User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 79 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 34 out of 79
  2. Negative: 30 out of 79

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Sep 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. Sep 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 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.
  3. Dec 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.
  4. Feb 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 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
  5. Mar 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 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
  6. Oct 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
  7. Nov 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, 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.
  8. Mar 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.

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 30 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 30
  2. Negative: 14 out of 30
  1. Reviewed by: Kim Newman
    Gong Li is welcome as Hannibal's Japanese aunt-in-law/mentor, Gaspard Ulliel isn't a bad young Lecter and Webber's direction is intermittently classy -- but this is a footnote rather than a film.
  2. Reviewed by: Josh Rosenblatt
    Who would have thought mass murder and cannibalism could be so dull?
  3. Reviewed by: Phil Vettel
    A sort-of combination of "Lambs," "Batman Begins" and "The Joy of Cooking," Hannibal Rising ostensibly dramatizes the atrocities that turned Hannibal Lecter from loving child to serial killer. But this film is larded up with so many food references that I'm undecided whether this story belongs in a film compendium or a recipe file.