Hannibal (2001) - Crime, Drama, Thriller

Hohum Score



Living in exile, Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Sir Anthony Hopkins) tries to reconnect with now disgraced F.B.I. Agent Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore), and finds himself a target for revenge from a powerful victim (Gary Oldman).

IMDB: 6.8
Director: Ridley Scott
Stars: Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore
Length: 131 Minutes
PG Rating: R
Reviews: 220 out of 1017 found boring (21.63%)

One-line Reviews (749)

But on the plus side, this film is worth watching for Anthony Hopkins' excellent display of comedy, charm and dangerous levels of insanity.

Boring and Cheesy .

A real disappointment - don't waste your time.

Hannibal is intriguing and hated.

Its entertaining and I recommend it to anyone who is mature enough to handle it.

The script is superbly evocative and daring, and the use of classical/opera music throughout gives the movie an edgy feel - heightening the tension as if by default.

good directing, good actors, no plot .

That the film is so enjoyable is purely down to the actors.

One of the worst movies I've seen in quite a while .

Overly complicated yet insanely intriguing.

Personally, the only thing I liked about this movie was I so easily fell asleep in it...

No Story!

Aside from this, I actually found the film quite boring!

Ho-Hum .

Sadly, Hannibal Lecture is going to be the next Freddy or Jason, lets just hope he continues to be exciting and witty as he has been in these two movies.

All in all, I think its one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my entire life, thats it.

Good thrillers that keep me on the edge of my seat are few and far between.

What an engrossing movie!!

The Silence of the Lambs is a very unique film, since the film is darker and more exciting than the book.

The acting is stunning.

Silence of the Lambs had an intriguing storyline.

There are moments where not much happens, and the story gets a bit muddled and confusing toward the end.

If you like horror, Hannibal is worth watching just to see the final scene involving Ray Liotta's character.

The real problem with this movie is that it is predictable.

What tipped me into finally seeing Hannibal was completing the oeuvre of Julianne Moore who was so stunning in 2002 in her two oscar-nominated roles.

Gary Oldman is mildly entertaining as Mason Verger.

Moore seems to be sleeping through the movie, apparently as bored as I was.

Unfortunately, the sequel fell flat and felt bland.

When I saw "Hannibal" when it first came out, I found it quite fascinating (although not any kind of masterpiece).

The ending was so fascinating that it demanded a sequel.

Giancarlo Giannini plays the air head inspector whose head is so empty that it must have left Hannibal greatly disappointed when examining it.

'Silence of the Lambs' was and intensely psychological thriller that kept you on the edge of your seat.

All of which were in my opinion enjoyable (except for The Lost World) plus they showed that she is a good actress.

The entire film has a very detached, almost clinical touch, making it much more realistic as a crime drama rather than the typical adrenaline coursing Hollywood thriller, which makes it all the more unsettling.

Moore comes across too flat with very little depth and pain - credit must go to Jodie Foster for making it difficult to follow the performance in SOTLs I guess.

Whereas Silence of the Lambs was suspenseful as it was terrifying, there is no real suspense in Hannibal, just increasingly bloody scenes that seem to be there to top the last bloody scene.

But the winner is of course Sir Anthony himself, making the fascinating cannibal a character that justifies a ten-year hiatus.

If you don't try to hold it up to Silence of the Lambs, it was entertaining, interesting, the acting was decent.

but still, I left the theater feeling quite let down.

What's worse is that 1991 masterpiece really delivered two of the most memorable characters in film history but this sequel makes them rather dull and lifeless.

Too slow, not scary, unimaginative, and way overhyped!!

(minor spoilers follow) The only thing I missed was Mason Verger's sister; without her, his death seems somewhat contrived; there seems little motivation behind it.

The Silence of the Lambs, was a great suspenseful film that kept you on the edge of your seat for the whole film.

This monstrosity is a complete waste of time and thoroughly unpleasant to watch.

"Silence" held your interest in the sense that it was intriguing from start to finish, when you look in the mind of a serial killer, and must try to ensnare him.

The plot is entirely predictable throughout and there is not one scene in which you are not able to easily guess the outcome before it has begun.

I was ready to leave half way through it.

However, Hannibal fell just a little short but that doesn't change the fact that Hannibal is an entertaining, thrilling film.

The scenes are all beautifully filmed, (yes i know thats an odd word choice for a movie about a serial killer, but from Florence to Washington, every shot is simply breathtaking.

I actually found myself bored at some points and if I had a remote, probably would have just fast forwarded it to the gore stuff just to see what it was all about.

He looked bored and uninterested in the whole project.

I simply fell asleep...

This grotesque studio waste would barely be more offensive if they literally burned the money instead.

Of course I know that there are worse films than "Hannibal" but for an A-movie and the pretension, it gives to itself, I rate this 1/10 for being boring, stupid and worst made of all A-movies of all time.

That being said, the film is entertaining in more of a comedic-horror way.

Neither is all that engaging.

For anyone with a weak stomach they will surely hate this film, but I greatly enjoyed it as another sickening addition to the always intriguing Hannibal Lecter franchise.

Another reason for writing such a boring review is that probably i had been watching these horror sequels for 4 hours and by the time, i started Hannibal, i had a stomach that couldn't take it anymore.

The dialogue is bland, the script is not at all well written.

A Typical, but Entertaining Ridley Scott .

And for the gore-maniacs out there, this movie is definitely for you, the scenes of Lecter at work are quite enjoyable.

Now, wouldn't it be boring if would get an exact copy of that movie?

I bore in mind that Dr Lecter was 10 years older and enjoying his freedom.

Too much emphasis on gore and rather abrupt ending, but overall the feeling of adrenaline between Lecter and Sterling is still there.

The script is uneven, but a good amount of it is intriguing and there is delicious black humour aplenty too, a lot of it coming from Lecter.

Anyway,this is an enjoyable film because of the atmosphere and also because it gives some introspection into the character of Hannibal Lecter, uncovering some of his past.

And Hopkins' Lecter is just as compelling this time around.

The first three quarters are slow and uneventful and merely serve to introduce a vengeful ex patient of Lecter, and sole surviving victim who himself is a very twisted individual.

I was expecting more of intelligent and intriguing mind games between Lecter and Starling.

Worse than that, "Hannibal" is static and boring, up until the last 20 minutes when it suddenly veers off into the ridiculous.

He has a superbly expressive face, sad eyes and a fascinating air of world-weariness.

This really is a highly enjoyable film and I will refrain from comparing it to The Silence of the Lambs for a number of reasons.

The plot really dragged throughout most of the movie and there as also a lack of chemistry between Moore and Hopkins.

To say the least, everything else in the film was rather blasé and dull.

It will leave you on the edge of your seat the whole way through.

it can also be slow and overly dramatic at times,lacking the pace of the previous incarnations.

Like many sequels which rarely match the original, Hannibal is a pale follow up to Silence of the Lambs, an engrossing movie.

Whereas the arch fiend was repugnantly fascinating, the new version has Anthony Hopkins portraying a pseudo super hero, outwitting and meting out terrible justice to guys we don't like.

It was so boring that by the end I couldn't care less what happened on the screen in front of me.

It rides and often oversteps a fine line between art and schlock, yet always remains consistently entertaining and enthralling despite its tonal confusion and plethora of problems.

I think it's a pretty entertaining movie.

I hate vanity, stupidity, blood, complexity, pointlessness, and bore.

It is neither suspenseful, thrilling, and where exactly was the horror in this?

In the latter parts of the film they mix in some scenes of ultra extreme and very pointless violence without any meaning to the development of the characters or the story.

The plot just keep the viewer at the edge of his seat, as the next movement of Lecter is unpredictable.

The flocks of folks who went to see Hannibal and left the theater feeling empty or dissapointed should see the film for a second time with objectivity.

Apart from the entirely empty and boring storyline, Julianne Moore is completely wasted here, as the main character is, well, is the title character.

Very predictable .

The story was slow and mostly boring.

A slow starter leading to a powerful climax .

what a bore .

All in all a dull,directionless and unworthy sequal which seems to have been aimed at the Scream crowd rather than your more thinking movie goer

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.

The scenery, the shots, everything about it was breathtaking.

It would have made the film build to something and something to ponder on, but without it, it was all pointless.

Hannibal is a total waste of time and an irritating example of pretentious and self-indulgent film making.

The evil Dr. Lector is a yawner, and so is this movie.

Deliciously evil and suspenseful.

The audience is given a better view into Hannibal Lector's personality and idiosyncrasies but the storyline was so slow that there wasn't any real suspense built up and in the end, the ending kind of fizzled out.

I quite often found myself close to falling asleep.

A psychological sort of terror drove the plot in a fascinating way.

It's a must see for fans of Manhunter and Silence Of the Lambs, Harris' other two movies/books, and it's still riveting to watch Hannibal at work.

tales of the unexpected .

but a second viewing clarified some plot points, and I just relaxed and enjoyed the film's eerie, languid, twistedly-peaceful atmosphere and Hopkins' incredible acting.

The story moves at a tedious pace with Ridley Scott crafting his pseudo artistic style more suitable to a reflective drama than a crime thriller.

What a waste of time and money!!!

The dark and brooding sense of terror mixed with the stunning images of Florence work together extremely well.

I don't enjoy it when a film, lacking in originality, first gives me a headache then bores me.

Mediocre & pointless.

Hannibal was one of the worst movies I have ever seen!

This is far darker, far more twisted and far more enjoyable than the first in the series.

I have read many reviews about this movie, and about everyone says " Do not watch if you are sensitive " or " Macabre, unwatchable film.

What a waste of time and money .

Despite it's slightly overlong running time & the odd dull patch I liked it, it's as simple & straight forward as that.

Its an entertaining, funny, gory, breathtaking thrill ride that will keep you on the edge of your seat.

Hannibal still lives, my God what a cliché!

Here are some examples: Deleting the whole sadistic behavior of Mason Verger towards children and deleting the whole story line of his sister Margot left Mason death meaningless and pointless.

Not that I was expecting a masterpiece from Ridley Scott, director of numerous abysmal films, but this was quite unexpected.

Don't waste your time and money.

Unlike the great film, in my opinion, The Green Mile, which lasted 5 minutes short of 3 hours and was engrossing from start to finish, Hannibal was just over 2 hours and really drawn out.

All these omissions are things that could give me the extra thing that can make a sequel interesting and intriguing and they are the big changes, the small ones simply just added to the fact that someone has done a very sloppy job here.

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.

Many Hollywood directors have tried and failed to capture the feel and dramatic cultural differences between ancient and contemporary cities and the way this film is shot is purely breathtaking.

Scriptwriters David Mamet and Steven Zaillian, along with director Ridley Scott, made a movie that drawled and feigned about being a well cultured one, with meanings or at least good diving into its characters and world, while it's actually an empty horror / thriller.

Boring, a big disappointment.

An intriguing, fresh, firm and attractive endeavor that neither tries to borrow nor duplicate the atmosphere of its predecessor.

Worst Movie Ever.

But I guess he didn't like doing the movie, because its really empty.

In addition to being a war story, the text is also a love story, with elements of both creating a fascinating interplay that provides understanding into the mechanisms of how Hannibal Lecture eventually became a "monster".

Jack Crawford was a compelling male supporting character, and his relationship with Starling was subtle and quite sweet.

Two slow and no real suspense.

Good,gory adaption,if a bit slow in parts.

But onto the movie which is, I must add a bit slow paced in the first half, which by the way does not mean it is boring.

The dialogue is tiresome and uneven and the end product of this is a complete shamble of a film.

I'd rather watch paint dry...

Even Lecter's archenemy, Verger, was an uninspiring performance from Gary Oldman.

But it is very entertaining, and a bloody good time.

It's simply the most exciting and raffined serial-killer-movie in the world!

all in all, a thoroughly enjoyable movie.

), the film is still an enjoyable foray into the mind of a genious, that of Dr. Hannibal Lecter.

Though there are flaws in the acting - especially Ray Liotta (Superb in Good Fellas) is a let-down, whereas Moore is excellent (glad, Foster turned down the role) - the brilliantly shot, beautiful pictures and the score are creating such a stunning atmosphere that I consider those and other flaws negligible.

Oddly enough it uses humor in a rather intriguing manner in some of the more tense scenes that don't relieve the tension as much as it does intensify it.

"Hannibal" is an entertaining movie and a well-worthy addition to the Lecter legacy.

Anthony Hopkins is Off the Chart, Out of His Mind, and Enjoying Every Minute of Lector's Descent into Ludicrous Caricature and Julianne Moore is Playing Charlice Starling like the Haunted Depressive that She must have Become after Engaging in Mind Games with the Master.

Though it is logical that in the intervening decade, Clarice would have become a harder, more battle-weary FBI expert, the story suffers because it was her innocence that made her dance with the demonic Lecter so fascinating.

Scott's film present a fascinating subplot on Dante's vision of Judas' avarice.

Moore played a bland, dull Clarice, and couldn't keep up the accent through the whole film.

The book does actually have an ending (unlike this dreadful waste of good money and film).

The action sequences are stunning!!

overwhelming and riveting .

The movie is to slow and there is know real suspense other than when will Hannibal meet Clarise.

This movie was soooo incredibly boring that even the 2 gross scenes weren't "shocking" enough to make me even notice.

Maybe the most boring film of all time, at least close .

What proved to be an engrossing movie ended, in parts, as a ridiculous 2nd class horror movie.

I wasn't sure what the extreme variation in opinions and reviews meant, this would either be the worst movie I've ever seen or possibly the best.

About half the movie was remarkably faithful to the book, but then it began to stray, and the ending was discordant and bore no similarity whatsoever to the book.

beyond the trite ending of the movie and into the character's psyche.

It was a waste of time.

The biggest disappointment was that the movie wasn't at all scary, frightnin' or compelling.

That aside, you'll never be bored with Oldman in the picture, and as with his roles in the Fifth Element, Lost In Space, and Dracula, he is a fascinating figure.

The performance of Sir Hopkins makes it worth watching aside from that.

The majority of the movie was quite slow however and I did notice a few people leave the theater.

It dragged on for around 2 hours.

Her character was boring and poorly scripted, the scenes she was in were basically tension-free.

) Suspenseful, only depends on how you take the scenes.

I recommend seeing it if you haven't already done so, as it is quite an enjoyable movie and although Lecter's character seems almost diluted he is still quite capable of delivering a classic line or two (I'm giving great thought to eating your wife).

Hannibal starts off slow: You're mostly presented with a bit "filling in the details" as to what happened between SotL and this film.

The thrilling effect has been substituted by a disgusting and vomiting brain eater scene and some other pigs "corrida" which brings the whole film to a very low level.

What a waste of time.

Great swathes of the book were chopped to allow the film a better flow, but in the end all it did was make it cranky and difficult to follow.

In conclusion therefore, a highly enjoyable, albeit frustrating to the reading public, film that should have been 45 minutes longer.

It was pretty entertaining overall and should not be compared to it's two predecessor's since they are all pretty different movies.

There are enough plot holes, one-dimensional characters and confusing editing to annoy the most patient viewers of this film.

The psychology and tension from TSOTL is gone, leaving Hannibal with only a collection of gross-out death scenes to scare viewers, but those gradually become tedious.

I have read the book, and really enjoyed it.

Suffice it to say that I was shocked in an unusual way as I personally found that this was a somewhat calmly enjoyable film of a completely different dimension and character than I had expected.

Hopkins looks rather bored playing Hannibal on auto-pilot, only a ghost of the terror he portrayed in SOTL and the film is guilty of relying on fancy trivia like the all engorging pigs and the hanging of Judas, etc. All of this, next to being moderately entertaining, diversions from the weakness of the plot itself.

But this slowness wasn't leading up to anything!

Hannibal Lecter is a fascinating character, he's not the typical mass murderer or a regular psycho.

I think I would have enjoyed it a bit more if I had read the book after seeing the movie.

Forget that tedious build-up of suspense and intrigue, Scott rips the meat right off the ribs and cuts it up into little pieces - bare-bones stories are so much easier to digest that way.

This movie was so boring I almost fell asleep.

If there's anything that makes it worth watching is the films denoument.

The scenes shot in Florence are stunning, beautiful, and what else would we expect from Ridley Scott, the man knows how the dazzle us with scenery...

Gar's done some fascinating- albeit whacko -work.

It is also missing that exciting suspense that we had in 'Silence'.

Verger has made its sole purpose to find Lecter and make him suffer a slow, painfully gruesome death.

A really entertaining who-will-get-to-him-first thriller .

Instead of being an engaging character study like the first film, "Hannibal" is an ill attempt at a clever cat and mouse game between Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore, who is nothing like Jodie Foster.

The much talked about gore at the end is laughable and stupid--and manages to be boring too, since we've already been treated to scene after scene of blood spurting everywhere.

The story of this all is rather basic, but enjoyable nonetheless.

This movie was such a dissapointment compared to Silence of the Lambs which was purely breathtaking.

The film remains engaging throughout, impressive given much of the subject manner, though it undoubtedly loses its way in the last 30 minutes.

It looks classy, it does, and it also looks like it has a great mix of gore and intellect, but it's just empty.

Other than that, the movie is good, scary, and will keep you on the edge of your seat, in spite of slow pace in some moments.

Ridley Scott shows that he is a master of is craft by taking a trashy book and making it something entertaining and at some points such as the "dinner" scene and "kitchen" scene show some depth that elevate the film above its trashy roots.

It brings a much darker presence than Silence of the Lambs ever did, and a more gripping story, because the music played just right to every scene.

I thought Gary Oldman was the most lively character in the movie and his make-up was stunning.

This movie is about as thrilling as a race between five-hundred frozen shrimps...

Instead of slick, well-infused, suspenseful dialogue, a lot of gross-out graphics were thrown in to compensate.

Personally speaking I found the film very ponderous.

Re-hashing old ideas is far from exciting.

No plot.

If you are thinking about watching this, just don't waste your time expecting something that doesn't exist.

We see the return of Hannibal Lecter who comes back in Clarice her life 10 years after "Silence" and is introduced to the audience still as a noble & fascinating person: he is a Doctor, intelligent, interested in fine arts & "good food" who sometimes kills/eats people who were evil to him (or Clarice).

The original movie, from ten years earlier, was a fascinating and grisly piece of work.

But all in all the film was entertaining, chilling, disturbing, and delicious.

Everything inherent within Silence is here dragged out of the subtext, a spotlight shone on it and flogged to death.

Scott is better at visuals than he is at directing actors, Hopkins looks bored this time round, as does Oldman (barely noticeable after his make-up), as does Liotta - in a very Liotta role, and Moore is not really given any opportunity to act, she just merely looks dull, upset, and acts like a betrayed tough FBI agent as the screenplay prompts her to.

Brain cooking and many of the scenes were just boring,not making any impact to story,as makers would have thought (I'll guess?

Even the murder scenes were boring.

Sexy, mysterious and well, dull.

Not very suspenseful, thrilling, or horrible.

I have read one review which stated that this film was a "thriller with no thrills" which sums it up perfectly, gone is the suspense and the good vs evil battle of "The Silence of the Lambs" to be replaced with a tedious, annoying mess.

The worst movie sequel since Batman and Robin.

before I saw hannibal i read the book and found it exciting .

Giancarlo Giannini is very compelling as Italian police inspector Rinaldo Pazzi.

Silence of the Lambs had a raw edge to it that could put you on the edge of your seat.

Giannini is also quite engaging as the Italian inspector; his hangdog face and weary voice convey a lifetime of horrifying work, and a rich character is drawn where the screenplay has just provided broad strokes.

All gore and no story...

even with such a brilliant actors as Sir Anthony Hopkins, Gary Oldman, Giancarlo Giannini and Ridley Scott's directing the whole movie is more than two hours of a bore with the pathetic pretence to create something really great like the first really wonderful movie

It may then still be a waste of time watching it still.

The profound and thrilling character development and interaction are replaced with absurd scenario and irrelevant strands.

Ok, Hopkins is a good actor (no doubt about that), but who cares about the acting if the film is totally boring, predictable and s....

I enjoyed it.


It left me and a lot of other people in the theatre empty, that there was something missing.

A Waste of Time & Money .

Just as she did with "The Forgotten", Moore's acting and screen presence greatly enhanced the movie and made it much more enjoyable to watch.

Maybe I enjoyed the film more, because I had just finished watching "Silence" on DVD - still as thoroughly engaging as I remembered.

It's too mechanical, contrived, faulty.

Hopkins is excellent, though he does run the risk of recycling the part into cliché.

Overall I enjoyed it, although I feel the story needs to be told more and we need another chapter in the Hannibal saga (other than the prequel Hannibal Rising).

What a waste of time and good actors (and a good director).

One of the worst movies of 2001 .

I thought it was scary and thrilling and very intense.

Brains, lightly pan fried, served with yawns and poor editing.

Finally, Hannibal is visually stunning.

It was poorly written, mostly boring, and frankly...

The plot was dull and it almost made me fall asleep at times.

It was thrilling and psychological, being exciting and deep (the equation of perfect entertainment in my book).

Part of the problem is obviously the book that it was adapted from, a dull, plodding story with little tension or suspense that showed a 'softer' side of Hannibal Lector.

The rather imaginative Dr.Lecter has started to, dull enough, killing people instead of eating them (he never takes a bite in this movie) and he has started to give jokes as never before.

In short, while this film certainly didn't measure up to its predecessor, I still found it somewhat entertaining and I have rated it accordingly.

Though it isn't as good as 'The Silence of the Lambs', 'Hannibal' is definitely worth watching.

extremely boring!

I'm sad to say that I fall into the latter camp, as while I found some of HANNIBAL moderately entertaining, as a whole I found it to be too long and too uninteresting to get excited about.

Veneered with some pictorial elegance, as was expected from director Scott, it tries in vain to compensate for a narrative as limp and ponderous as Mason Verger, Lecter's wheelchair-bound nemesis.

With Ridley Scott on board and most of the production crew from Scott's Gladiator, the visual work on this film in stunning.

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.

As for the ending, it was my loudest complaint about the book (it felt rushed and contrived in print).

The script is fantastic and as I said earlier, the slow parts help rather than hinder the movie.

I think Lecter is a very intriguing and appealing character.

Don't waste you money at the box office.

To the film's benefit, it is sometimes thrilling to see the charismatic killer free on his own.

the movie itself was more gory than suspenseful or scary.

Finally got to see this on DVD to see what all the fuss was about.. Scott's direction takes a slow, haunting approach witch those of us with a stop to smell the roses mentality appreciate.. problem is that much suspension of disbelief is required her, and when you slow things down the audience will get ahead of you.

I found the scenes in Florence fascinating; Giancarlo Giannini is great as the aforementioned detective, and I genuinely felt for him as he misguidedly attempts to take on an unstoppable killer against his own (and Clarice's) better judgment.

The first five minutes or so were great, then it gradually got slower and more tedious to sit through.

No plot, minimal character development, questionable motives, poor dialogue, sub-standard acting.

"Almost-," that is, considering that bizarre ending, contrived for whatever reasons, which so distinctly is NOT that of the ca.

Contrived, forgettable.

Nevertheless, I'm just barely giving "Hannibal" a mild recommendation because inspite of all those disgusting moments, it's a well acted and gripping thriller.

It seems David Mamet convinced himself that if nothing happens in this movie, maybe he could make it become one of those intelligent thrillers he usually writes(Mission: Impossible, The Spanish Prisonner)...

I mean what gets you interested more in a thriller than the fact that it is even thrilling to the actors, a film that is so gory, people throw up?

I have a hard time remembering when "Hannibal was dull.

A terribly hoary cliché by now.

When you have a movie with such intense gore, you need a thick plot to complement, otherwise it is no better than your everyday slasher, and we all know that Dr. Lecter is much too tactful to be put into the same lower echelon as Michael Meyers or Freddie Kruger.

Moore is a very good actress, but was rather bland here.

I will say that some aspects of the movie are a little predictable.

Like I said, Hannibal does have its flaws but it's an absorbing film.

People who call this movie's first have very slow, just mean lacking in Hannibals cannibalism.

The first half of the movie is painfully slow.

Lecter remains engaging despite this.

Graphic - yes - but at the same time so subtly spine-thrilling.

This is the worst movie I have seen.

This is a riveting tale that will send your head in a violent spin.

Gore and Bore .

Just like the first movie, this one leaves you on the edge of your seat!

Like others, I also agree Ray Liotta's character was drab and poorly portrayed - I quite enjoyed him in other roles.

Basically, there is no atmosphere, no tension (rising or otherwise), no character, no reason for any of the (very minimal) action, no drama, and the ending (though mildly more plausible than the book's hideous pantomime version) is half-hearted and pointless, giving us no sense of conclusion or of the story having developed or any deeper knowledge of the characters.

Don't waste your money.

)All I can say is,what a waste of time and money.

(Warning: Contains Possible Spoilers)Did Thomas Harris fall asleep writing this story or Ridley Scott did directing it?

Beautifully filmed; incredibly dull .

However, if you find yourself getting bored, fast forward to the end of the film and watch the last few moments when the action begins.

However, many of my friends reckoned it was worth watching.

Stunning - Absolutely STUNNING .

And the movie is so SLOW!

The knock-on effect is that it ends up being a less involving film, but a more exciting one.

OK, his performance as Dr. Hannibal Lecter is still stunning.

Many predictable developments follow including a brainless investigator who is murdered because common sense eludes him.

It looks classy, but it's just empty .

The use of 'scary music', and suspenseful scenes was lacking, and the use of distorted film was sometimes annoying.

Dont pay $3.50 at Blockbuster- it is still a waste of money.

A waste of time, read the book should definitely be better .

Lector's fascinating, ambiguous character is perfectly acted out by Hopkins - something not accomplished in SotL (though it being a good movie).

Ray Liotta and Gary Oldham's characters are pointless and their immense talents wasted.

Pointless puke gross mess that should be tossed to wild boars.

Hannibal seems contrived and in true Hollywood fashion, the ending is farcical.

The pace is funerally slow for the first hour or so and even when Clarice and Hannibal get closer, the film never really takes off and nothing new is achieved.

Walks off with gripping scenes like the inspector's tragic fate; the pigeons forming Hannibal's face in the Piazza; the sequence in the shopping mall or Clarice and Lecter meeting in the final moments; and the notorious brain eating scene.

Superbly acted and stylishly filmed, A dark and complexly entertaining ride, highly generous to multiple viewings.

This one just descended into blood and gore and I found the plot quite boring.

As a Hannibal Lecter film Hannibal is not quite as good as the masterpiece that came before it, but it is so much fun and it allows us to get the most out of the incredible Anthony Hopkins as one of the most fascinating villains of all time.

Bottom line: for all the dark and slow scenes in Firenze Hannibal deserves a good rating.

I liked the movie when it played in Florence, but most of the USA scenes are unbearable.

Then it gets downright mundane until the final climax when Clarice and Lecter reunite with one scene in which the monstrous Lecter is carrying the unconscious Clarice like King Kong with Fay Wray or the huge robot with Anne Francis from 'Forbidden Planet".

There are just minutes of deadening silence in which nothing happens.

Every good film and book has slow spots to balance out the action or horror.

Things I really don't like: The pacing is to slow at points and the film's tone is wildly inconsistent, the movie is too long for me.

But mostly, I was bored and uninterested.

Julianne Moore was rather dull in her role as Clarisse, and Ray Liotta seemed really out of place.

It seems to forget the main thing that made Lambs so good, and that is the intense dialogue and discussions between Hannibal Lecter and Clarice Starling, these talks offered real thrills, instead all of their dialogue is simply to provide development in the story and spoon feed the audience, this movie goes for visual horror instead of verbal, which is much less powerful and also simply disgusting, no one wanted to see the graphic images that are shown in this, the last twenty minutes go way too far, and particularly the last scene is just too much, it isn't frightening, it is repulsive.

Do yourself a favor and don't waste your time--go rent a Cameron Crowe flick instead.

All I can really say is just how enjoyable and fantastic this film is.

It's beautiful the way he mixes words like `okedoke' into his intense psychotic moments of terror.

One of the worst movies ever .

Hannibal started out ok, but quickly turned into a really sick and twisted show of splatter and I quickly got bored with it.

On top of a very good, suspenseful story, there are flashes of images and camera angles that make the viewer cringe, jump, and stare.

Obviously, as the sequel to a stunning Best Picture winner, Hannibal has a lot to live up to.

Forget it and save your money.

No story, no characters, no suspense...

Pointless .

At times gripping, thrilling and beautiful, at other times it is confusing, slow and clumsy.

This is what makes Ridley Scott's Hannibal so entertaining as a movie.

My conclusion: don't waste your time.

one of the only movies I have walked out on.

I loved the film and I must say again that Anthony Hopkins in this film, is the most stunning and sexy being ever to have walked the face of the earth - and I don't want to hear anyone say otherwise!

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.

This was a thoroughly enjoyable film, filmed in beautiful surroundings and well worth the wait.

It was boring.

The first half or so of the film, with its lush scenery and excellent cinematography, captured my attention and was quite entertaining.

Anthony Hopkins was frightfully entertaining and, as with its predecessor, "smart".

Things got more exciting when he returned to American.

I didn't see `Manhunter', but Anthony Hopkins' compelling performance in `Silence' so seared itself on the mind that I can hardly believe it was a decade ago and not much more recently.

]But the cinematic aesthetic production values are superb, and rich enough in literary culture and historical mise-en-scene to validate the claim to : "as compelling a film as you will ever see" (Joel Siegel, "Good Morning America") and other accolades.

How boring and predictable.

I'd really like to think "Hannibal" as a great film, but it is still just an empty movie, disguised in a classy shell and some good performances.

The creepy,mysterious atmosphere from the novel doesn't appear one single time in the movie,when I saw it first in the cinema I even fell asleep.

Pretty intense and disturbing .

), and thrilling horror movie.

Admittedly, it looks repulsive and gory, but does little to relieve the boredom.

One of the worst movies I've seen this year.

This film should be banned under the Complete Waste Of Time Act.

At least I managed to get halfway through the film before starting to fall asleep.

A longer, more measured, more faithful movie--again, leaving aside the ending (the one amendment by the screenwriters that I approve of)--would have been more scary, more engrossing, and would have been a more fitting successor to "Silence Of The Lambs.

No award-worthiness, but an entertaining, interesting, and often sickening movie.

limp and ponderous .

We are subjected to slow lingering scenes of the killings, so we see how the Doctor performs surgery on his still-conscious patients.

The film was entertaining, but a tad predictable.

But still, well worth watching and one that you think about after you've seen it.. 8/10.

The movie does not centers around another crime to be solved, instead it focuses on the intense relationship between Lecter and Clarice.

Even with substandard directorial cohesion, weak dialog and Julianne Moore, some actors just can't be stultified: any words in the mouth of the artisan Oldman turn to sweet, sweet, insane love-juice, whilst Hopkins savors each syllable like his now-infamous Chianti, deploying weight and depth by merely inflecting his voice, as other actors need to achieve these same standards of craft by screaming, shooting or taking off their clothes; as some insecure directors need to achieve this same level of impact by spending $40 million on computer-generated effects which waste everyone's time and are irrelevant to the storyline, George.

The scenes are those of the Fish Market shoot-out, the Lecter/Pazzi confrontation in the Capponi library, the bore massacre and the dinner scene.

The film may get gory in parts but that's what makes it worth watching!

But not if Starling finds him firstIssues: **The editing was horrible**, the scenes were either dragged out too long or not dragged out long enough.

It is good for a film in which nothing happens.

Horrible and Boring .

It starts of slow, the actress who played Sterling is different and not very deserving of this role.

Editing completely misses the mark here as the slow pace & bloated length only hurts the film.

*POSSIBLE SPOILERS*I absolutely loved this gripping, intense classic.

Intriguing .

"Red Dragon" (2002) is much better and far more respectable to the original than this boring mess (I had a hard time sitting through this, and not because of the gore).

The dialog is fascinating, led by Anthony Hopkins' famous "Hannibal Lecter" character, whose vocabulary and intelligent sarcasm and baiting are clever and entertaining to hear.

Hannibal, after the "Silence of the Lamb", has escaped to Italy where he is living the artsy fartsy good life doing some sort of appraisal work.

The script was so dull, I wasn't interested in the plot after half an hour.

" "Was this thriller thrilling?

The look of the film is dark at times, but some of the locations chosen by the filmmakers set up fascinating contrasts: Verger plans his hideous revenge in the ravishing hills of North Carolina, while Lecter hides his ugly past in the elegant city of Florence.

However it is more (better or more intense) in some ways, and less (worse or less intense) in other areas of expectation.

As it turns out, "Psycho" stands as one of the worst movies I have seen in the past ten years.

Florence is shot and lit in such a flat and dull way that it really could have been Scunthorpe or a rough area of Glasgow.

It is a total bunch of nonsense from the sleep inducing start through to the downright risible ending.

Overall this was a gory, bloody, gross but very intense movie.

It was very entertaining, very bloody, very disgusting and very different.

In between is a lot of self-indulgence on the part of Anthony Hopkins and the film makers.

The film is unpredictable and engaging all the way through.

Flawed but enjoyable .

There are three particularly violent but thoroughly awe inspiring scenes that make you marvel at the level of skill and technique Ridley Scott employs in all of his films.

This movie is also incredibly boring and slow.

The story Hannibal is very weak and is very predictable.

Endless really, and pointless.

What a boring mess!.

The most surprising performance of the movie to me was of Gary Oldman, first of all the makeup that is thrilling and awesome and the same time.

"Hannibal" is an utter disappointment, full of boring scenes that are supposed to convey mounting tension and reeking of banality; it completely does nothing to honor "The Silence of the Lambs", its far superior predecessor.

The locations, especially those in Italy, are stunning and beautifully shot, and director Ridley Scott thankfully doesn't take the material seriously.

) Lecter plodding away in a boat at about one knot an hour whilst FBI agents were all around was also a little hard to swallow, too.

I left the theater a little dazed because I wasn't sure exactly what I saw.

However, the Verger character is fascinating.

The best joy of this film was its intriguing, original plot.

Having read the novel, I found Oldman to be right on the mark, and I'm glad the contrived plot about his sister was removed.

When I left the theater I was very disappointed.

Fortunately, material like this is just the right domain for Ridley Scott, who is able to indulge his curiously disjunctive visual poetry at just the right unexpected moments, and maintains a tone that nicely balances between Gothic tragedy and Grand Guignol slaughterhouse.

A very intense movie, with a brilliant plot.

The Silence of the Lambs gave us a captivating serial killer tale that was smart, intriguing, and exciting.

There was enough boredom in this movie to put an entire preschool of hyperactive kids to sleep for a year.

Understated, gripping, and very good, Giannini's performance is the one small gem that can be found amidst the rest of this mess.

3 - The film is just plain boring.

There is a nice cat-and-mouse feel to the movie, and director Ridley Scott have accomplished to put together an entertaining movie that does bring into the picture some disturbing mindsets and images from time to time.

This movie was slow and boring.

Most of the action is around Lecter and his intricate game of chess with Verger, played exceptionally by Gary Oldman, but the three subplots are brought together in the end, and an unexpected end at that.

I found his character the most enjoyable to watch as he truly gives the impression of a sick, twisted man consumed by his desire to capture Hannibal and tortured him to death.

Ridley Scott makes visually stunning films.

I was kept on the edge of my seat watching Dr. Hannibal Lecter(Anthony Hopkins),"The Human Stain",'03, appear once again in his famous role as a cannibal and lover of Agent Clarice Starling(Julianne Moore),"Laws of Attraction",'04, who is relentless in her efforts to capture Dr. Hannibal and Hannibal in turn is driven crazy killing anyone that upsets or tries to hurt his beloved CLARICE!

In the case of Hannibal, it's about experiencing the bizarre, disturbing, and utterly fascinating world of Lecter's mind and, above all, his TASTE ...

Thomas Harris usually keeps me riveted to my chair while I'm reading his novels; a rollercoaster of emotions at intense proportions.

Having read the book, I can say that Hannibal is a very mundane and unimaginative adaptation.

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.

*SPOILER* As entertaining as the "Brains for Dinner" scene was, it was highly stupid.


Scott has crafted a truly horrifying, yet perversely beautiful and endlessly fascinating film, with Hopkins reprising his immortal role backed by a truly talented troupe of actors to tremendous effect.

In Hannibal, we simply get a dose of predictable gore that probably isn't quite enough given that the movie's appeal is forced to rest on it.

The musical score adds to the films atmosphere and the film is worth seeing for the stunning backdrop provided by Florence (surely the perfect setting for Dr Lecter).

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.

I will say this, if you truly want to get your money's worth then don't waste your time with this film.

It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

I really enjoyed Scott's adaptation and his flair of making Hannibal hypnotic and riveting.

I found the movie highly entertaining, specially in the Florence sequences, with only a music track.

The intense scenes of gore were unnecessary and are probably the primary reason for this film's success.

With Ridley Scott at the Helm of this thriller, Hannibal is, despite its slow pace is an effective movie, that at times succeeds in shocking and disgusting its viewing public, with some horrific imagery that with the help of your imagination makes you feel sick to the stomach.

Jonathan Demme shot The Silence of the Lambs in such an intense and harrowing style that I couldn't see anyone else getting right.

My skepticisms were thrown out the window however as this movie turned out to be a very suspensful and highly entertaining piece of film.

To sum everything up this is simply a boring movie.

I think that the film is very slow at the beginning with regards to momentum.

This succeeds in being both the most diseased and the most tedious film I've ever experienced.

More then 3 hours of extra's (Several making of docu's ,trailers, + 700 production stills) and a superb multiangle extra of the fishmarket scene.

The movie isn't scary,funny or suspenseful.

a waste of time.

Nevertheless, the film was entertaining to watch and was worth the money.

Not a classic, but a good, enjoyable thriller.

in a stunning opening (surely ridley scott's trademark), the saga flows in a-quite slow but entertaining scheme.

Fast paced and outrageous, let it stand on its own without comparison to the original.

This movie comes off as far more boring than the previous films.

It was involving and slightly thrilling while being really dumb at the same time.

If you're expecting a suspenseful, complex thriller like Silence of the Lambs, think again.

There were some slow paced scenes which were compensated by brutal acts.

I went into this wanting to like it a lot more then I did when I walked out.

Yes, I did fall asleep...

After years of seeing the same formula repeated, it's tedious.

Director Jonathan Demme goes more for Hitchcock than Dario Argento (Demme proved himself an able student of Hitchcock with 1979's 'Last Embrace'), but the gender confusion is worth mentioning as an Argento concern, and the film needs to be considered as it leads to 'Hannibal'.

I heard from the critics that "Hannibal" was a boring film that didn't reach the level of the first part, "The Silence of the lambs".

A dark and complexly entertaining ride!!!!!.

Director Scott displays his penchant for slow, quiet moments punctuated by sudden, shocking gore.

The serial killer is a rather predictable figure.

That said, the movie was quite entertaining.

The acting is stunning.

) Yet, overall, a very enjoyable film, and an excellent contribution to the Lecter saga.

I gave the film 8/10, and the only thing keeping it from earning a higher score was the aforementioned slow start.

" "Was this thriller thrilling?

I'd love to tell you how this movie is, but I fell asleep half-way through it, so...

Besides one of the essential leads being a terrible and inappropriate choice, Ms. Moore, the integral story changes were idiotically formulaic, essentially burning all the bridges for thought the author had built and that had been kept intact in "The Silence of the Lambs" movie.

From a plot standpoint, it is more predictable the it's predesessor.

Anthony Hopkins repeats the brilliant work he did in `Lambs,' making this most evil of movie villains both chillingly unreachable and bizarrely compelling.

"Throw in a rather boring rendition of Clarice Starling by Julianne Moore and you're left with a real average movie.

Anthony Hopkins is simply brilliant, and it is fascinating to watch the little details that he puts into the character.

Great for insomnia.

Truly banal writing, and a severely unworthy followup to its predecessor.

The worst movie ever...

but there is a fine line between artful and boring and with this film, Scott has crossed that line.

A slow start, bother me the start, it was boring...

The plot however is extremely predictable and the acting of the stars is mediocre in the case of hopkins to atrocious in the case of moore.

Anthony Hopkins did STUNNING work again.

However, you will definitely find the ending intriguing.

The first thing that stood out when I watched this movie is how boring it was.

Therefore, my expectations for "Hannibal" were not as high as everyone else's, and while many audiences were disappointed by the film's inability to live up to its predecessor, I got to just sit back and enjoy what is, though not the equal of "Silence", still a quite solid and engaging thriller.

Do we need the incessant, boring music on every scene?

It was also clever and wickedly humorous and exciting -- hands down, my favorite part of the movie.

It's a thrilling psychological movie with great settings (who wouldn't wanna see Florence after this one?

The story was slow and badly paced, straying from the book only when the original story line was interesting or showed some depth.

**Gore** The gore was pointless and excessive **Other** Hannibal Lecter is in a major European city, with his picture floating around all over the internet.

This film has two of the most intense scenes I have ever seen filmed, which even though they get a bit gruesome, you won't want to close your eyes for fear of missing what's going to come next.

Despite a couple of gruesome shock scenes, this is a truly bland film.

When it's not a repellent fascination of hypergore, it's long and boring, and the same goes for the dialogues.

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** I found Hannibal very predictable from the beginning through the end.

He is so fascinating and clever that he is able to attract the sympathies of all even if his manners leave a slight sensation of dangerousness and mystery.

He lives in Italy and is a curator at a museum, sounds thrilling right?

Despite the pacing and the script, it was an enjoyable thriller which I believe deserves *** out of ****

A lot of people found the 'brain feast' scene a little silly or pointless.

Lector is fascinating...

However, what makes me think that the movie was bad are : lack of plot, lack of character development, a lack of suspense, and a rather obscene idea that its ok to be a serial killer as long as you kill bad people.

It's like a beautiful box empty when you open it.

The movie is long, slow, boring, and pretentious.

The characters were fleshed out, the scenes in Italy were breathtaking, and they did a better job than the book (with the exception of Margot being cut out!

) When it's not violent, it's downright dull.

All in all a waste of time.

But then again, delivering an outing as bland as this one is quite a remarkable achievement in itself.

Hopkins is gorgeous, the master of understated camp, Giancarlo Gianno compelling, and Gary Oldman should get a medal for that almost anonymous performance.

I would reccomend it and found it much more entertaining then Scott's last movie the overrated Gladiator.

While a little unevenly paced (the beginning was a bit slow), David Mamet and Steve Zallian have done a good job of telling the basic story Thomas Harris gave to us - and, incidently, the book was incredibly underrated by critics whose thought processes seem to have been damaged by too little quality literature.

Was more disturbing than entertaining .

The by-play between Hannibal and Clarice was riveting and if I rent the video now I usually fast forward to the times they are interacting.

It runs around in circles, going nowhere and periodically splurts blood all over everything, before it finally hits a wall and dies.

Ridley Scott makes very good use of slow-motion shots, and utilizes quick cuts and some intense editing to keep shootouts and chases (somewhat) exciting and (occasionally) interesting.

It was also fairly predictable.

Boring, ugly, uninspired.

After having recently seen The Silence of the Lambs, just to review it and refresh my memory of it, and being somewhat bored by it, I sat down to see this, even though I didn't have too fond memories of it.

This movie played on way too long.

Don't waste your money.

"There some things that was just confusing.

Hannibal was, (for me) a dull unimaginative film with little to redeem it.


Even Hannibal was boring!

This is an intense film because I think it is realistic.

Where the film's strength lies is in Ridley Scott's evocative depiction of Rome, painting Florence as the same kind of dangerous and vibrant metropolis that made the LA of Blade Runner so memorable.

) and surprising director ('gladiator's' ridley scott), and the unpredictable gary oldman, all combined with highly- appreciated anthony hopkins, presenting the controversial thomas harris sequel to the silence of the lambs.

While it is not, it is still an entertaining movie none the less, with amazing cinematography(going through the woods), and the best acting I have personally seen in a while...

I read the book "Hannibal" before I saw the movie and there are some differences, but the movie was very enjoyable.

From start to the point at which I walked out 2 hours in, the script was as predictable as if I had written it myself, and as is all too common, the makers of this debacle vainly tried to drown the shortcomings of the script in gallon after gallon of fake blood.

The story is both interesting and suspenseful, albeit less so than 'Silence.

I thought that the novel was very clever and suspenseful.

The violence that appears randomly in this film gives the audience the impression that the film-makers want the audience to feel like they are watching violence in a manga cartoon rather than a film, it's pointless to take this film seriously.

The story line dragged a bit in areas and was very predictable in others.

Pretty boring...

All the characters are under written, which shows mainly due to the complete lack of plot and some bland dialogue.

Persoanlly I actually think Hannibal is a better, more entertaining film that I would rather watch than the slightly overrated original.

If you'd like to see an intense movie, go and see "What lies beneath".

Yep, it's a cliche.

The script is filled with plot holes and cliches, the direction is directionless, the special effects (especially near the end of the movie) are laughably bad, the performances are flat, the movie is overly predictable, and most importantly it is a thriller without thrills.

"The Silence of the Lambs" is the prime example of a well-built thriller, with horrific elements and it's crafty, intelligent, disturbing and fascinating, all in one package and to me seeing the following film with high hopes of getting something similar was the rule.

The first half hour of the film really drags (zzzzzz), and for a while I actually forgot what film I was watching!

And, frankly, when the movie runs out of ideas, it ups the gore quotient (especially in the particularly emetic dinner sequence, which seems to be played at a slow pace deliberately to have the viewers vomiting in the aisles).

Whereas Jonathan Demme's taut psycho-thriller, The Silence Of The Lambs, took us on a seat-gripping psychological foray into the masterfully manipulative mind of Hannibal Lecter, suddenly we end up in Friday The 13th: The Hannibal Years - a slasher film for the faux-cerebral.

The movie has a relatively slow pace.

I thought that the book was particularly bad, little more than an enumeration of shock scenes and cheap thrill effects with very little plot.

Manhunter exemplified this can be done as evocative introspection; our anchor was in the second world, and it was spending time in this world that deepened our perspective for humanity and reason (and also conveyed the protagonist's soul, since the actor couldn't).

The pursue of Hannibal could be more exciting, like the pursue of the killer in Silence of the lambs.

To see him actually carrying it out is tiring and boring.

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.

Both stunning and schlocky, it entertains despite its faults.

Yet good enough to make it very exciting to watch.

Hannibal is just like a soap opera, extremely long and boring.

Most of the time the movie is just BORING...

How a film about a cannibal, a disfigured child molester, a stern FBI agent and all the grotesque imagery that comes with that is constantly engaging is a pretty amazing feat.

Stay away from this one and don't waste your time.

Pretentious nonsense .

A painfully slow and plotless piece of dreck with stupid blood/gore scenes ,obviously just included to add scope (er,why didn't you just try a decent script/story guys?

Up till the film's climax it is a slow turgid movie that unashamedly turns Lectre into a anti-hero rather than the full blown evil psychotic genius that he really is.

The sequel to The Silence of the Lambs is more creepy than thrilling, and sometimes a little hokey.

It's still a terrific feature with a thrilling story that kept me glued to my seat until the shocking ending.

What a boring movie .


Hannibal makes good use of Hopkins, as well as adding to the gritty and fascinating subject matter with another grotesque character, played with excellence by Gary Oldman.

I found it anything but entertaining.

A flawed but absorbing thriller .

Enjoyed it alot .

Hannibal (2001): Dir: Ridley Scott / Cast: Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, Ray Liotta, Gary Oldman: Barf bag film that begins with a pointless scenes that has nothing to do with the rest of the film.

But as a sort-of stand- alone release that places more emphasis on style and brutality over story, it's a compelling enough watch to make it worth a sit.

Like I said in the title dont waste you money or time on this one.

An NC-17 serves as a special warning to all moviegoers that the violence is much more intense.

The book was slow and plodding…the movie was the same.

The slow moving plot leads you to nothing.

I enjoyed the film, but it was slow in places.

When I say nothing happens during most of the movie, it means NOTHING happens.

I loved " Silence",but I found it to be dull at times.

It's a movie with great actors and good performances and with a pointless, predictable plot.

I have to say that this film was very slowly paced and lacked the excitement and suspense of both Hannibal the novel and the previous films -Manhunter and The Silence of the Lambs.

Very intelligent and very entertaining.

However, in Hannibal, the driving force was nauseating, pointless gore.

*snore* .

The Adpated Screenplay by David Mamet & Steven Zaillian, is engaging.

No plot!

Instead of subtlety and an intriguing relationship between Starling and Lecter, the film seems to get bogged down in unnecessary subplots.

though it was shocking, at the same time it was exciting.

3/10 stars for its lack of direction, meandering and pointless plot and the fore mentioned utter unbelievability.

Where Jodie Foster's marvelously expressive face conveyed every thought and feeling of agent Starling in the first film, Moore's disinterested deadpan is more appropriate for the role of an IRS agent or a bored secretary.

Scott will probably disappoint the die-hard fans of the first who expect a psychologically intense film that will stay with fans long after the film is over, such as the first one.

Please, save your money or go rent "Silence of the Lambs" and "Manhunter.


The middle part of the film has been dragged too long & paced too slow, resulting in less scenes of meeting & contact between Hannibal & Clarice.

All in one I'd say that the only reason (or three reasons) why you should see this movie are its male protagonists, but "Hannibal" is just boring and dumb and cannot in any way be compared to "The Silence of the Lambs".

I was truly on the edge of my seat from the moment the MGM lion roared, and that's the bottom line for me.

I did enjoy the original book by Thomas Harris, and I think the screenplay was as entertaining as it could've been.

The plot was way too slow, and the acting was horrible.

i personally thought i was going to have to walk out of the theatre on two occasions (the balcony and the dinner scenes) as the graphic nature was so intense that i felt nauseous.

entertaining trash (spoilers) .

Great date movie, I highly recommend it.

Uninvolving and plotless (A 'Psychological Thriller' without a plot?

The scene with Hopkins and Moore at theamusement park fails miserably and seems all together pointless.

Lecter is a bit more jokey this time around, perhaps a concession to the unexpected folk-hero status bestowed on him by "Silence" fans, and Hopkins' charm and unexpected moments of understatement once again render him surprisingly likable.

it is by far the worst movie of 2001.

Anthony Hopkins is still intriguing.

A boring sequel .

Worst of the bunch is Sir Anthony, who takes his fantastic 30 minutes from Silence of the Lambs and stretches it into a boring treatise on over-acting.

Save your money and buy yourself a nice bottle of Chianti (pff pfff pfff pffff) instead...

The music is beautifully atmospheric, the locations and sets stunning as Florence should be.

Overall the movie is entertaining and worth seeing.

The first half or so of the film made me very disappointed, I really enjoyed The Silence of the Lambs, but this was quite boring.

and boring .

A dull uninteresting film that relied on cheap shocks, taken from Z-grade 1980's horror movies to keep the audience awake for the duration.

There's a lot going on, but since there is no interest in what ever happens, it gets dull to watch very fast.

thomas harris' red dragon is adapted into manhunter, an interesting movie in an 80's style and slow wit.

Each twist and turn was very predictable and it seems the film tried to shock with its depiction of violence and gore instead of with its storyline.

was a tight, exciting detective-thriller, Hannibal is more of a opera/horror/romance thriller that sometimes slides over to macabre humour.

On its own terms ‘Hannibal' is neither thrilling, funny, or dramatic, and it is riddled with flat performances.

The movie is also a visually stunning movie that hits you in so many levels, especially the scenes in Rome where a good portion of the film takes place.

The plotting and motivations of the characters are simplistic and formulaic compared to that earlier film.

All in all, a bit disappointing, but worth watching.

It just met my expectations for a large budget Hollywood movie;Predictable, insipid, no risks, simplistically politically correct, with some gratuitous gore thrown in for good measure.

Primitive story, boring psychological background and way too much gore.

Anyway, this follow-up was fairly pointless.

To me it's a mundane, overrated bore with telegraphed irony and deus ex plotting.

If people find the deaths of some characters predictable, then maybe Scott has directed well in projecting Hannibal`s approach and morality.

The purists may be disappointed with this, however, David Mamet's script and Ridley Scott's direction make this a well rounded and thrilling film.

highly enjoyable sequel.

Can I say boring.

With Hannibal, what you get is awe inspiring architecture of Florence and Washington D.

Don't Waste Your Time or Money .

Clarice is uninteresting in the extreme in the first half of the movie.

Were most comments on the movie about its brutality, its nauseating killings and unnecessary violence, I found it to be a very elegant, sophisticated and pleasantly thrilling motion picture.

Whereas, Moore's Starling is rather flat and boring, this is made up for by the Hopkins' gleeful Lecter and his equally perverse nemesis played by an unrecognisable Gary Oldman.

Solid performances from both Hopkins and Norton make it a film worth watching more so than this supposed 'sequel' to Silence of the Lambs.

So kill me - I enjoyed it .

Now, the review above doesn't really do the good parts of the film justice - it is absolutely beautifully shot, with the scenes in Florence particularly stunning, and throughout the acting is generally above par (although one feels that Moore was kind of going through the motions a little, which perhaps is not her fault; how do you follow an Oscar-winning performance by another actress in the same role?

They are both intriguing movies.

The deal was simply slow, predictable, favoring the LCD, and not really worth the effort.

The final punch from the film that made me give it a solid 10 was the fact of how unpredictable it was.

I was truly on the edge of my seat from the moment the MGM lion roared, and that's the bottom line for me.

so we can get another pointless sequel, hooray.

The gripping psychology from silence of the lambs is gone, leaving a typical slasher type movie with a bigger budget.

But putting the subject of suspense (the man himself) full stage makes in unsuspensful and boring.

I guess you make an epic film with any any type of subject matter, you don't need it to take place over a long period of time, or have it be about some great historical leader, or even include a war or a famous sinking ship, as long as you have the right script(intriguing and original storyline), the right actors(the acting all around was first rate), and excellent directing(kudos to Ridley Scott who gives an epic feel to all his movies).

Despite the unnecessary gore, drastic and awkward change in Lecter's character, and numerous plot holes, i personally enjoyed it.

Why's the scenario so confusing?

If you find this part boring, you either bought the wrong ticket or you are not educated enough to understand it.

Any type of tension is drawn out as we wait and wait and wait to see what Hannibal does next.

To the people who say it has no plot it has sorta the same as the original.

Well-cast but ponderous film is acted about as effectively as it can be, and sure to be remembered for a particularly gross climax, but up until then it's a prolonged and forgettable bore.

All I got was hungry after a very boring film.

On one end it's an interesting, intriguing and never boring counterpoint to The Silence of the Lambs.

Primitive story, boring psychological background, too much gore .

But the whole murder mystery really seemed too contrived and uninteresting.

The stars here are obviously our incredible cast and director Scott's operatic eye for engaging and stylish visuals.

Unlikeable character and a boring antagonist who was once great.

There were lots of slow downs and camera effects that Gladiator fans should feel at home with.

I mean, a film that has got style and is a bit slow in several moments, can't end in that way, with this crude scene of cannibalism.

I found it absorbing and tense.

An inferior yet thoroughly entertaining film !.

But all of this was wasted due to an uneven plot,and really drawn out boring scenes.

This is a wholly pointless film which goes absolutely nowhere and has absolutely nothing to say.

Hey, pals, even Ebert's scale has more steps, as a matter of fact it has 7 steps —4 , 3 ½ ,etc.. I believe "Hannibal" has at least this one quality: it is thrilling.

The director has created an intelligent and entertaining thriller which provides enough action and wit to appeal to mass audiences, and enough "art" to satisfy the most discriminating filmgoer.

Hannibal is an action picture constructed around a slow moving centre, and the result is mostly dull.


To my utter amazement, I found this movie incredibly boring!

The opera music score was also another yawner.

This is an incredibly slow, dull, quiet and basically mediocre film in which there is no characterisation, no exploration of what should have been complex issues and in which absolutely nothing seems to *happen*!

The script really nails that, belittling her, unpicking every fibre of her capabilities in a stunning array of composure and patronising.

Boring and stupid was all this movie was about.

All this meshed up in a psychologically intense, elegant and brilliant film.

Sometimes it's a good idea to have slow moments, kind of like the anticipation moments in Silence.

Mason Verger is a horrible and fascinating creation, and is played with relish by an unbilled actor who knows his way around a villainous role (if you don't already know who portrays Verger, I won't spoil the surprise).

when i say entertaining, surely is not brilliant.

I do think that the film suffered badly from moving locations to America, the film had built to a nice level and the move in location damaged its pace as it slipped into a slow building pace again.

Most of The Movie was unpredictable like when Hannibal cut off his own hand instead of Clarice's, and when Hannibal fed a small cooked piece of the brain of one of his victim's to a small child on an air plane.

In my opinion, Thomas Harris delivered what was fiction but with the power of truth when he gives us a denouement that is both chilling and profoundly disturbing but also utterly unpredictable.

I chalk it up to a big waste of time.

Now, in conclusion, to all you Anthony Hopkins or Julianne Moore fans that have not seen this excellent film which is sometimes very gory, I highly recommend it!

So, I went to see it and, for my surprise, this was one of the most predictable films I've ever seen.

There is no story, there is no pace, there is little originality, and the acting SUCKS.

In this fast paced world, people want things now.

There is a nice speed to the movie, in the sense that you are never left bored, and the movie does take you on a roller-coaster; sometimes it is fast and brutal, other times slow and seemingly safe (lulling the audience into a false sense of security).


Gripping & Gory.

In fact, Oldman would have walked away with the show were it not for Hopkins, but both appalls and impresses in order, managing to make a truly frightening yet fascinating performance shine through the disgusting prosthetics, making a truly horrifying portrait of a twisted old man.

Slow moving.

The slow dark atmosphere is intended to reflect the subject matter and, no doubt, many people will feel that it is superb.

The film's overall pacing seems to speed up and slow down randomly throughout the course of the film.

Manhunter was a fantastic film (much better then the excellent Red dragon with much better actors) and Silence of the Lambs equally good but this load of tosh deserves a place in one of the worst movies of 2001.

The screenwriters David Mamet and Steve Zaillian have successfully pared down Harris' original story to create a fairly fast-moving thriller from what is essentially a rambling and self-indulgent book.

)Ridley Scott, the creative director who helmed Alien, Blade Runner and Gladiator, fell asleep during production and let a monkey take over.

This movie has no plot, no story, nothing.

Where "Silence Of The Lambs" was a taut psychological thriller in which the relationship between Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter was the most fascinating aspect, "Hannibal" contains virtually none of that suspense.

What a bore.

So, the movie was well structured and enjoyable if you think at it like a single movie.

And what was most striking about 'Hannibal' in general was its stunning Cinematography.

And he was endlessly fascinating.

If some of the scripting didn't get as heavy-handed as it tended to, if the pacing(which was at times very ponderous) was tighter, if there was more chemistry between Hopkins and Moore and if some of the second half was less ridiculous, this would have probably been at least halfway solved.

The movie has no plot and no tension.

I feel sorry for the people who can't enjoy this film now because of simple, artificial, pretentious reasons.

The film comparing to the book has several redeeming values: visually, it is a stunning work of a great director.

Every piece of black humour that escapes both his lips and face becomes meanacing, he does "psychotic" so well that it is both enjoyable and terrifying to sit back and watch him tastefully murder people in his deep, dangerous eyes, never mind how he does it with blade, a rope, and a knife and fork.

It was actually boring.

So he added some impressive photography and art, together with the eerie mood and some intense scenes and packed it all up convincingly into a film that is only halfway the thrill one expected it to be.

This film took highlights from the book, basic character sketches, wove several scenes from Hollywood whole cloth and ran the whole mess through a blender to pour out a mass-appeal, watered-down, high adrenaline final product.

And why did the story keep going nowhere?

Then the wrap up with the other is drawn out too much and has goriness just for the sake of goriness.

But despite all its flaws Hannibal is a devilishly entertaining film.

A fragmented and dull mess .

Of course this isn't Starling's film, but all the same she shouldn't become a dreary addition.

Treat this as a new experience and you will find it enjoyable.

Its only problem might have been that it simply is a sequel to one of the most successful movies ever made, a best picture motion picture, and it's hard to get to the same level, but it's worth watching it, anyway.

Slow spots in a film are sometimes crucial to maximizing the effect of the storyline later.

The story is engaging, as it is disturbing.

The cinematography is beautiful, and Hans Zimmer's score is lyric and gripping.

Thankfully, after a dull pause, the movie picks up pace and continues into a shock ending until the finish of the film.

The scenes between Hopkins and Foster in 'Silence of the Lambs' are among the best and most intense I have ever seen, not to mention most interesting and dynamic.

What was so fascinating about Hannibal in 'Manhunter' and 'Silence of the Lambs' was how, despite his physical incarceration, he still had the power to get under a person's skin or into their very minds.

Overall, this movie is still worth watching if you're a fan of the original.

Hannibal is bad, terrible, inept, lame, droll, idiotic, contrived, laughable and utterly atrocious (no pun intended).

The script is quite reasonable but its very predictable and only heats in the end, in the only scenes which can create real tension, in which the public is in anticipation of what will happen.

The most enjoyable aspect of this movie is that, contrary to what the working title might suggest, it does not try to be Silence of the Lambs 2, and anyone who went into the theater with that expectation was probably either pleasantly surprised (as I was) or sorely disappointed.

I mean this is seriously completely unwatchable, from the lack of any kind of real plot to the stumbling, clumsy pacing to the atrocious ideas and "psychology" displayed here - there's just nothing good here at all.

People who like excessive violence & gore are in for a treat and so are the followers of the cannibalistic serial killer but the film just doesn't stick together like its predecessor did, feels much longer than it is & is also boring at times.

He's good at what he does: playing wacked-out monsters just on the edge of going completely bonkers.

had been dropped -- but for a film rooted in the horror genre, it's surprisingly flat and boring.

The saga would really be worth watching when the 3rd and final chapter appears in theaters within the next decade.

What a waste of talent and money!

Join me in a chorus of "ho hum" if you will.

Director Ridley Scott took a huge box office and cinematic achievement, a fantastic idea and a promising cast, and than threw them all together, creating a long, boring, insignificant and pathetic film.

Without the explanations of the novel, the issue of pigs from Sardinia et al appears ludicrous and contrived.

This last time I was this bored was watching Arnie's The Sixth Day.

Overall it seemed to me that the plot was hastily contrived to act as a vehicle for one of the greatest villains ever to hit the movie screen.

The first half an hour or so is great, but is sadly followed by about an hour of story that can get a little boring.

Why so many people in this forum are claiming that H is "not all bad" and "worth watching on the big screen", etc., is beyond me; and it is not "so bad it's good" either, it is just plain boring.

Ho-Hum .

Also, it is immersed deeply in revolting characters, their characteristics shown so clearly as to disallow any ambiguousness.

The beginning was nice (besides the awful opening credits and music)and I expected the slow pace would be a good build-up for the horrors to come.

What an unexpected surprize (No spoilers) .

It's not bad because it's gross (as most people say) - it's just plain boring.

Whereas Silence of the Lambs was riveting with superior performances by Jodi Foster and Anthony Hopkins, Hanniabal dragged and was punctuated by episodes of extreme blood and gore.

Back to the soap opera, I couldn't understand how Clarice was unable to locate Lector, considering nothing happened to her in the end.

For a thriller to be intelligent, it needs to be thrilling as well as complex and needs solid characters.

Hannibal is still a very engrossing, grossing (!

I found myself bored through most of the movie.

OK "Silence of the lambs" has more suspense than this one but "Hannibal" is still entertaining.

Ridley Scott provides the most visually stunning entry in the trilogy, and Hans Zimmer provides a wonderfully eerie score.

Love the story and suspense of Silence of the Lambs, Red Dragon was in my opinion another SOTL but with different storyline and Hannibal was by far the most intriguing and terrifying look at how any person cannot be judged by their appearance or mannerism.

Rated R for intense gruesome violence and language.

Even though it does not bear an ideal resemblance to silence of the lambs, Ridley Scott's Hannibal is still entertaining in a kind of moody thriller way.

Silly, awful, boring .

The effects for the gory scenes are good, but the plot is dull, dull, dull.

Fine acting, lovely scenery, and nice tosee Giancarlo Giannini again, but otherwise a waste of time.

Silence kept me on the edge of my seat the entire time.

On the other hand,when a movie(ala Hannibal) has all the goods, the brutality is a hell of alot more intense and realistic.

The film is slow, much too long, quite dull at first--also, the plot is needlessly convoluted.

The return of this iconic and creepy 1990's character really gives me the shivers every time I think of the final dinner sequence (tip: approach this with an empty stomach), or whenever I dwell into the twisted relationship between the two lead characters.

Slow start to a grim and disturbing ending .

Sure, there's some of the typical sequences where the outcome is obvious to anyone who's ever seen a few formulaic horror films.

He loses some of the psychological edge and eerie charm that made him so fascinating.

Silence Of The Lambs was a gripping, chilling thriller; Hannibal is an attempt at a black comedy.

The way she interprets this character is negative, dull and a little mean spirited whereas Jodie Foster did a much better Job coming off as more Charismatic and More of a happy spirit back in The Silence Of The Lambs.

A sequel to the 1991 Academy Award-Winning Film 'The Silence of the Lambs', 'Hannibal', Directed Superbly by Ridley Scott, is a gripping & gory psychological thriller, that also offers an amazing performance by Sir Anthony Hopkins, who returns as Hannibal Lecter.

It has an interesting start, but quickly descends into the weird and confusing.

We get none of that in this movie, all dull characters with no purpose.

I think this is a very good movie, very suspenseful and actually not more "violent" than Silence or Manhunter.

This is a series in decline: initially there was the striking Manhunter, featuring an excellent Brian Cox as Lecter; then Jonathan Demme's slightly overrated but still enjoyable Silence of The Lambs.

She had no trouble sitting through Hannibal, except boredom.

But mostly the problem is that the story is just nowhere near as gripping, no matter who starred or directed.

And despite being on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list, he is somewhat casual about avoiding detection, his only concession being a wide-brimmed hat and the habit of wiping his glass in restaurants so as not to leave any prints.