verger's men keep her under surveillance in the hope that Lecter will contact her. Lecter, meanwhile, has been watching her and also watching Krendler. Lecter then buys china and crystal for an elaborate meal and also steals surgical equipment from a hospital. He takes everything to a secluded lakefront house that he has learned belongs to Krendler.Lecter then contacts Starling, luring her to Washington's Union Station for a meeting. Verger's men follow her there. As Starling looks for Lecter among the crowd of travelers and shoppers at the station, she and Lecter converse by cell phone. He expresses his admiration for her and his sympathy for the shabby treatment she has received from the FBI, at one point suggesting that he might force the people who have disrespected her to "scream apologies."Having spotted Lecter, Verger's men capture him in the station's parking lot despite Starling's efforts to stop them. Starling makes a fruitless attempt to expose Verger's scheme to the FBI. Meanwhile, Verger's men transport Lecter to the Verger estate. Verger plans to watch Lecter being eaten alive by a herd of vicious wild boars that Verger, an expert at swine breeding from his days in the family meatpacking business, has prepared especially for the purpose.When the FBI refuses to act on her report that Verger has kidnapped Lecter, Starling goes alone to Verger's estate. She intervenes as Verger's henchmen are about to unleash the pigs on Lecter, shooting the men and freeing him, but she is shot and wounded in the shoulder. Lecter then rescues her from the animals. When a furious Verger orders his physician Cordell to shoot Lecter, Lecter persuades Cordell (who has always hated his master) to throw Verger into the pen with the hogs instead, and Verger dies in the very manner in which he had hoped to kill Lecter, Lecter having assured Cordell he will take the blame for the deed.Lecter takes Starling to Krendler's lakefront house and treats her bullet wound. She awakens in an upstairs bedroom, dressed for a formal occasion. On her way downstairs, she finds a phone and calls the police. Instead of taking their advice and leaving the house to wait for their arrival, she looks for Lecter downstairs. She finds him in the dining room where he has set the table as if for an elegant dinner party, watched by the seated Krendler, who has been heavily drugged. As Starling looks on, horrified, Lecter removes the top of Krendler's skull, cuts out part of his brain (the part that Lecter says is "associated with good manners"), sautés it in a pan by the table, and feeds it to the dazed Krendler. Clarice is horrified, pleading with Lecter to stop and saying she'll give him the details of the FBI's profile on him so he can escape.When Lecter wheels Krendler back to the kitchen to clear up after the "meal," Starling attacks him with a silver candlestick but is easily overpowered. Lecter traps her hair in the fridge. He asks her, "Tell me Clarice, would you ever say to me, 'Stop ... if you loved me, you'd stop'?" To which Starling replies, "Not in a thousand years." Lecter replies with, "That's my girl," then kisses Starling. Just as he is about to leave, thinking he's won, he hears a click and sees that Starling has handcuffed his wrist to her own. When she refuses to provide the key, Lecter pins her wrist to a table and brandishes a meat cleaver. He raises it and says, "This is really going to hurt." Next we see Starling outside the house, looking for Lecter, who escaped just before the police cars arrived. Both her hands are intact.The last scene is of Lecter on an airplane. One of his arms is in a sling. His hand is not visible. He is preparing to eat the boxed meal he has brought with him, and the small boy sitting next to him asks about the food. Lecter opens the container to reveal several kinds of food, among which is what appears to be part of Krendler's brain, cooked and sliced. The boy asks to try some of the food, and Lecter allows him to, after saying that his mother always told him to try new things. It is not shown if the boy chooses the brain.

Review: Hopkins, a little chunkier than the last time we saw him in this role, positively exudes menace especially in his final confrontation with Pazzi (an excellent Giancarlo Giannini whose sad eyes make him the most sympathetic character in the film).
I like this film a lot, but of course it suffers - as all sequels do - by comparison to its predecessor, in this case 'Silence of the Lambs' The main reason for having a sequel at all was to showcase again the character of Hannibal Lecter, a monstrous creation everyone wanted to see more of after the first film.
But they don't, and Anthony Hopkins turns in another delicious performance as the man with the evil intent cloaked in inestimable, menacing charm.Julianne Moore drew the short straw in having to re-create the Clarice Starling role that had been so memorably played by another actress.
My only complaint with casting was Ray Liotta, who just didn't have "it".Having seen this movie three times thus far, I will say that watching it is like peeling layers off an onion.
It could have been a little longer and more focus could have been put on the relationship between Hannibal and Clarice - specifically, his obsession with her, and the time they spent together after the fiasco at the Verger Estate.It was also too bad that Mason Verger's sister, Margot, was written out of the script.All in all, though, I thoroughly enjoyed the dark humor and the adventure.
The controversial gore scene towards the end made myself, and the majority of the audience, flinch, scream and nervously giggle simultaneously (a feel good/feel bad movie rolled into one!).Having never read the original book I took the film at face value.
If people find the deaths of some characters predictable, then maybe Scott has directed well in projecting Hannibal`s approach and morality.This is the sort of big budget horror film movie-goers have been waiting for, so go see it on the large screen before its too late!
To make things worse for the highly anticipated sequel "Hannibal," the original film's director and main star bailed out, leaving Ridley Scott ("Gladiator") and Julianne Moore ("Magnolia") filling their places in the credits.
The story of "Hannibal" does not compare with "The Silence of the Lambs." It replaces tension-filled sequences of psychological terror with scenes featuring some of the most grotesque images and realistic gore to ever make its mark on the big screen.
The film takes place ten years after FBI agent Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster then, Julianne Moore now) interviewed convicted mass murdering cannibal Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) while searching for another disturbed killer.
IMHO, Hannibal the book (it's original title, if you're interested, was "The Morbidity Of The Soul", which I think is much better) was the best book of the series, but this film misses the point completely.
The movie started in the wrong place (with a shoot-out that is of only peripheral relevance to the plot and should have been done in flashback), had it's middle in the wrong place (following Pazzi around was completely pointless as it was obvious even to those who hadn't read the book he wasn't going to capture Lecter), went on too long (with the pointless sequence where Starling follows Lector around the shopping mall, amoungst other things), and ended badly.
The film also asks a lot of us; it asks us to understand the relationship dynamic between Lecter and Starling even though it shows us very little here  almost like it is expecting us just to take it on face value and remember Silence without it carrying anything through.
Giannini is good in his minor role and is lucky to escape the script's excesses; sadly Liotta is not free and his performance towards the end matches the absurdity of the plot in his regard.Overall this is a big fancy horror movie but it is far from the standard of Silence.
And finally, the film avoided the literally vomit-inducing, absurd, irrational, obnoxious slap in face book's ending - for this alone I think "Hannibal" is a very decent movie and a lot of fun.7.5/10.
I don`t know if it existed in the novel of SILENCE OF THE LAMBS but the impression I got from that film was that Clarice Starling was very uncomfortable in the presence of men .
I guess some people may say this is character development but I`d call it a lack of internal continiuty and I wasn`t too happy with the way the character was underused either.Julianne Moore made little impression with her portrayal of Starling though that`s through little fault of her own because it`s always the most difficult job of an actor playing a role made famous by someone else , and as I said Starling is sidelined in much of the film .
As for the other actors Hopkins is competent but by no means spell binding , Liota gives the impression that a robot played his role throughout the film and not just in * THAT * scene , Giancarlo Giannini is good , but Gary Oldman absolutely steals the show as Mason Verger playing the role just the right side of camp complete with some great make up .As for the other aspects of HANNIBAL Ridley Scott directs with an almost operatic touch , and I mean that both figuratively and literally .
This was a good sequel - Hannibal returning brought me goosebumps once again with him out of jail at large..Thats bloody fun to me having a serial killer missing for 10 years and returns caused by an old patient of his wants revenge.However - He gets Clarice involved the dangerous game where she has been looking for him for a long time since after shooting Buffalo Bill.
One thing is I wasn't too sure about Moore as Clarice - She was good, but we all like the same actress to play the same person in the story's.Anyway - Gary Oldman as the villain was superb..evil, twisted and absolute rich..Good Sequel Indeed!!
While hard to compare to its predecessor (Silence of the Lambs was a true masterpiece) the reintroduction of Hannibal Lecter, M.D. has truly been worth the 10 year wait.The film strikes a very different tone from the outset, and this is down largely to director Ridley Scott.
But here he is having a blast with a character he clearly enjoys inhabiting and he is rarely more powerful and commanding a presence than he is in this film and Lambs.An unrecognisable Gary Oldman (and uncredited it the opening titles and on posters) holds his own as subvillain Mason Verger, Lecter's only surviving victim and the flashback of his mutilation is well handled.
Not too bad but compared to the silence of the lambs it's not worthy.Has almost no suspense and without Jodie foster it's not a patch on previous lecter films..
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...
Brimming with meticulously designed set pieces, making terrific use of its exotic locations & capturing each moment in extensive detail yet marred by its fractured narrative, contentious character motivations & more emphasis on violence, this follow-up chapter to the 1991 horror masterpiece is a good-looking but heavily bloated sequel that revels in excess gore but lacks the same level of commitment in storytelling.Set 10 years after the events of The Silence of the Lambs, the story of Hannibal follows its titular character who's now residing in Florence under a disguised identity and has evaded capture all these years.
But their paths cross each other once again when Starling is hired by Lecter's only surviving but heavily disfigured victim, Mason Verger.Directed by Ridley Scott (the mind behind Alien, Blade Runner & Gladiator), Hannibal opens on an interesting note but it also feels a whole lot different in tone & feel of its bone-chilling predecessor which is acceptable considering its timeline but the interest soon fizzles out as the plot progresses at a slow rate and whatever unfolds on screen isn't captivating enough.
Written by Steven Zaillian, the story spends so much time jumbling its different characters that there is no proper characterisation.The technical aspects in any Ridley Scott film is usually up to the mark and Hannibal is no exception, as evident in its carefully carved set pieces, gorgeous photography and correct use of colour tones & lighting.
Visual effects team puts in a nice touch, mainly with the violent content, while Hans Zimmer comes up with a score that combines various elements and manages to work only in bits n pieces.Coming to the performances, the cast comprises of Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, Gary Oldman, Ray Liotta & others, and their work is all over the place.
Jodie Foster opted out as Clarice Starling so we have the next best thing in Moore who infuses her own ideas into this character which work, Oldman easily digs into the skin of Verger & plays him from inside out while Liotta doesn't get to do much.On an overall scale, Hannibal is a definite step down in quality when compared to The Silence of the Lambs and lacks everything that made it so great.
Well, the reasons why Jodie Foster refused to play Starling again are well known and I accepted it,although like surely many others I'm very disappointed 'cause I identified Starling with her.For stories like Red Dragon,The silence of the lambs or Hannibal that possess such psychological depth, it is very important to identify with a character when they're adapted for the screen,but as the Germans say, that's "snow of yesterday".
Jonathan Demme had exactly the right feeling for the plot, the characters and their relationships towards each other in The silence of the lambs, he should have done Hannibal,too.My only comfort is that I've seen the movie only two times,it's long ago and thank god for that reason I'm able not to see the scenes from the movie when I read the novel.
What is left is Dr Lecter turned into a scary ghoul who makes the audience titter in nervous appreciation/anticipation, gore to mask the lack of content, and longuers and confusion in place of narrative cohesion.The novel reads like it was written to be made into a movie.
After taking up an hour or so of screen time, this sub-plot reaches a dead-end, having literally nothing to do with the remaining aspects of the story.So we catch up with the figure offering the cash........surviving Lecter victim Mason Verger, the grossly disfigured and wheelchair bound successor to a large family fortune, who is planning to feed Lecter to a pen-full of man-eating pigs.
The film is a big, gory mess, which Scott's elegant direction and Julianne Moore's feisty Jodie Foster impression can do nothing to rescue.
But even they could not save this movie from itself."Silence of the Lambs" was a great psychological thriller, exploring the developing relationship between a brilliant (but imprisoned) serial killer and a young FBI agent.
Hannibal, fails in comparison to Silence of the Lambs.The story picks up seven years after the first film.
Mutilated,crippled and unbelievably rich, he hunts Lecter down, relishing the day when he will have his revenge.This rundown is undoubtedly promising and make no mistake it could have been a great film, certainly on par with 'lambs', but the way the director literalises Thomas Harris' fourth novel is dreadfully unimaginative and utterly repellent.Gone is the distinctive black humour of Harris' characters, Hopkins' as Hannibal blurts out the cannibal puns with such a wearisome monotony that it wears out its welcome soon after he first appears.
She is an incredible performer and the character of Clarice needed to go through a catharsis of sorts, im not opposed to a new actress in the role - she is just given nothing to do but run around and look erotic but hardened at the same time.The main quibble that I had with Hannibal was nothing to do with the performers or the fact that the first film was going to be difficult to live up to it is the sledgehammer mentality with which director Ridley Scott enacts the story.
The gore in Hannibal is just for shock value."Silence of the Lambs" was a step in the right direction for movie thrillers.
Having worked for a number of years with acutely psychotic patients and the criminally insane I get the deepest belly laughs over the way Hollywood portrays "psychotic" criminals and the horror and revulsion the movie watching public drums up when they see Hannibal Lecter.
A few disgusting scenes, such as a brain-eating sequence and face-peeling flashback montage, were heavily criticized upon the film's release, but its main problem is that it just isn't on the same level as the superior (if overrated - "Se7en" is better) "Silence of the Lambs." I am not a huge fan of Jodie Foster but her absence here is vital to the film's failure - Julianne Moore is a fine actress and smart woman, but she somehow doesn't seem to be thinking as much as Foster, whose face always indicated that there was deep concentration going on inside her brain.
Both Ray Liotta and Gary Oldman are given little to do in a very stereotypical film, which is surprisingly different from its predecessor, and surprisingly directed by Ridley Scott ("Alien") despite the fact that it...well...sucks.All in all a waste of time.
This film acts like things are fine and dandy with Lecter on the outside.Julianne Moore is a fine actress, but she's badly miscast here as Starling.
Unfortunately this one the least of all because the only good reason to see 'Hannibal' is for Anthony Hopkins, but even he is less interesting than in 'The Silence of the Lambs' or 'Red Dragon'.
The movie is called 'Hannibal' and he kind of is the real hero, of course together with special agent Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore).
Synopsis:  the sequel to the acclaimed Silence Of The Lambs, Hannibal is a big budget production that totally fails to deliver;  not only is it not as clever as its predecessor, it is not even a splatter or suspense or horror movie, just a totally boring time waster.
In any case, being a sequel is no excuse for a film being utter crap.This movie has a renowned director, it is based on a novel by the same author as SOTL, the cast is strictly A - list, great cinematography, big budget, first - rate script writers, yadda, yadda, yadda, and the end result is simply a fart in the church.
Try making a documentary out of that.Much has been said about the acting:  mainly whether Julianne Moore can replace Jodie Foster, and Anthony Hopkins (who plays the lead Hannibal Lecter) is usually given a lot of praise.
Ever since "Red Dragon" came out, I've talked with many people, and they said that this one turned Hannibal Lecter into a character from a slasher movie, thereby weakening it.
Granted, they make him a lot nastier here - but no less likable - but I didn't derive that his actions strayed from his persona as a pathological cannibal.Anyway, the plot has Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore) disgraced after a botched mission, while Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) is living a sedate life in Florence, Italy.
I guess that the one skin-crawl-inducing scene gives "Hannibal" the feel of a slasher movie.As for the whole part about whether or not it was acceptable to cast a different person as Clarice, I'll say that Julianne Moore did a good job.
Lecter is still easily the best thing about these films, and Hopkins's suave menace has not gone down in the slightest.It's a shame they couldn't get Jodie Foster to reprise her role as well, but Julianne Moore is an okay substitute as a leaner and meaner Clarice.
Clarice and Hannibal don't face each other nearly as much as they did in The Silence of the Lambs and anyone else in the film is nowhere near their equal.
This is the more "action-like" Hannibal Lecter film(whereas 'Silence' is the psychological, and Red Dragon is the half-cooked thriller-wannabe), as there is plenty of shooting, chasing and a fair bit of killing in the movie.
The acting is good, Hopkins is great, as always, and Julianne Moore is surprisingly good as Jodie Fosters replacement in the role of Clarice Starling.
The sequel to SILENCE OF THE LAMBS with Julianne Moore taking over Jodie Foster's part...
The thing about "Hannibal" -- sequel to the Oscar winning "Silence Of The Lambs -- is that it's a pretty tough movie to sit through.
Well, to me it didn't.In retrospect, i think "Hannibal" is an unbelievable movie, especially the way special agent Clarice Starling handles the case and the ending of it.