Metascore
57

Mixed or average reviews - based on 36 Critics What's this?

User Score
6.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 117 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: ,
  • Summary: Hannibal continues the story begun in "The Silence of the Lambs." Ten years have passed since Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Hopkins) escaped from custody, ten years since FBI Agent Clarice Starling (Moore) interviewed him in a maximum-security hospital for the criminally insane. The doctor is now at large in Italy, gloriously at liberty in an unguarded world. But Starling has never forgotten her encounters with Dr. Lecter -- his cold voice still haunts her dreams. (Universal Pictures) Expand
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 18 out of 36
  2. Negative: 1 out of 36
  1. 90
    It's unmissable, flaws and all, because riveting suspense spiced with diabolical laughs and garnished with a sprig of kinky romance add up to the tastiest dish around.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    80
    The continuing saga of one of contemporary literature and cinema's most fascinating villains, as played once again with exquisite taste and riveting force by Anthony Hopkins.
  3. Reviewed by: Jay Carr
    75
    ''The Silence of the Lambs'' was a classic; Hannibal is only a good movie of its type.
  4. It is not bad on its own terms, and it is certainly engrossing, but it comes nowhere near the power and sordid glory of the original.
  5. 60
    Though the movie is clearly meant to work on its own, the relationship between Starling and Lecter plays best if you're familiar with "Lambs."
  6. 50
    Every frame of Scott's film is gorgeously lurid and baroque, but it just hangs there like bad art, even during the gore-spilling, Grand Guignol climax.
  7. 0
    Hannibal, which is very likely the worst film of this year and quite possibly the next, achieves what no movie I can recall ever even attempting: It somehow manages to be both repugnant and boring.

See all 36 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 25 out of 35
  2. Negative: 1 out of 35
  1. May 24, 2011
    10
    Make sure you finish your popcorn early when viewing Hannibal for the first time. While most of this film is based on suspense, there is certainly plenty of gruesome horror by the end. Anthony Hopkins revisits his infamous role of Hannibal Lector in this disturbing sequel to Silence of the Lambs. Julianne Moore revises Jody Fosterâ Expand
  2. Nov 11, 2011
    10
    This movie is superb, i strongly believe that those that didn't enjoy
    it did not or perhaps cannot appreciate its finer points. I don't know

    what people were expecting but i watched this alone and still gave a
    round of applause when the credits rolled.

    Its a deep and interesting story because while Hannibal is a killer,
    and of course a gruesome cannibal, everyone he killed in some way
    deserved it, and if youve read the books you will know that the trauma Hannibal suffered as a child goes a long way to excuse him. So the films begs the viewer the question as to his
    morality, and his punishment if any at all. The viewer perhaps will
    grow to like Hannibal, and so will be presented with many philosophical
    quandaries as the film progresses, would they rather see him jailed or
    free, alive or dead?

    Hannibals interaction with Agent Starling is a fascinating one, wrought
    with sexual and psychological tension as agent Starling and the viewer
    both *feel* that Hannibal wouldn't harm her, but you are never quite
    sure and neither is she.

    The pace of the film builds up to a climactic finish which doesn't give
    itself away until the very end. You are always guessing, will they run
    away together? will he kill her? will she kill him? will she hand him
    into the police? will he escape? Watch it and see.

    I would say that this film doesn't hold your hand, there are a lot of
    finer details which may be unappreciable to those who haven't read the
    books or at least seen the "dragon rising" movie which explains
    Hannibals childhood. Many will be dismayed by the end because they
    think that Hannibal is meant to be a cardboard cut out villain, he
    isn't, and they're wrong, this is a fantastic movie.
    Expand
  3. Jan 4, 2011
    10
    Hopkins portrayal of Lecter was not like it's predecessor (Silence of the Lambs)...Making Hannibal feel more like a pompous old geezer with a taste for hedonism and human flesh. Expand
  4. Feb 23, 2013
    7
    The thing about Hannibal is that it was a good movie, but there was something just off about it. Anthony Hopkins was simply amazing as he is in most everything he does. The rest of the cast was equally as good, but the story was a bit odd. Out of the four Lecter movies, this is the one that doesn't really fit. I didn't like the whole overseas aspect, although the manhunt was good. Clarice Starling was a completely different character and it had nothing to do with that fact that another woman was playing her. Juliana Moore did a great job, but Starling, wasn't the same Starling we came to love in Silence of The Lambs. Overall I liked the movie and it had some great parts to it, especially the end, but my feeling is that something just wasn't right about it. Expand
  5. Aug 30, 2013
    6
    It was not like the first and classic one. It is still watchable though and the fact that Hans Zimmer composed the soundrack of Hannibal makes the movie better. Expand
  6. Oct 15, 2012
    6
    I like more if jodie foster was in this movie , julianne played Clarice badly and wasnt likeable like in the first movie , I understand that Foster dropped out, but they shouldn't have made it without. Moore sucked at this role. Expand
  7. Jan 30, 2014
    5
    Much, much more graphic than its predecessor, this follow-up to the classic (and my personal favorite film) The Silence of the Lambs is all kinds of disappointing. Beyond the fact that Jodie Foster is clearly not replaceable as Clarice Starling as the makers of this film believed, the excessive and gratuitous gore and horror elements that were not present in the prior film are ever present here and serve no purpose. The great part about The Silence of the Lambs was how it could cover such horrific violence and spare you the viewing of it, but its description of it was good enough for you to get the full picture. Here, I do not know if it just lazy writing or what, but here, everything is shown in every gory detail. In addition, another major issue is the lack of dialogue between Clarice and Hannibal. In the prior film, that was a major part of the story and what made the film so great. Here, however, that is simply not the case. Finally, Clarice is not who she was in the first film. There was much more depth to her. Now, they seemingly made her a carboard cutout of a cop in film/television. There is no originality to her character, she no longer felt like a real person. There are positives, though, that really help this film out. Firstly, Anthony Hopkins is phenomenal as expected. It is hard to imagine anyone else playing Hannibal Lecter for me, as he seems to capture the character so beautifully and really does a fantastic job. In addition, Ridley Scott does a fine job in the director's chair and really helps boost this film up a bit. Finally, the suspense elements are good and help keep you interested and on the edge of your seat waiting to see what happens next. Overall, a solid film, but as a follow up to a classic, it was always going to look bad, but I was still hoping for more. Expand

See all 35 User Reviews

Trailers

Related Articles

  1. Ridley Scott: All Films Considered

    Ridley Scott: All Films Considered Image
    Published: May 12, 2010
    The famed director's latest big-budget adventure, "Robin Hood," arrives in theaters this week. We take the opportunity to look back at Scott's career and rank his films from best to worst.