Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #2419 in DVD
• Released on: 2004-10-04
• Rating: Suitable for 18 years and over
• Format: PAL
• Original language: English
• Number of discs: 1
• Running time: 126 minutes

Amazon.co.uk Review
Yes, he's back, and he's still hungry. Ten years after The Silence of the Lambs, Dr. Hannibal "the Cannibal" Lecter (Anthony Hopkins, reprising his Oscar-winning role) is living the good life in Italy, studying art and sipping espresso. FBI agent Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore, replacing Jodie Foster), on the other hand, hasn't had it so good--an outsider from the start, she's now a quiet, moody loner who doesn't play bureaucratic games and suffers for it. A botched drug raid results in her demotion--and a request from Lecter's only living victim, Mason Verger (Gary Oldman, uncredited), for a little Q and A. Little does Clarice realize that the hideously deformed Verger--who, upon suggestion from Dr. Lecter, peeled off his own face--is using her as bait to lure Dr. Lecter out of hiding, quite certain he'll capture the good doctor.

Taking the basic plot contraptions from Thomas Harris's baroque novel, Hannibal is so stylistically different from its predecessor that it forces you to take it on its own terms. Director Ridley Scott gives the film a sleek, almost European look that lets you know that, unlike the first film (which was about the quintessentially American Clarice), this movie is all Hannibal. Does it work? Yes--but only up to a point. Scott adeptly sets up an atmosphere of foreboding, but it's all buildup for anticlimax, as Verger's plot for abducting Hannibal (and feeding him to man-eating wild boars) doesn't really deliver the requisite visceral thrills, and the much-ballyhooed climatic dinner sequence between Clarice, Dr. Lecter, and a third unlucky guest wobbles between parody and horror. Hopkins and Moore are both first-rate, but the film contrives to keep them as far apart as possible, when what made Silence so amazing was their interaction. When they do connect it's quite thrilling, but it's unfortunately too little too late. --Mark Englehart

Synopsis
After a decade in abeyance, the courtly cannibal, Hannibal Lecter, returns to the screen, again played by Anthony Hopkins, under the direction of Ridley Scott. When F.B.I. Agent Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore) is blamed for a botched drug bust, her boss Paul Krendler (Ray Liotta) makes a media circus of her humiliation, which catches the attention of Lecter. Now a hardened veteran, she begins receiving letters from the twisted genius, who remains obsessed with her. Yet she's not the only one interested in drawing out the psychopath, now lecturing on the Renaissance in Florence. Italian detective Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini) hopes to impress his young wife by nailing the reward for his capture, and wealthy pedophile Mason Verger (Gary Oldman) is eager to take revenge against the cannibal for leaving him with a hideously deformed face. But they're no match for Hannibal's coyly satanic ubiquity, which bewilders his quickly narcotized foes before he administers a punishment sufficiently grotesque to suit his sense of amusement.The odious Krendler, in particular, learns to use his gray matter for, perhaps, the first time in his life. However, all is prologue to his fated rendezvous with Clarice. A banquet for the splatterati, reveling as it does in gore and dismemberment, the film features brilliant work by a stellar cast, and the kind of meticulous art direction and lushly magnificent photography that one has come to expect of Scott.

Customer Reviews

Started well then slumped
I was disappointed with Hannibal, I liked Silence of the Lambs but this is nowhere near as good.

The shootout at the beginning was very well done and I was hopeful that the film would continue this way, unfortunately the film descends downhill rapidly from here and there are no real highlights to watch, even the 'infamous' brain-eating scene was disappointing.

On a positive note, Anthony Hopkins is brilliant as Dr Hannibal Lecter and Julianne Moore does a great job as Clarice Starling (replacing Jodie Foster) but at the end of the day, the film is disappointing.

Underrated
Underated, misunderstood, a fine piece of work.

Firstly, the opening credit sequence apparently reveals the pattern of pigeons to show Hannibals face, which therefore could be seen as a metaphor for Hannibal as the kind of almost banal, charming evil that is everyone, as well as showing a link between Mother Nature and Lecter as predators. This is why the credits are important, as well as to show that everyone everywhere is being watched, all the time, by CCTV, and that these are his downfall... it was as if Hannibal knew by going to that one place, he would be discovered. He chose instead to reveal himself to those who may have chosen to look. Hiding in Plain Sight of sorts.

I do not see the film as Clarice's fall from grace, but more a tale of Hannibals quest for redemption. He returns to the US, even though he knows he is still one of the FBI Ten Most Wanted, and that he is almost definitely going to place himself in danger by contacting Clarice, yet does so, in order to clear her name from the smudging she has recieved at the hands of the corrupt FBI. Hannibal made the suggestion to Cordell I believe for two reasons

1) for Cordell to be freed of the master-servant relationship to such a hideously disfigured spiritually/mentally person who was corrupting his servant. Remember that Cordell wanted not to be present? This is why he is spared. and

2) so that Verger can understand that killing for revenge is self defeating as it solves nothing, but also so that he is put out of his misery : remember that Verger himself commited the crime (and is alleged to be a paedophile in the film), not Hannibal, and only at Hannibal's insistence, as well as

3) self-defence. Hannibal is aware of virtue, and respects it, as well as of his own image, why is why he informs Cordell to tell others that "Hannibal did it". Even then, when he comes back to the US, to possibly make peace. He accepts that since he has been discovered, he can no longer enjoy the benefit of anonymity and therefore wishes to return to obtain closure with Verger and also to clear Clarice.

What you will notice is that he seems - in some respects - to be motivated by purer things. In this respect, therefore, those that he despatches in the cruellest of fashions - not naming any names - all seem to be characters motivated by money to bring about Hannibal's downfall or incaraceration. Those that recieved the harshest treatment - hmm, tastes good - are those that are truly corrupt and seek to discredit the virtious (Clarice) in return for financial reward. This is clearly indicated by the fact that when Hannibals visits that persons home he removes a vital piece of paper revealing such information. The fact that he can subdue the dog, and that his eyes are red tinted in the poster, could also indicate that he is the personification of the Devil. Charming, articulate, ruthless, and unpredictable. One who mixes the truth with lies in such a fashion as that the truth can no longer be discovered.

Clarice is spared because she herself is working for the good and is morally pure. She is not attempting to bring about Hannibal's downfall for monetary reasons. The fact that Clarice tries to resist and recapture him shows his admiration for her. She cannot be corrupted. And so, in the final act, in order to preserve himself, he has to disfigure himself, instead of corrupting the purity of Clarice. And there's my reading why the film is better than the book. Because Hannibal returns to redeem himself, claim what is owed to him, and to defend the honour of the pure, as well as to remove and desecrate those who are motivated by avarice and greed instead of beauty and purity.

A Silly But Hugely Entertaining Slice of Horror Pie
No one could ever accuse the Hannibal Lecter-themed movies released since 1991's "Silence of the Lambs" of being fine art, but each installment in the hugely popular franchise has managed to be fun for all their misgivings and flaws. Case in point "Hannibal", a blatantly silly but hugely entertaining slice of horror pie served up by director Ridley Scott to satiate and satisfy any followers of Thomas Harris' iconic psychopath. Taken as a serious horror effort, "Hannibal" is sometimes unintentionally funny. Taken as the fun-but-bad-natured series installment it is, though, "Hannibal" more than fits the bill and arguably stands as the best entry in the series behind the Academy Award-winning starting point (discounting 1986's "Manhunter", which this reviewer isn't particularly fond of anyway). As ever, Anthony Hopkins is in fine form as perhaps his most iconic character, and Jodie Foster is sorely missed when replaced with the capable but bland Julianne Moore.

Picking off years following serial killer Hannibal Lecter's (Anthony Hopkins) escape from a mental institution, "Hannibal" picks up with FBI agent Clarice Starling's (Julianne Moore) career in disrepair. Having shot a fugitive who was at the time carrying a baby, Starling avoids getting the sack when she's put back onto the Hannibal Lecter case, upon his re-listing on the FBI's Most Wanted list. This all leads to a meeting with prosperous millionaire and former child molester Mason Verger (Gary Oldman), a man now left with a monstrous facial disfigurement following a run-in with the cannibalistic killer of the title. Verger is dead-set on locating the missing Hannibal as much as Starling is, if not moreso, and plans to dish out his own style of revenge should he succeed in his mission. Trying to get Clarice as a form of bait, Verger takes his next step to luring the killer in. The obvious problem being that Hannibal has disappeared from sight ever since his grisly escape ten years ago.

Anyone capable of reading into the pictures featured in "Silence of the Lambs", that hasn't read the novel, may well have an idea where he might be. As is, Hannibal has relocated to Florence, Italy, where he's about to encounter straightforward police investigator Rinaldo Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini). While investigating a kidnapping, Pazzi runs into Hannibal posing as the murdered man's replacement in his job. When Pazzi later stumbles across a photo of Hannibal on the "Ten Most Wanted" website, he seeks to secure the $3million reward by enabling the capture of Lecter. Alas, Hannibal has suspicions of his own, and ambitions, too. With a visit to America and a rekindling of his relationship with old friend Clarice Starling on his mind.

It should go without saying at this point, but the Hannibal Lecter part fits Anthony Hopkins like a glove. In portraying the aptly named cannibalistic serial killer, Hopkins continues to be downright brilliant in his immaculate performance. If "Hannibal" itself tries to go for the gross-out factor as opposed to the sheer creepiness of its predecessor, Hopkins isn't totally complying, and brings once again to the role the inherant creepiness and slyness of a calculated psychopath. In taking over from Jodie Foster -- who wouldn't sign until the ending was changed and then wasn't available when it was -- Julianne Moore isn't anywhere near as good. Sure, Moore is a capable performer in her own right, but she comes off as somewhat bland and one-note where Foster was relatable and multi-faceted.

In supporting roles aplenty, the background performers do good jobs with their respective characters. Ray Liotta is fittingly despicable and unlikeable as Paul Krendler, Clarice's higher-up whose held a grudge against her ever since she turned down his sexual advances. Giancarlo Giannini is very good as investigator Pazzi, and is endearing and captivating in his humanistic-but-bleak portrayal of a man unaware just how over his head he may be. Gary Oldman is good but a little too campy as Mason Verger. As is, Oldman overplays the deformed dude and winds up elliciting unintentional laughter in some of his scenes (most notably when shouting for his servant Cordell).

"Hannibal" comes with its flaws, ones that director Ridley Scott does a lot to dismiss and overshadow. Stylishly directing the film and getting the best out of his acting talent (for the most part), Scott proves himself once again to be an adept and skillful film-maker. The cinematography by John Mathieson obviously helps. Elsewhere, the screenplay by David Mamet and Steven Zaillian isn't as watertight and note-perfect as the work done by Scott and Mathieson. Much of the dialogue is clever and well-conceived, but the good talking comes accompanied by a few clunkers. Still, these are just miniscule flaws in what is an otherwise well-scripted and beautifully directed horror movie.

The gore on hand in "Hannibal" is of a massive increase to that in "Silence of the Lambs". This second modern-day installment into the series sure does pump up the blood, but avoids the trap of becoming simply gross as opposed to being chilling. The gore is handled in a smart way that serves to creep-out the viewer as much as it turns their stomach. But as mentioned earlier, the creepiness is dramatically decreased from the aforementioned classic. Ultimately, "Hannibal" is a vicious and uncompromising horror movie that does its best to satisfy multiple demographics -- the artsy-film enthusiasts, the gore-hounds, etc -- without stretching itself too far.

Coming complete with an ending that has since caused controversy (but that this reviewer personally liked) in many circles, "Hannibal" may well be too much for some. Doubtless some will hate the gore, doubtless some will mock the Mason Verger subplot, doubtless some will question the film's purpose and meaning, and doubtless some will just regard "Hannibal" as a meaningless horror sequel. This reviewer personally liked this film, and it stands as my favourite in the series other than the superior 1991 hit.