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.

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.

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.

The only main problem is that the movie has a slow pace. The acting is good. It is well adapted.

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.

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

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 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

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

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.

It's just kind of there. An interesting revenge thriller is hurt by a poor script.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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

Without Anthony Hopkins, this movie hurts itself. It is awful.

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.

One of the worst of the year.

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

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

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.

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.… Expand

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.

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