The thing about "Hannibal" -- sequel to the Oscar winning "Silence Of The Lambs -- is that it's a pretty tough movie to sit through. Tough, not because of it's graphic nature, but because of it's overall lack of focus. Ridley Scott's take on Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter can't decide if it's a horror, a romance, a cop-drama or a suspense-thriller. It's got a good balance of all of them, but jumps around far too much, carries too many sub-plots and never comes across with a clear sense of purpose. No statement to be made, just a well-made, well-acted, gorgeous looking film that leaves the viewer, after over two and a half hours spent, wanting more.
Anthony Hopkins returns to his signature role, and is spot-on. No fault can be found in his performance here, and you will find that he actually plays the character down a bit compared to the sometimes flamboyant, over-the-top performance he gave ten years prior. Julianne Moore replaces Jodie Foster as the resilient Clarice Starling, and although the script doesn't allow her character much dimension (no more than what was already established in "Silence Of The Lambs, at least) she does a fine job replacing Foster as a character so ingrained in pop-culture that she was almost impossible to recast. Ray Liotta plays her smarmy boss with ease, while Gary Oldman, completely unrecognizable (especially given that he goes uncredited) plays a very disturbing, very hilarious and very disfigured victim of Hannibal's, offering a generous reward to anyone who can deliver the good doctor to him. The directing by Ridley Scott delivers plenty of atmosphere and memorable visuals, enough so to warrant repeated viewings. Also, the score, by Hans Zimmer, is especially classy and utterly breath-taking. It's the script -- based off of an already sketchy novel -- that the problems stem from. It seems to me, if one is to make a sequel to such a highly regarded piece as "Silence Of The Lambs" -- whether it be in book or movie form -- it should at least have a solid story that holds water. This does not. As mentioned before, the movie can't decide what it wants to be, and the story jumps around so much that by the third act, it's exhausted itself. There are plenty of good ideas in "Hannibal", it's just too bad no one could sort them into cohesion. Regardless, it's got good performances and brilliant direction, so despite the fact that it doesn't live up to it's predecessor, "Hannibal" is still worth a look.
Anthony Hopkins returns to his signature role, and is spot-on. No fault can be found in his performance here, and you will find that he actually plays the character down a bit compared to the sometimes flamboyant, over-the-top performance he gave ten years prior. Julianne Moore replaces Jodie Foster as the resilient Clarice Starling, and although the script doesn't allow her character much dimension (no more than what was already established in "Silence Of The Lambs, at least) she does a fine job replacing Foster as a character so ingrained in pop-culture that she was almost impossible to recast. Ray Liotta plays her smarmy boss with ease, while Gary Oldman, completely unrecognizable (especially given that he goes uncredited) plays a very disturbing, very hilarious and very disfigured victim of Hannibal's, offering a generous reward to anyone who can deliver the good doctor to him. The directing by Ridley Scott delivers plenty of atmosphere and memorable visuals, enough so to warrant repeated viewings. Also, the score, by Hans Zimmer, is especially classy and utterly breath-taking. It's the script -- based off of an already sketchy novel -- that the problems stem from. It seems to me, if one is to make a sequel to such a highly regarded piece as "Silence Of The Lambs" -- whether it be in book or movie form -- it should at least have a solid story that holds water. This does not. As mentioned before, the movie can't decide what it wants to be, and the story jumps around so much that by the third act, it's exhausted itself. There are plenty of good ideas in "Hannibal", it's just too bad no one could sort them into cohesion. Regardless, it's got good performances and brilliant direction, so despite the fact that it doesn't live up to it's predecessor, "Hannibal" is still worth a look.