I like that even though they didn't like it, they didn't hate it. To them, the movie whether or not you compare it to the other film is just either not in the same class or doesn't stand as a movie that is mentally stimulating enough-even though they both seemed to think it was a fascinating visual experience despite those things. Sad that they couldn't pay lip service to Gary Oldman by name due to the legal issues at the time because as Mason Verger, he kills it in every scene he's in.
Yeah. Hannibal was a fun movie, but there was no way it was going to compare to Silence with the script based on Thomas Harris’s book. As great as Julianne Moore is, there’s no way she could have matched the archetypal Clarice Jodie Foster performance. Also, because Starling is dealing with the PTSD fallout of Silence, she simply doesn’t have the same impact as in the original. I think the prequel, Red Dragon, was better than Hannibal.
This wasn't the film's only issue, but the movie was doomed to fail when Jodie didn't reprise her role. She was the definitive Clarice just like Hopkins was the definitive Hannibal. It would be like recasting Iron Man, the Joker (for the Dark Knight series), or 90% of the characters in Lord of the Rings. All perfect castings and performances that could never be duplicated. Jodie was Clarice, and nobody else was going to be able to live up to the character and help do the movie justice.
+gorrow1990 I respectfully disagree. Jodie Foster didn't define Clarice Starling any more than Scott Glen defined Jack Crawford (who was replaced by Harvey Keitel in Red Dragon). While it would've been a bit more desirable to see Foster reprise her role, Julianne Moore was a welcome replacement and played the role very well, the only bone I pick with it is why she could'nt have been made a brunette.
cHeStEr5434 Julianne did as good of a job in the role as anyone could, but the writing simply isn’t as strong as in the first book, so she was bound to be met with some disappointment.
Jodie Foster defined Clarice as a young, naive FBI trainee who still had faith in the system. Julianne Moore was a hardened, cynical FBI veteran. Given these changes, recasting the role isn't a big deal.
Hannibal is not a sequel to Silence of the Lambs. It is a continuation of the characters. Clarice Starling is a different character in the novel so I bought into Julianne Moore's interpretation. Hannibal the novel/film is dark yet has moments of romance.
Man I still can’t believe they did a scene in a movie where they eat and cut a human brain🤮 Also Ray liotta was really wasted in this movie and Julian Moore was REALLY miscast, she is a great actress, but not as a Clarice, 2:21 exaclty. And also Gary oldman character death in this movie was really disturbing, violent and disgusting
I saw this movie before SOTL, and I thought SOTL would be just as terrible. Then I finally saw Silence Of The Lambs and loved it, and hated this movie even more.
i don't get the hate! i really don't! this movie is sharp, it's entertaining, Anthony Hopkins kills it like he did before! i think Manhunter and Silence of the Lambs are better movies, but this is still pretty thrilling as it is! this leaves Lecter's story feeling incomplete is really my only true complaint! it's not perfect for that reason and because Julianne Moore does not hold a candle to Jodie Foster in any way! even like this movie better than i liked Red Dragon, which was still good too.
I don't understand how people can read books with extremely detailed, nauseating descriptions of horrific gore and think that's fine but then they think it's tasteless and unnecessary when the movie version portrays less than half the gore that was in the book. They want a cleaned up comfortable version for the movie where everything is implied and left to the imagination, when the book is vivid and unrelenting in it's gory detail? Doesn't make sense to me.
It's all a matter of nuance. In a book, you're forced to envision the detail without actually seeing it. It sort of bridges the gap on the visceral nature of whatever's happening in the story. A movie does the opposite - you see it without having to envision it, which of course is going to incite the visceral reaction much easier. I think film critics like Ebert are big proponents for suspense and terror through nuance, and prefer filmmakers to allow the viewer to use their own imagination as a means of interaction to meet the movie halfway.
I know what you’re saying. It’s a matter of control, I think. As long as it’s in print form, it’s people’s own imaginations that are at work, but when it comes to a movie, it’s being spelled out for them, so they somehow feel more entitled to react, I think.
@@christopherhawley5001Burgess hated the fact that Kubrick adapted the version that removed the final chapter. In that last chapter, we found out that Alex actually matured and went on to have a Son.
You can compare it to 'American Psycho' where the book is extremely graphic and gory but the movie version leaves out the worst incidents and largely leaves the violence they do include off screen.
Those who read the book will understand the issue with this film; The novel is Dante and this film is a Grimm Fairy Tale. Unfortunately, most who complained about Hannibal had no respect for the original source material. They just wanted another thriller.
It pisses me off when critics talk down about movies because they're not exactly identical to the fantastic movie that preceded them....if I wanted to watch Silence of the Lambs, I'd watch Silence of the Lambs. I loved Hannibal for all the reasons they hated it, because it's completely different from Lambs in every way. These guys, who not only do a fantastic job of talking down about the movie and filmmaker, but the audience of Hannibal as well, just want a 'Silence of the Lambs 2.'
She probably knew that was going to happen as it was very much a 'poisoned chalice' whoever was cast given Foster made that role her own in 'Silence' and having Hopkins back but not Foster was always going to have something missing.
I haven't seen this movie complete yet, but even though I've witnessed that infamous scene, I still can't believe such a respected crew, cast, writer and director would actually concieve the idea of someone eating his own brain on a high profile, major studio film. It's just too stupid.
Hello from the future! NBC's Hannibal was three seasons of things much more absurd and silly, yet it was a masterpiece. Also, imagine reading the book when it came out. It was more hyped than Harry Potter, and it ended with a lesbian sodomizing her paraplegic brother with a cattle prod and jerking him off into a condom before stuffing an eel down his throat, while Clarice and Hannibal got high and fucked in their own medieval palace
I tried watching this movie but didn't get very far, not because it was too gory......it was too cheesy. The original was such a classic, I think it should've been left alone.
Agreed. Hannibal walking around in khakis and a plaid shirt turned the character into a joke. Ray Liotta as Paul Krendler was so over the top. Gary Oldman trying to feed Hannibal to pigs was like something out of a bad slasher. The whole thing was like a cheesy b movie.
@martin43427 Actually I wouldn't consider that a valid reason. However there is a mistake from my part in accusing Ebert, as pointed out by another comment. It was Siskel who hated Silence of the Lambs in 1991, Ebert actually liked it.
I honestly think Julianne Moore did a good job in this movie, the script just wasn't up to par with Silence Of The Lambs. If they'd gotten Ted Tally to write again, I don't think people would've been as harsh on her.
This movie was just a BORE. I honestly think all of the problems (the bad script, Scott's flat direction, the misrepresentations of the characters) would have been overcome if the film at least had the intensity of SOTL. Alas it does not. And to the people saying you can't compare the two movies, YES YOU CAN. This is a sequel to that movie, set in the same universe with the same characters. The difference is the characters are wrong, its not scary, its lazy, and just downright stupid.
@spas16 Not scary in the movies, but he would be in real life? Thats a weird notion. Obviously, no movie villian ever 'scares' you as they would in real life, the whole point is to imagine yourself in the position of whoever is dealing with them..
That's not true. She was actually signed on to do Hannibal, but ended up pulling out due to repeated script changes that she was unhappy with. In fact, Anthony Hopkins almost pulled out for the same reason. I haven't even heard of this nightmare business you speak of.
Hopkins said once he'd read the novel he didn't think Foster would do the film. Director Jonathan Demme also pulled out having read the book disliking the gory material and where it took the characters.
+Chris Wright lol! That's what I always think when I see messages like that. Like who are you really sending that for? It's really just for likes and " good for you " type comments. Always humorous to read though : )
I always thought the point of the movie was to show Hannibal Lecter doing his work "in action" and to see how he ultimately felt about Clarice. The only reason i laughed sometimes was because of how over the top Lecter mocked and played with people's lives.
If you have ever asked yourself what the phrase "something parodying itself" then watch this movie. This is a parody of Silence of the Lambs, not a sequel.
I agree with Ebert. Lecter's power as a character diminishes once he's out of his cell. IMO, the best part of Hannibal is Pazzi's storyline, mostly b/c of Giancarlo Giannini.
It is just your opinion, which I hold is absolute contempt precisely because I absolutely adore this movie, one of Ridley Scott's very best, number three after Blade Runner and Gladiator.
Roeper ragging on Julianne Moore not being Jodie Foster is just absurd. I found Julianne just as fascinating, sexy, and wondrous as I did Foster in the original. They're both terrific in their own unique way. Anyway if I were to prepare evidence that Ebert had some very serious deficits and blind spots, this review would be exhibit B, right after his bone-headed reaction to Gladiator, also by Ridley Scott.
I like Hannibal for its visuals (especially those Italy scenes - gorgeous) and Anthony Hopkins, but he kind of hams it up in this one and it's nowhere near as good as Silence of the Lambs. I'm not surprised Ebert didn't like it.
The comparison is pointless. Both actresses may have portrayed the same character but they portrayed them at different points in life. Jodie's Clarice was a fledging FBI trainee who still had faith in the system. Julianne's Clarice is a cynical, hardened FBI Agent.
You haven't been on in a while, but I'm going to try anyways. Since you uploaded this clip (and assuming you have this ep), is there any chance you can upload Michaela Perrirea's segment regarding the Oscar websites. A friend of mine is featured on there, and I'd love to surprise her by digging this up lol. Thanks!
It's clear that both of them did not read the book Hannibal, which is very different from the book Silence of the Lambs. Hannibal the film is close to the book but the book is more graphic.
I was very disappointed in this movie. I love Julianne Moore but she wasn’t Clarice for me. I remember an article about Jody Foster and why she chose not to reprise the character.....it was due to the way Clarice was portrayed at the end in the book. She said Clarice would never be with Lector.
Hannibal is no Silence of the Lambs, but for me I thought it was very romantic. The idea of lecter defending Clarice's honor, feeding that asshole his brains for thought lol! Then ultimately cutting off his own hand to escape awwww so beautiful to me!
@@stefanmovieflixtomasi He did it for her! traveling to her house, buying her clothes, mending her wounds, defending her honor, writing love letter with custom fragrance, threatens to take her hand cuts off his instead. I know it can be interpreted as creepy, but to me thats uncommon romance.
@@ricardocantoral7672 if youre referring to the hannibal novel, i prefer the movies bitter sweet ending. It's more in line to clarices incorruptible nature while maintaining a sort of respect towards hannibal. Unrequited love is a more fitting end between the two. I can't see her easily brainwashed by lecter.
I remember after I first saw that movie, I thought "Man! That is so Effing cool!" Now I don't know how I could have thought that. Wait, yes I do; I thought that because I was very immature. Yes, the people Hannibal cut apart in this movie were very bad people themselves, but to cut his face off and paralyze him or to take his brain out is just horrific. It was beyond tasteless. Two wrongs don't make a right.
obviously this is no Silence of the Lambs but it's not bad at all, I think this gets a bad rep cause people just compare it SotL, its a totally different movie not as subtle in many ways but that doesn't make it bad. Yeah its gruesome but its about a sociopathic murderer who eats people . . . American Psycho is just as gruesome if not more (especially the book) and people love that shit.
@Christopher Campbell I would consider Godfather part 2 and the likes of Empire Strikes Back as 2nd parts of a trilogy of one long story as opposed to sequels.
The first two Hannibal books were great but everything that followed just got worst and worst. I hope Thomas Harris is not out there somewhere about to crank out another installment. Why waste so much of one's writing career on the exploits of a single character? Hannibal and Hannibal Rising rank easily among the worst books of all time that I have read. This movie started with moderate promise but it got sillier as it progressed until it felt more like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Ridley sucks.
@Biscuitchris7again Guaranteed if they made Hannibal like silence of the lambs they would criticize it for being too much like the first. I respect their decision, but don't let it piss you off man.
If this was a better movie, Goldman's performance would have annoyed me, because it's so hammy and out of tune with the tone of the rest of the movie it's funny. As it stands now, laughing at (or with) Goldman is one of the few bright spots in this.
There are two reasons that Jodi Foster has confirmed, th one reason is that the character of Clarice went down a negative path in the novel and in the script and felt it was a portrayal to the character, the main reason though was that she got an opportunity to be in another film. Julianne Moore was brought in because Anthony Hopkins enjoyed working with her before and felt she'd due the part justice(I liked her in the role and felt she didn't try to force a Foster performance, but her own
To be fair; it's a big centrepiece in the book - they already scrapped the appalling fanfic ending, so to then scrap even this stupid scene would be "may aswell just not bother, but we have to"
..........I've concluded- Hannibal is Not a sequel to Silence of the Lambs. Its best to forget about the style of Silence of the Lambs when watching Hannibal. It is its own story in itself. About Hannibal Lecter and his lifestyle & his own outlook on things including his violence. Hannibal is mainly a Romantic Drama / Thriller. It can be appreciated & understood that way. It is perfectly directed, and one of the most under-rated big movies of this century so far.
@Kubrick101Fan You do realize that Silence of the Lambs was reviewed back in 1991, and now here's Ebert reviewing Hannibal in 2001. That's a lot of time where someone can change their mind on a film.
I have watched & analysed Hannibal several times over the past 5+ years. After being unsure about it at first, it has actually become one of my favorite movies ever....................
Gary Oldman went uncredited on purpose, since he's playing someone without a face. Ebert was probably informed before he wrote his review.
Richard is so right, "Silence of the Lambs" was the BEST!!! The chemistry between Foster and Hopkins was immortal and just so beautiful
this film is very very underrated.
👍
No Foster? No Demme? No thanks!!!
I like that even though they didn't like it, they didn't hate it. To them, the movie whether or not you compare it to the other film is just either not in the same class or doesn't stand as a movie that is mentally stimulating enough-even though they both seemed to think it was a fascinating visual experience despite those things.
Sad that they couldn't pay lip service to Gary Oldman by name due to the legal issues at the time because as Mason Verger, he kills it in every scene he's in.
Yeah. Hannibal was a fun movie, but there was no way it was going to compare to Silence with the script based on Thomas Harris’s book. As great as Julianne Moore is, there’s no way she could have matched the archetypal Clarice Jodie Foster performance. Also, because Starling is dealing with the PTSD fallout of Silence, she simply doesn’t have the same impact as in the original. I think the prequel, Red Dragon, was better than Hannibal.
Red Dragon ? Yeesh.
This wasn't the film's only issue, but the movie was doomed to fail when Jodie didn't reprise her role. She was the definitive Clarice just like Hopkins was the definitive Hannibal. It would be like recasting Iron Man, the Joker (for the Dark Knight series), or 90% of the characters in Lord of the Rings. All perfect castings and performances that could never be duplicated. Jodie was Clarice, and nobody else was going to be able to live up to the character and help do the movie justice.
+gorrow1990 I respectfully disagree. Jodie Foster didn't define Clarice Starling any more than Scott Glen defined Jack Crawford (who was replaced by Harvey Keitel in Red Dragon). While it would've been a bit more desirable to see Foster reprise her role, Julianne Moore was a welcome replacement and played the role very well, the only bone I pick with it is why she could'nt have been made a brunette.
cHeStEr5434 Julianne did as good of a job in the role as anyone could, but the writing simply isn’t as strong as in the first book, so she was bound to be met with some disappointment.
Jodie Foster defined Clarice as a young, naive FBI trainee who still had faith in the system. Julianne Moore was a hardened, cynical FBI veteran. Given these changes, recasting the role isn't a big deal.
@@ricardocantoral7672 Exactly.
Foster was certainly missed, but let's be honest, even she would've struggled with the lacklustre script.
The novel Hannibal wasn't very good either, so the filmmakers really didn't have much to work with.
This is hardly as gory as they're making it seem.
Hannibal is not a sequel to Silence of the Lambs. It is a continuation of the characters. Clarice Starling is a different character in the novel so I bought into Julianne Moore's interpretation. Hannibal the novel/film is dark yet has moments of romance.
Exactly my thoughts.
Man I still can’t believe they did a scene in a movie where they eat and cut a human brain🤮
Also Ray liotta was really wasted in this movie and Julian Moore was REALLY miscast, she is a great actress, but not as a Clarice, 2:21 exaclty. And also Gary oldman character death in this movie was really disturbing, violent and disgusting
I saw this movie before SOTL, and I thought SOTL would be just as terrible. Then I finally saw Silence Of The Lambs and loved it, and hated this movie even more.
Ebert hated said he hated Silence of the Lambs when he reviewed it!
Now he's saying that Hannibal is not as good as movie as SOTL.
Ridiculous.
To be fair 10 years is a long time to reform an opinion on something. Fortunately Ebert changed his mind eventually.
Kubrick101Fan Ebert gave Silence 4 stars
Huh ? Silence of The Lambs is on Ebert's great movie list.
The book explains how Hannibal escapes, although, I agree: Too much gore!
i don't get the hate! i really don't! this movie is sharp, it's entertaining, Anthony Hopkins kills it like he did before! i think Manhunter and Silence of the Lambs are better movies, but this is still pretty thrilling as it is! this leaves Lecter's story feeling incomplete is really my only true complaint! it's not perfect for that reason and because Julianne Moore does not hold a candle to Jodie Foster in any way! even like this movie better than i liked Red Dragon, which was still good too.
I don't understand how people can read books with extremely detailed, nauseating descriptions of horrific gore and think that's fine but then they think it's tasteless and unnecessary when the movie version portrays less than half the gore that was in the book. They want a cleaned up comfortable version for the movie where everything is implied and left to the imagination, when the book is vivid and unrelenting in it's gory detail? Doesn't make sense to me.
Well, Ebert never said that he liked the book, either.
It's all a matter of nuance. In a book, you're forced to envision the detail without actually seeing it. It sort of bridges the gap on the visceral nature of whatever's happening in the story. A movie does the opposite - you see it without having to envision it, which of course is going to incite the visceral reaction much easier.
I think film critics like Ebert are big proponents for suspense and terror through nuance, and prefer filmmakers to allow the viewer to use their own imagination as a means of interaction to meet the movie halfway.
I know what you’re saying. It’s a matter of control, I think. As long as it’s in print form, it’s people’s own imaginations that are at work, but when it comes to a movie, it’s being spelled out for them, so they somehow feel more entitled to react, I think.
@@christopherhawley5001Burgess hated the fact that Kubrick adapted the version that removed the final chapter. In that last chapter, we found out that Alex actually matured and went on to have a Son.
You can compare it to 'American Psycho' where the book is extremely graphic and gory but the movie version leaves out the worst incidents and largely leaves the violence they do include off screen.
Not the same without siskel.
This is one of the rare times I don't agree with Ebert. This was an exceptional movie and sequel.
based on what? This movie brought nothing new to the table
Those who read the book will understand the issue with this film; The novel is Dante and this film is a Grimm Fairy Tale. Unfortunately, most who complained about Hannibal had no respect for the original source material. They just wanted another thriller.
They are being too harsh. Hannibal is a good film. It's no silence of the lambs but it is still worth seeing
the book was mind blowing. the movie was good
foster was better in lead this a decent filmthough silence is much better
Gary Oldman was the reason to watch this.
So true!Awful sequel to a classic film.
liked hannibel but i admit slilence of the lambs is way better
@Kubrick101Fan Siskel hated Silence of the Lambs not Ebert...
to me Julianne Moore is the EXTREMELY poor man's Jodie Foster
This is such a howler, massive clunker of a movie. Ridley scott - the most wildly uneven director of all time??
Ridley Scott amazing
It pisses me off when critics talk down about movies because they're not exactly identical to the fantastic movie that preceded them....if I wanted to watch Silence of the Lambs, I'd watch Silence of the Lambs. I loved Hannibal for all the reasons they hated it, because it's completely different from Lambs in every way. These guys, who not only do a fantastic job of talking down about the movie and filmmaker, but the audience of Hannibal as well, just want a 'Silence of the Lambs 2.'
Exactly. Check out their review of Red Dragon. Asking for a sequel or prequel where Hannibal was set loose. They give it to them and they complain.
Wonder if Julianne Moore ever had any reaction to hearing "While being a good actress, she's no Jodie Foster."(paraphrasing)
She probably knew that was going to happen as it was very much a 'poisoned chalice' whoever was cast given Foster made that role her own in 'Silence' and having Hopkins back but not Foster was always going to have something missing.
@seblasian
I didn't . I dont find Lecter that scary in the movies. He would be scary in real life though.
Wow, an Ebert & Roeper Review that I actually (mostly) agree with! I did like the brain-eating scene though, only part of the whole film that I liked.
I haven't seen this movie complete yet, but even though I've witnessed that infamous scene, I still can't believe such a respected crew, cast, writer and director would actually concieve the idea of someone eating his own brain on a high profile, major studio film. It's just too stupid.
Hello from the future! NBC's Hannibal was three seasons of things much more absurd and silly, yet it was a masterpiece.
Also, imagine reading the book when it came out. It was more hyped than Harry Potter, and it ended with a lesbian sodomizing her paraplegic brother with a cattle prod and jerking him off into a condom before stuffing an eel down his throat, while Clarice and Hannibal got high and fucked in their own medieval palace
I tried watching this movie but didn't get very far, not because it was too gory......it was too cheesy. The original was such a classic, I think it should've been left alone.
How was it "cheesy" ?
Agreed. Hannibal walking around in khakis and a plaid shirt turned the character into a joke. Ray Liotta as Paul Krendler was so over the top. Gary Oldman trying to feed Hannibal to pigs was like something out of a bad slasher. The whole thing was like a cheesy b movie.
It was a bad movie.
@Ashloomis I like Gary Oldman, but the character of Mason Verger was so much better in the book...my feeling about the whole movie actually...
@martin43427 Actually I wouldn't consider that a valid reason.
However there is a mistake from my part in accusing Ebert, as pointed out by another comment. It was Siskel who hated Silence of the Lambs in 1991, Ebert actually liked it.
I honestly think Julianne Moore did a good job in this movie, the script just wasn't up to par with Silence Of The Lambs. If they'd gotten Ted Tally to write again, I don't think people would've been as harsh on her.
This movie was just a BORE. I honestly think all of the problems (the bad script, Scott's flat direction, the misrepresentations of the characters) would have been overcome if the film at least had the intensity of SOTL. Alas it does not. And to the people saying you can't compare the two movies, YES YOU CAN. This is a sequel to that movie, set in the same universe with the same characters. The difference is the characters are wrong, its not scary, its lazy, and just downright stupid.
@spas16 Not scary in the movies, but he would be in real life? Thats a weird notion. Obviously, no movie villian ever 'scares' you as they would in real life, the whole point is to imagine yourself in the position of whoever is dealing with them..
That's not true. She was actually signed on to do Hannibal, but ended up pulling out due to repeated script changes that she was unhappy with. In fact, Anthony Hopkins almost pulled out for the same reason.
I haven't even heard of this nightmare business you speak of.
Hopkins said once he'd read the novel he didn't think Foster would do the film. Director Jonathan Demme also pulled out having read the book disliking the gory material and where it took the characters.
The ending of the book was fine..why'd they have to change it for the film?
Cuz Box Office.
R.I.P. Roger Ebert
do you think he can hear you? You'll have to talk a lot louder than that.
Chris Wright, fuck off.
+Chris Wright lol! That's what I always think when I see messages like that. Like who are you really sending that for? It's really just for likes and " good for you " type comments. Always humorous to read though : )
You can just tell from the thumbnail what’s on Roeper’s mind 😳😳
I always thought the point of the movie was to show Hannibal Lecter doing his work "in action" and to see how he ultimately felt about Clarice. The only reason i laughed sometimes was because of how over the top Lecter mocked and played with people's lives.
If you have ever asked yourself what the phrase "something parodying itself" then watch this movie. This is a parody of Silence of the Lambs, not a sequel.
I agree with Ebert. Lecter's power as a character diminishes once he's out of his cell. IMO, the best part of Hannibal is Pazzi's storyline, mostly b/c of Giancarlo Giannini.
@rad3xl That’s a good way of saying it.
The Silence of The Lambs is so much better than Hannibal. I think Hannibal sucked. But just my opinion.
It is just your opinion, which I hold is absolute contempt precisely because I absolutely adore this movie, one of Ridley Scott's very best, number three after Blade Runner and Gladiator.
@KaijuKingGojira ah well even the greats get it wrong from time to time :)
Roeper ragging on Julianne Moore not being Jodie Foster is just absurd. I found Julianne just as fascinating, sexy, and wondrous as I did Foster in the original. They're both terrific in their own unique way.
Anyway if I were to prepare evidence that Ebert had some very serious deficits and blind spots, this review would be exhibit B, right after his bone-headed reaction to Gladiator, also by Ridley Scott.
I like Hannibal for its visuals (especially those Italy scenes - gorgeous) and Anthony Hopkins, but he kind of hams it up in this one and it's nowhere near as good as Silence of the Lambs. I'm not surprised Ebert didn't like it.
Julianne was more clarice than jodie, as well
The comparison is pointless. Both actresses may have portrayed the same character but they portrayed them at different points in life. Jodie's Clarice was a fledging FBI trainee who still had faith in the system. Julianne's Clarice is a cynical, hardened FBI Agent.
One of my favorite movies. And EVERYONE I showed this movie to really liked it as well.
Two purdes 🙄Hannibal was Awesome!!
didn`t care for this movie...got ridiculous..turned Hannibal Lector into Jason..impossible to kill always escapes in a ludicrous scene
You haven't been on in a while, but I'm going to try anyways. Since you uploaded this clip (and assuming you have this ep), is there any chance you can upload Michaela Perrirea's segment regarding the Oscar websites. A friend of mine is featured on there, and I'd love to surprise her by digging this up lol. Thanks!
It's clear that both of them did not read the book Hannibal, which is very different from the book Silence of the Lambs. Hannibal the film is close to the book but the book is more graphic.
Lecter on a Merry-Go-Round? Seriously? What a waste of talent this movie is.
even though i do agree with ebert i have to say i still enjoyed the movie and there is a video explaining the plot holes
First time I've seen a Thumbs Down!
I was very disappointed in this movie. I love Julianne Moore but she wasn’t Clarice for me. I remember an article about Jody Foster and why she chose not to reprise the character.....it was due to the way Clarice was portrayed at the end in the book. She said Clarice would never be with Lector.
I liked Hannibal more than Silence Of The Lambs.
gore fest? more like BORE fest!
😂😂😂😂😂 personally i like hannibal more thsn rest of the series
I hated this movie, I wonder what Gene Siskel would think about Hannibal
rochelle123ist I think it’s safe to say Siskel would’ve definitely agreed with you. Thumbs down!
he passed away in 1999, Jeff
Where Can I Find The Review Of Saving Silverman
@knownpleasures
Hands UP!
@mrweyron123 I found it amusing. what of it?
Hannibal is no Silence of the Lambs, but for me I thought it was very romantic. The idea of lecter defending Clarice's honor, feeding that asshole his brains for thought lol! Then ultimately cutting off his own hand to escape awwww so beautiful to me!
How did you think it was romantic
@@stefanmovieflixtomasi He did it for her! traveling to her house, buying her clothes, mending her wounds, defending her honor, writing love letter with custom fragrance, threatens to take her hand cuts off his instead. I know it can be interpreted as creepy, but to me thats uncommon romance.
@@Emapten I kind of get what you’re saying. I sort of find it similar to the Thomas crown affair remake
@@Emapten You would like the novel, especially the end.
@@ricardocantoral7672 if youre referring to the hannibal novel, i prefer the movies bitter sweet ending. It's more in line to clarices incorruptible nature while maintaining a sort of respect towards hannibal. Unrequited love is a more fitting end between the two. I can't see her easily brainwashed by lecter.
I remember after I first saw that movie, I thought "Man! That is so Effing cool!" Now I don't know how I could have thought that. Wait, yes I do; I thought that because I was very immature.
Yes, the people Hannibal cut apart in this movie were very bad people themselves, but to cut his face off and paralyze him or to take his brain out is just horrific. It was beyond tasteless. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Its a lot to stomach just flipping thru the channels that's for sure lol
@Bonkskey
Gary Oldman's character
*starts laughing* With the thing and the brain....*still laughing*
Hannibal is a terrible movie, lol, but also entertaining
funny how Ebert doesn't mention he panned Silence of the Lambs.
Wasn’t that gene Siskel
He gave it 4 stars
He didn’t. He gave it thumbs up. Siskel gave it thumbs down. The only problem Ebert had with SOTL was the ending.
@@langdonalger9219 Roger's complaint was so dumb. What did he expect ? Buffalo Bill politely confessing and turning himself in ?
😂😂😂 these guys sucked at their job
obviously this is no Silence of the Lambs but it's not bad at all, I think this gets a bad rep cause people just compare it SotL, its a totally different movie not as subtle in many ways but that doesn't make it bad.
Yeah its gruesome but its about a sociopathic murderer who eats people . . . American Psycho is just as gruesome if not more (especially the book) and people love that shit.
@fireflyfan1 no that was siskel (RIP)
Terminator 2 : Judgement day is best sequel ever made
Godfather 2 is
I would argue TRON: Legacy is just as good, probably better. But they're both phenomenal.
Aliens.
@Christopher Campbell I would consider Godfather part 2 and the likes of Empire Strikes Back as 2nd parts of a trilogy of one long story as opposed to sequels.
You're all wrong. The best sequel of all time in is The Bride of Frankenstein.
I hate this movie
@mrweyron123 Nostalgia Critic fan?
second*
The first two Hannibal books were great but everything that followed just got worst and worst. I hope Thomas Harris is not out there somewhere about to crank out another installment. Why waste so much of one's writing career on the exploits of a single character? Hannibal and Hannibal Rising rank easily among the worst books of all time that I have read. This movie started with moderate promise but it got sillier as it progressed until it felt more like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Ridley sucks.
@Biscuitchris7again Guaranteed if they made Hannibal like silence of the lambs they would criticize it for being too much like the first. I respect their decision, but don't let it piss you off man.
If this was a better movie, Goldman's performance would have annoyed me, because it's so hammy and out of tune with the tone of the rest of the movie it's funny. As it stands now, laughing at (or with) Goldman is one of the few bright spots in this.
There are two reasons that Jodi Foster has confirmed, th one reason is that the character of Clarice went down a negative path in the novel and in the script and felt it was a portrayal to the character, the main reason though was that she got an opportunity to be in another film. Julianne Moore was brought in because Anthony Hopkins enjoyed working with her before and felt she'd due the part justice(I liked her in the role and felt she didn't try to force a Foster performance, but her own
i like this film, it's not as good as silence of the lambs but it has it's own charm.
Great review!
To be fair; it's a big centrepiece in the book - they already scrapped the appalling fanfic ending, so to then scrap even this stupid scene would be "may aswell just not bother, but we have to"
..........I've concluded-
Hannibal is Not a sequel to Silence of the Lambs.
Its best to forget about the style of Silence of the Lambs when watching Hannibal.
It is its own story in itself. About Hannibal Lecter and his lifestyle & his own outlook on things including his violence.
Hannibal is mainly a Romantic Drama / Thriller. It can be appreciated & understood that way.
It is perfectly directed, and one of the most under-rated big movies of this century so far.
Silence of the Lambs is better! I missed the Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins chemistry and Jodie Foster herself. :(
I would have liked this movie better had it not been Julianne Moore. She's a horrid actor.
gary oldman should have gotten best supp actor for this. not even nominated. psh
@Kubrick101Fan You do realize that Silence of the Lambs was reviewed back in 1991, and now here's Ebert reviewing Hannibal in 2001. That's a lot of time where someone can change their mind on a film.
I have watched & analysed Hannibal several times over the past 5+ years. After being unsure about it at first, it has actually become one of my favorite movies ever....................
This was a spot on review...not a good film...they turned Lector into Jason
As for good scary moments.. dont tell me you didnt shit your pants when Lecter gave the Italian detective that look during the opera..
very good movie sure not as good as part one in many ways but still good and far from just a gore-fest
It’s sad. I think this film cost Ridley Scott the Oscar for Gladiator. Voters were turned off by this movie.