one-nine-eighty Clarice Starling is once again on the trail of Dr Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter. Since his escape he's been living in Italy, while Starling has been gaining her own notoriety as a no-nonsense FBI agent. Mason Verger, a rich but disfigured survivor of Dr Lecter, with an eye for revenge, wades into events in Starling's life by offering fresh clues. In order to tempt Lecter out of hiding, Verger concocts a plan to use Starling as bait. This opens up a lot of questions - Will Verger's plan come to fruition and get his revenge? Or, will Starling finally get her man? Or, will Lecter elude the authorities and Verger and manage to stay on the run? While Hannibal is a good film it's not as dark and moody as "Silence of the Lambs", it feels like a different kettle of fish all together - more Hollywood glossy. Where SOTLs was directed by Jonathan Demme it's Ridley Scott who takes over here. It feels like he's tried to pack more action in while making the film more modern too. Instead of a physiological nightmare there is a lot more gore, and instead of subtleties some of the events and dialogue are more obvious and brazen. In fairness to Scott though, the source material wasn't brilliant (maybe that's why Demme and Jodie Foster aren't involved?). I know this is a film review rather than a book review - but both felt like half-arsed attempted at coming to a conclusion rather than an empowered and invigorated continuation. Casting wise Anthony Hopkin's portrayal cannot be faulted - he's excellent once again. He manages to deliver even the most contrite lines with passion and emotion and is never too far away from looking like a threat ready to pounce. Gary Oldman as Mason Verger is great, albeit the prosthetics do look a little over the top (even fakes from some angles - look at his lips!). Acting wise the only characters who didn't deliver for me were Julianna Moore as Clarice Starling, and Ray Liotta as Paul Krendler. 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. Ray Liotta comes across like he's not really trying; he's just there for fun and a pay-check. I found him annoying and unconvincing. If you read the books you won't be surprised to learn that the films, like the books kind of nose dive in comparison to SOTLs. Still decent horror/thriller's but not as dark, dirty and moody as what's come before them. 7 out of 10.

venelinalqmova I must say that after watching "The Silence of the Lambs" I expected more form this one. I was so captivated by Hannibal Lecter and his mind and way of analysing others. And besides, Anthony Hopkins is more than perfect for this role. But however, about the movie - I can definitely say that it was interesting for me. This hole chasing between FBI agent Starling and Dr. Lecter was so good... BUT some moments were too much for me and this is the only reason for my rating. The scene with the brain was too much... and not only this one. "The Silence of the Lambs" was the perfect psychological thriller, without being disgusting.

Sto'bought Silence Of The Lambs was creepy almost in a classic 1980s fashion like its predecessor Manhunter filmed in the 80s. Hannibal, on the other hand, has an updated feel most likely because of the advancement of film technology from 1991 to 2001. Simply put, films just got better during that decade. Quite a few critics like to contrast Silence with Hannibal, but there is no reason to do this. They are two different story lines shot completely differently from one another. What makes this film stand out over the other are the gruesome gory scenes filmed slowly, deliberately designed to test the squeamishness of the viewer. Silence is an amusement park haunted house where no one ever gets hurt, Hannibal is that same haunted house in which a murdering psychopath lives undetected. I don't recommend this film to anyone who is sensitive to torture scenes or sudden violent death scenes, no matter his or her age. And children should not see this film until they are old enough to fully grasp that there is evil in this world which is beyond what most of us ever experience--at least physically. Psychically is another matter altogether. At the end of the film Hannibal makes the statement that St. Paul hated women. This is patently untrue, but we must consider the source of the statement--a man with a seared conscience who enjoys his kills with as much relish as anyone who immerses himself in his favorite hobby.The blatant child abuse at the end of this film could have been avoided since it added nothing to the story whatsoever. But once again, we must consider the source of the abuse--and steel ourselves against the human nature inside all of us which could, and very easily, create psychopathic destruction given the perfect conditions. More and more the world in which we live becomes that cesspool of perfect bacterial conditions.

Artur Machado Sequel to the acclaimed "Silence of the Lambs", the problem with this movie is that it as such an awful script that nothing else can save it; which is a shame given the big names involved.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.Anthony Hopkins is the only reason to watch this movie, still managing to deliver charisma to his character; the problem are the scenes where he kills: has always to say some 'clever' line before the kill (which is utterly stupid and unrealistic) and some attitudes are inconsistent with his personality and this is because of... you guessed it, the awful script.Julianne Moore does what she can with the awful script and dialogue given to her, but simply can't make forget Jodie Foster.Gary Oldman delivers a bizarre performance, and I mean it as a compliment (he is always good at that :D), and Ray Liota is always cool to watch.This movie is more gory, which I don't mind, but those scenes seemed more comic than frightening, with one exception... the ending...Recomendable just to those really interested in the franchise.