Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) | Release Date: February 9, 2007
4.8
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 93 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
36
Mixed:
23
Negative:
34
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
3
ChristopherW.May 30, 2007
High production values and evocative imagery and photography aside, this film should never have been made. The entire captivating Hannibal mythos is replaced by ennui and routine. It's just another gory slasher exploitation flick, High production values and evocative imagery and photography aside, this film should never have been made. The entire captivating Hannibal mythos is replaced by ennui and routine. It's just another gory slasher exploitation flick, nothing else. If you love gory slasher exploitation flicks, be my guest. Have at it! All others stay clear! Expand
3 of 3 users found this helpful
4
grandpajoe6191Sep 29, 2011
I thought about watching the whole Hannibal franchise. After watching "Hannibal Rising", I realized I should watch a different movie franchise that is NOT Hannibal.
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
10
SergioJ.Jun 1, 2007
I don't understand why this movie received very terrilbe reviews. It was one of the best recent movies I have viewed. Ive never seen the other two in the Lecter series but this sure is good.
1 of 3 users found this helpful
1
EmoKidMar 5, 2007
My first R rated movie and it blew. I was a big fan of the Hannibal series up intill this movie. My simple question is why didn't they start with this movie first and keep them in order? Simple answer as well, If they would have done My first R rated movie and it blew. I was a big fan of the Hannibal series up intill this movie. My simple question is why didn't they start with this movie first and keep them in order? Simple answer as well, If they would have done that then no one would have bothered to pay and see them. I know I sure have wouldn't. I'm glad I didn't pay for my ticket. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
JonhB.Apr 7, 2007
This is one of the worst films i have ever seen, and the books not very good either. I think it only takes away the depth from hannibal lecter. The guy sounds french and the story does not fit in with anthony hopkins who sounds british. It This is one of the worst films i have ever seen, and the books not very good either. I think it only takes away the depth from hannibal lecter. The guy sounds french and the story does not fit in with anthony hopkins who sounds british. It is not worth seeing. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
LordNasebySep 27, 2011
Hannibal Lecter is the greatest character ever committed to both screen and paper. As such, once Harris finished his other Lecter books, people wanted more. so, like an idiot, he made the biggest mistake he could make: He gave Hannibal LecterHannibal Lecter is the greatest character ever committed to both screen and paper. As such, once Harris finished his other Lecter books, people wanted more. so, like an idiot, he made the biggest mistake he could make: He gave Hannibal Lecter a back story. Not Hannibal Lecter is one of the most enigmatic characters ever. Why does he do what he does? Well, now we know. And boy, am I angry that I ever found out. Thomas Harris was stupid to write the book, and I was stupid enough to read it. By giving Hannibal Lecter a back story you take away the enigma of the character and by doing so, you take away a lot of what makes him great. I have learned this lesson over and over again: what you imagine is far more terrifying than reality. If you hear someone being ripped apart piece by piece on film, it is far more terrifying than if you see it happening. **** knew this. he was a master at it. so by giving Lecter a back story, you take away some of the terror. some of what made him great. He is still the greatest character of all time, but some of the mystery is gone. would you give Heath Ledger's Joker a back story? F*** NO! That's why he had different stories for how he got his scars. Imagining how he got them is far more terrifying than if they had told you. It seems obvious. So, why the F*** would you give Hannibal Lecter a F****** back story? A reason for the madness?


Acting: Horrible. And I'm not just saying that because I don't think this movie should exist. It was groan worthy. Gaspard Ulliel tried and failed to get Hannibal Lecter right. see, the character of Hannibal Lecter, emanates an aura of pure evil but at the same time, you are fascinated by him. Ulliel failed to capture that. Also, I didn't like the child actor who played Lecter at age 8. Not that he needed to be evil. He wasn't. He didn't need to be. But he annoyed me quite a lot. I generally don't like child actors that young. with a few exceptions of course. they don't do things right generally. He didn't. 0/10

Plot: I think I've said all I needed to say about the plot for this film. 0/10

Screenplay: it disgusted me at points. I mena come on, in one part, Lady Murisaki calls Hannibal "Han." I hated that. It was cheesy. The author, Thomas Harris, wrote the screenplay. well Mr. Harris, you can write books but you can't write screenplays. 0/10

Likableness: Well, the film has a 0/30 so far from me, I think you know what this is going to get. All I can do is warn you one last time, If you like Hannibal Lecter at all and can appreciate the character. Don't see this movie. Don't read the book. don't look up the plot. if someone is discussing this movie, leave the room. basically, pretend that this movie/book doesn't exist at all.

Final Score: 0/40. 0% (H) This is the Naseby stamp of hatred. I rarely award this. It is easier for a bad film to win a Razzie award then to get this. I don't give it out often.


TRIVIA TIME: Actors screen tested for the role of Hannibal include: Hayden Christensen, Macaulay Culkin, Hugh Dancy, Rupert Friend, Dominic Cooper,Tom Sturridge, and Tom Payne.
Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
8
[Anonymous]Apr 5, 2007
The only main problem is that the movie has a slow pace. The acting is good. It is well adapted.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
RobertRJul 22, 2007
Hannibal Rising is defter and more earnest than what the mass critical consensus reveals. The breadth of the photography and framing is adept and deliberate, the 20 minutes of the WWII prologue is imperative on the motivation of the Hannibal Rising is defter and more earnest than what the mass critical consensus reveals. The breadth of the photography and framing is adept and deliberate, the 20 minutes of the WWII prologue is imperative on the motivation of the protagonist, and the detail generates possibility of grander actions to ensue. Subsequently, the crucial frailty of the movie is its perfunctory vengeance exemplar Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
AlanD.Feb 10, 2007
Its always kinda funny to watch critics trip over themselves in blasting something as atrocious when it's merely not that great. it was about as engaging and boringly weird as red dragon and hannibal was, but harris still manages toIts always kinda funny to watch critics trip over themselves in blasting something as atrocious when it's merely not that great. it was about as engaging and boringly weird as red dragon and hannibal was, but harris still manages to create that hannibal magnetism that, despite the distracting fluff surrounding him, makes you not care for anything but the pure entertainment from his infalliabillity. a good watch, if not a particularly good movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
DavidM.Feb 12, 2007
I went to this movie, as many fans of "The Silence of the Lambs" possibly did, with the heady excitement of finding out how such a man as Hannibal Lecter became equal parts erudition and savagery. Lecter himself claims to Clarice that he was I went to this movie, as many fans of "The Silence of the Lambs" possibly did, with the heady excitement of finding out how such a man as Hannibal Lecter became equal parts erudition and savagery. Lecter himself claims to Clarice that he was always more than just the sum of his experiences, so I figured I would be treated to an even deeper descent into the dark mind of one of the greatest movie villains of all time. Boy, I was wrong. Dead wrong. Hannibal's dire upbringing was handled with the same banality as another of Hollywood's master villains was recently: Anakin Skywalker's transformation into Darth Vader. I have come to the conclusion that these "origin" films are precisely akin to watching David Copperfield perform an astounding magic trick one night, and the next night he tells you exactly how he did it, forever ruining the awe and mystery. Part of the shock and intrigue of a character like Hannibal Lecter is exactly the question I posed earlier: how does a man become equal parts erudition and savagery? "Hannibal Rising" answers this question through a series of gruesome events that paint young Lecter as simply a boy who had awful things happen to him and now, as a French inspector theorizes, "...there is no word for what he is now...but...monster." Gaspard Ulliel has the malevolent sneer down pat, but other than that there is nothing in his character that suggests any connection with Anthony Hopkin's elder Lecter. Li Gong is wasted as the haunted hottie aunt Lecter takes refuge with and learns his first smattering of culture from. This movie was simply created as a way to milk the Hannibal Lecter franchise once more. Skip this one and stick with the fava beans and a nice Chianti. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
KayceeM.Feb 20, 2007
I actually liked this movie. It wasn't the best, true, but it was still entertaining. It's easier to just watch it as it's own movie, and try not to compare it to Silence of the Lambs. It may be a little slow, but overall, it I actually liked this movie. It wasn't the best, true, but it was still entertaining. It's easier to just watch it as it's own movie, and try not to compare it to Silence of the Lambs. It may be a little slow, but overall, it was pretty alright. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MattTFeb 9, 2007
It's just kind of there. An interesting revenge thriller is hurt by a poor script.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
MartinLMar 4, 2007
Oh, it WAS as bad as everyone said it was. I wanted this movie to be good. I really, really did. I've been following its progression since last summer. But its definately no Silence. Boring. Unnecessary. Bad.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JustinB.Apr 24, 2007
I was actually impressed. I thought this movie was going to be nothing compared to Silence of the lambs but it did have a good plot line and it did answer some good questions i've had durring this series. Yes he is no Anthony Hopkins at I was actually impressed. I thought this movie was going to be nothing compared to Silence of the lambs but it did have a good plot line and it did answer some good questions i've had durring this series. Yes he is no Anthony Hopkins at all but i think it really pulled me into Lecters shoes. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
mattk.Jul 9, 2007
I really hated this movie. The acting is really bad--I'm not a drama student and I don't pretend to understanding acting, but the dialogue, acting, even the accent seems off.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
SteveA.Feb 10, 2007
I actually liked the premise of this movie: it was a fitting Hollywood beginning for Hollywood's greatest villian (although, the power of SOTL was its realism). It was the painfully SLOW pacing and bad acting that killed it for me. Gong I actually liked the premise of this movie: it was a fitting Hollywood beginning for Hollywood's greatest villian (although, the power of SOTL was its realism). It was the painfully SLOW pacing and bad acting that killed it for me. Gong Li actually acted very well in this movie, although her character was a walking contradiction. The bad guys acted like a bad comedy troupe (seriously, they acted like an atrocious version of the Mighty Python). The boy who played Lector was just too pretty and sweet natured to play a convincing killer. He portrayed agony very well, but his scenes of evil played out like a bad imitation of Dracula, complete with slicked back hair and the standard Bela Lugosi accent. Also, that bizarre five inch dimple on the left side of his face was distracting (sorry, I had to go there). A lot of the lines were bad, too. The detective, a throw-away character, says that the boy Lector died with his sister, and that he doesn't know what Lector is now, but whatever it is, it doesn't have a name. I've heard this same sort of quote in two or three other bad thrillers. Also, there was the scene where Lector carves an "M" into one of the bad guys, and then he says, "That M stands for my sister, Mischa." And this whole time, I thought it stood for Mickey Mouse...eyes rolling. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
J.davidB.Feb 11, 2007
Not just the worst film of the year, quite possibly the worst film ever. it was laugh out loud rotten and worse even than battlefield earth. and! it had a montage!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
ChadS.Feb 26, 2007
Being mentored by a pretty Asian woman in the ways of the sword is one way to show the makings of a psychopath, but it's just not the right way. A bit too fanciful; don't you think? What is this: a "Star Wars"-prequel? Gong Being mentored by a pretty Asian woman in the ways of the sword is one way to show the makings of a psychopath, but it's just not the right way. A bit too fanciful; don't you think? What is this: a "Star Wars"-prequel? Gong Li's character reminds me of Lorraine Bracco's portrayal of a hard-edged mob wife in "Good Fellas"; they're both turned on by violence. Lady Murasaki(Li) is the master of understatement when Hannibal (Gaspard Ulliel) returns with the severed head of her tormentor. Instead of saying, "Holy crap!" she says, "You didn't have to do this for me." "Hannibal Rising" is passable entertainment when the violence has a context (the origins of Lecter's madness), but soon after "Hannibal Rising" runs out of inspiration and the film turns into a body count. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
SamM.Feb 8, 2007
Without Anthony Hopkins, this movie hurts itself. It is awful.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
BobbyM.Feb 8, 2007
Bad. But very scary at times. A low-budget fast paced horror movie that looked like it was made over a long weekend. Yet, it is not the worst. Midly entertaining but needing anthony hopkins.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
RandyJ.Feb 8, 2007
One of the worst of the year.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
EricC.Mar 23, 2007
I'm not really reviewing this movie. It's crap, period. I just want to point out the plost holes in Emo Kid's review.This was your first R rated movie, but you're a fan of the Hannibal series? And the reason they I'm not really reviewing this movie. It's crap, period. I just want to point out the plost holes in Emo Kid's review.This was your first R rated movie, but you're a fan of the Hannibal series? And the reason they didn't make this movie first isn't because they didn't want to turn hurt their franchise. It's because the book for this movie was written long after the previous novels and was just recently published. And it sucks because Harris was pretty much blackmailed in to writing the prequel, and probably intentially made it garbage. Now stop spewing nonsense, Kid. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
PatC.Jul 3, 2007
After five minutes the premise is a foregone conclusion: Young Hannibal sets out on a vendetta to find closure with past dinner guests who had served up his sister as the main course. It makes sense as a tale of revenge, but is neither After five minutes the premise is a foregone conclusion: Young Hannibal sets out on a vendetta to find closure with past dinner guests who had served up his sister as the main course. It makes sense as a tale of revenge, but is neither engaging nor indicative as to how he went on to become the insanely dispassionate gourmet irrepressibly played by Hopkins. Upon reflection it does explain why Hannibal was attracted to Starling and her quest to come to terms with her past, but this only makes Silence of the Lambs more of an achievement. It does not make Hannibal Rising a better movie, and the procession of blown opportunities is the most shocking thing about it. I hope that any sequel concerning Hannibal's transitional years serves up whoever wrote the unimaginative dialogue. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
AlecB.Feb 22, 2007
It wasn't as bad as everybody is saying it is. I actually enjoyed the movie and I thought this character did a pretty good job of it. Yea, he's no Anthony Hopkins, not by a long shot, but it is his first film and I think it is fair It wasn't as bad as everybody is saying it is. I actually enjoyed the movie and I thought this character did a pretty good job of it. Yea, he's no Anthony Hopkins, not by a long shot, but it is his first film and I think it is fair to give him a shot. Very good story line to it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
spadenxDec 3, 2011
I liked this film just as much as the other films in the franchise. I think the acting was solid and it was rather graphic (but in a good way). I enjoyed it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Tss5078Feb 24, 2013
Contrary to popular belief, this movie is not about Anthony Hopkins experimenting with Viagra. In fact, the man who made Hannibal Lecter a household name, doesn't so much as have a cameo in this film. Hannibal Rising takes the story to whereContrary to popular belief, this movie is not about Anthony Hopkins experimenting with Viagra. In fact, the man who made Hannibal Lecter a household name, doesn't so much as have a cameo in this film. Hannibal Rising takes the story to where it's never been before, back to the beginning. We see a young Hannibal in Europe, during WWII, and we learn how he grew into the monster he became. What made this different from the other Lecter films, was that Hannibal is seen as a good guy for much of the film, just out seeking revenge. French film star Gaspard Ulliel is fantastic in his first American film and was the perfect choice to play a young lecter. As a fan of the film franchise, I found this movie fascinating, but as an outsider I can see how some people would find it a bit long and slow. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
imthenoobMar 12, 2012
It was ok. Not as bad as the critics say imo. The cast is alright, Gaspard Ulliel is a great choice as the young Hannibal. The plot was ok. It explained a bit more about Hannibal but it wasnt as insightful as I hoped it would be. It neverIt was ok. Not as bad as the critics say imo. The cast is alright, Gaspard Ulliel is a great choice as the young Hannibal. The plot was ok. It explained a bit more about Hannibal but it wasnt as insightful as I hoped it would be. It never really got interesting either, The little interest there was fades through out the film. Its also a little bit too long of my tastes as well. It was still a decent film though. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
kareOct 6, 2013
its ok...i mean is not awesome ..but is ok, I seen worse is the kind of movie that you watch in tv if you have nothing better to do but still is 50/50 i can't put it neither in the bad or good category
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
AdityaMookerjeeNov 13, 2013
The movie is a tragedy of humanity, as if we evolved as a society, to see more and more of the same. Hannibal Lecter is a very unusually gifted, and perceptive individual. He has no role model in society, and he has been led to believe, thatThe movie is a tragedy of humanity, as if we evolved as a society, to see more and more of the same. Hannibal Lecter is a very unusually gifted, and perceptive individual. He has no role model in society, and he has been led to believe, that individuality won the Soviets the war, and people didn't depend on anyone, but themselves, winning the war. In his experience, his small adorable child of a sister, is killed by people, who feel that he and his sister are the cause of they killing them. How he wins to survive, seems to be how everyone felt, in Stalingrad, in Berlin, in London, and everywhere. Who won the war for the victors, small children like Hannibal, or Stalin, or Churchill?
Hannibal can eat foie gras, and it seems that he is a cannibal, because he detests cannibalism, and perhaps he is condoning the perpetrators. He is asked by the associate of his sister's killer, whether he would feed the killer to his sister, but the associate forgets, that the killer gives the amulet that his victim wore, to his own daughter, and this means, he would have killed and eaten his daughter, in the circumstance, perhaps to Hannibal.
This is what society means, and what it portends, to many like Hannibal. The world war is justified to create a world order, that would have existed in a different way anyway. There is no role model to Hannibal, and even for the leaders, who rule nations. The Second World war had people who had the attitude of Hannibal, but were prudent not to act similarly.
Apparently, Hannibal negates all the bad and good that he does, he does good, if he does, to say that he is not associating himself, and he does bad similarly. He eats the frontal lobe, that part of the brain, which was removed by surgery, in the process of lobotomy, after he removes it, perhaps because he identifies the lobe in a certain way. It might be, that since he cannot perform lobotomy, he has to kill people to perform the procedure.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
MissDraeMar 2, 2014
What the hell happened. The series was going so well until this piece of garbage came out. This movie was terrible. If you ever come across it in stores, just walk away don't even look at it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Meth-dudeNov 8, 2015
The movie is long and even boring at bits,the acting is not always good and some CGI effects are pretty messy but the good scenario,the final act and the interesting story kind of redeem these defaults
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
MovieManiac83Apr 24, 2015
Hannibal Rising is the funniest movie of the year - a true laugh riot. Viewers will be holding their sides to contain the laughter. Forget Borat - if you're looking for something hilarious, this is the movie to see. What's that? It's notHannibal Rising is the funniest movie of the year - a true laugh riot. Viewers will be holding their sides to contain the laughter. Forget Borat - if you're looking for something hilarious, this is the movie to see. What's that? It's not supposed to be a comedy. Oops.

First of all, who had the bright idea of making a Hannibal movie without Anthony Hopkins? That's like making a Pink Panther movie without Peter Sellars. (Yes, they did that and look at the result.) Frankly, after The Silence of the Lambs, the only reason to see the Hannibal movies was because of Hopkins. Secondly, using the critically panned novel by Thomas Harris as the template was another bad move. To his credit, Harris manages to make the screenplay worse than the novel.

Hannibal Rising effectively demystifies one of the 20th century's most iconic cinematic villains, stripping away his icy intellect and turning him into just another victim of a bad childhood. With its trifecta of bad writing, bad acting, and bad direction, Hannibal Rising is to Silence of the Lambs as Superman IV: The Quest for Peace is to Superman. Critical miscalculations at every turn have taken this latest (and hopefully last) Hannibal movie beyond the realm of camp and into that special hell reserved for only the most rancid of sequels.

Hannibal Rising is a gross excursion into bad melodrama, clumsily cannibalizing everything from war movies and vampire flicks to the previous Hannibal films. To call the film's tone uneven would be kind and to consider the lead actor's performance anything close to acceptable would require greater hyperbole than I can produce. There are, however, laughs to be had - all of which are unintentional. Even the movie's self-important style can provide chuckles, but the real humor comes from the overacting and the absurd plot contortions. Not since Kevin Costner's The Postman has a "serious" movie ventured so far into unintentional comedy. In the history of Dino DeLaurentiis motion pictures, this one is second-worst, beaten only by the crapfest of King Kong Lives.

Based on his performance in A Very Long Engagement, I would have never guessed that Gaspard Ulliel had it in him to act this badly. His performance careens from lifeless to campy with little ground in between, and there always seems to be a smile on his face. One might be willing to accept that he looks nothing like Anthony Hopkins had he brought anything except ridicule to the role. As for the other lead: I'm glad that Gong Li is getting more international exposure via English-speaking parts but I have to believe that her limitations with the language caused her to misread the script. There's no other explanation for why she would appear here, once again playing a Japanese woman. She is, however, Hannibal Rising's saving grace. Her acting is about as good as one could hope for in these circumstances and, at age 41, she is stunning. One other note: you know you're in trouble when comedic actor Rhys Ifans is one of the villains.

It would be interesting to know how Peter Webber (Girl with a Pearl Earring) became involved in this misbegotten project. His work appears to be that of a director for hire. There's no style evident. Meanwhile, Hannibal's creator, Thomas Harris, has apparently elected to destroy his creation during this outing. Not only does he postulate an absurd reason for the character's later psychosis but he provides an individual who is so at variance with the Anthony Hopkins version that we can't believe they're supposed to be the same man. It would have been better to give the character another name. It wouldn't have made Hannibal Rising any better, but it would have prevented The Silence of the Lambs from suffering guilt by association.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
TheArchetypesSep 9, 2016
Hannibal Rising is defter and more earnest than what the mass critical consensus reveals. The breadth of the photography and framing is adept and deliberate, the 20 minutes of the WWII prologue is imperative on the motivation of theHannibal Rising is defter and more earnest than what the mass critical consensus reveals. The breadth of the photography and framing is adept and deliberate, the 20 minutes of the WWII prologue is imperative on the motivation of the protagonist, and the detail generates possibility of grander actions to ensue. Subsequently, the crucial frailty of the movie is its perfunctory vengeance exemplar. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
BroyaxJan 10, 2017
Beaucoup d'invraisemblances dans cette jeunesse de Cannibal Lecter, beaucoup de justifications pour justifier la psychopathie de ce fin gourmet qui n'a pas digéré en Lituanie (pendant la guerre) ce qu'on lui a servi...

S'ensuit alors un
Beaucoup d'invraisemblances dans cette jeunesse de Cannibal Lecter, beaucoup de justifications pour justifier la psychopathie de ce fin gourmet qui n'a pas digéré en Lituanie (pendant la guerre) ce qu'on lui a servi...

S'ensuit alors un parcours vengeur des plus banals pour le jeune Lecter qui se délecte de ses anciens bourreaux en France notamment (le pays de la gastronomie). Il est épaulé par sa tante japonaise immigrée adepte du katana (sic !) la magnifique Chinoise Gong Li... encore une invraisemblance grotesque comme le passage au détecteur de mensonges ou le fait qu'Hannibal ait toujours les yeux derrière la tête.

Gaspard Ulliel n'est pas aussi mauvais que l'on s'y attendait mais reste plus à l'aise dans sa pub télé ; heureusement dans le rôle du flicard, Dominic West (Sur Ecoute) relève un peu le niveau. La réalisation s'avère néanmoins des plus soignées mais ne peut compenser l'aspect téléphoné de toute l'entreprise, diluée sur deux heures qui entraînent de ce fait un ennui certain.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews