As sequals go, this isn't a bad one - but somehow we are a bit more sanitised to the evil of Sir Anthony Hopkins' "Hannibal Lecter" in this; and Julianne Moore doesn't quite have the intensity of Jodie Foster as FBI agent "Clarice". The story is also a bit too contrived: Millionaire Gary Oldman ("Verger") tries to use "Clarice" to lure, for motives of revenge, "Lecter" out from his secret existence as a museum curator in Florence. Once she discovers where he is, she alerts the carabinieri to keep an eye on him; one of whom quite fancies the reward so tries to take matters into his own hands... Hopkins returns to the US with only one aim in mind, and a cunning game of cerebral chess ensues. It comes across as more of a compendium of short stories rather than as a flowing narrative; there is still plenty of gruesomeness, but without the subtlety - the script isn't at all sophisticated; and though there is plenty of classical music trying to replicate some of the class of "Silence of the Lambs" (1991) it just doesn't quite work. It's a good enough effort, but just lacks that je ne sais quoi.

Certainly the weakest of the Anthony Hopkins _Hannibal_ movies. Having read the books before I watched the movies, that actually does sort of track, as the first two books were better than the third. Even so, I actually think _Hannibal_ does the worst job of adapting the source material too. Looks pretty good and there's quite the cast list (although I don't think many of them are exactly giving career-defining performances here), Julianne Moore is fine as Clarice Starling (although not as good as Jodie Foster), and the story isn't **bad**, but if I'm being honest, I typically give this one a skip whenever I'm revisiting the Lecter mythos.

_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

Unfortunately, this may be the least of the 4 films.

The momentum was off in this one, which was very noticeable right after watching the perfect pacing of "The Silence of the Lambs." I'm not sure in what ways having Jodie Foster back would have changed the overall tone and integrity of this movie, but it was nice to see other returning actors.

I think most are more upset than I am about Jodie not coming back for the role of Clarice, but I actually really like Julianne Moore as an actress too and that probably makes me feel more forgiving than I otherwise would. She did a fine job, but still, she just didn't do the character justice following Jodie's portrayal; and I'm not sure that anyone could. (I mean, who could top Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter?) Julianne's version of Clarice seemed, I don't know, perhaps too bold and too confident. Jodie's version was obviously very intelligent and able to hold her own, but she had a humble like quality about her that Julianne's didn't manage to hit the mark on. One could attempt to explain it away by saying that she just grew from her work experience, but no; that just doesn't seem quite right.

I feel that in comparison to "The Silence of the Lambs," much of the visuals as they're presented are over the top and meant for shock value more so than only lending to tell the story. I know there are novels that these movies are based on, but I haven't read them; so some of my personal impressions could be way off from the actual story lines as they're meant to be. Although from what little I've read about the novels vs the movies; there are portions that are not at all the same. I'm considering putting the books on my reading list, but I'm worried doing so will ruin how much I enjoy my current mindset of Hannibal and Clarice.

Now, I do believe there were definitely interesting ideas in this film. My personal favorite was the way in which they further dove into the fascinating relationship between Hannibal and Clarice with [spoiler]the whole hand chopping scene near the ending. I personally would have liked a movie past that point where they crossed paths again. I wonder if Hannibal would have invested in a prosthetic, and if not having the use of two hands would lead to his doom.[/spoiler] To be perfectly honest, another favorite part of mine was when [spoiler]Cordell allowed Verger to "drive off" into the pig pit.[/spoiler]

I can't say exactly why, but when Hannibal [spoiler]feeds the brain to the kid on the airplane, [/spoiler]it feels out of character for him somehow. I've wondered if I'm alone in that perception. It also felt strange to imagine Hannibal [spoiler]dressing and undressing Clarice.[/spoiler]

I remember watching “Hannibal” with my family on TV shortly after its release and fleeing to my room in less than ten minutes, absolutely unable to stand the view of Mason Verger and the whole atmosphere that surrounded him (the fun part is that I tried to exorcise my fear by playing Silent Hill 2 the entire time, and I am not sure it was of any help). My parents came to check on me a couple of times throughout the film, telling me how boring it was and that there was literally nothing to be afraid of, but I couldn’t believe them. I grew up scared of watching the film again, but could finally find the strength to check it out some time ago. Needless to say, I am glad I decided to invest my time in something else back then.

It’s not a terrible film: Ridley Scott is a good director able to create charming atmospheres in his works, but there is literally nothing remotely interesting here. The plot is too fragmented and so full of worthless sequences and dialogues. Aware of the fact that making something along the lines of “The Silence of the Lambs” would have resulted in backlash from critics, Scott tries a moodier and more exuberant approach, the gore is a bit cartoony but at least offers some interesting moments to wake us up after hours of pure boredom. The last moments in Florence and the dinner at the lake house with Clarice are perhaps the only two scenes worth watching. As they couldn’t get Jodie Foster to play Clarice Sterling, the whole film completely focuses on Hannibal Lecter’s figure, and even tries to picture him as a wicked but charmingly rational and coherent antihero: his victims are the corrupted cop, the greedy detective, the child rapist, in a way they are the real monsters who deserved punishment. Some time is spent on the ambiguous relationship between Lecter and a more badass version of Clarice (played by Julianne Moore), but like the rest of the film, we end up going round and round without getting anywhere.