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.