Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) | Release Date: February 9, 2007
4.8
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 95 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
37
Mixed:
24
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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