- Critic Score
- Most active
- Publication
- Most clicked
-
90It'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.
-
90A banquet of creepy, gory or grotesque incidents is on display in Hannibal. but this superior sequel has romance in its dark heart.
-
88Hannibal isn't art. But for filmgoers with a taste for the absurd and a tolerance for the blackest of black humor, it's one heck of a thrill ride.
-
83Hannibal lacks the rounded emotional elegance of ''The Silence of the Lambs'' (that was a great film; this one is merely good).
-
80The 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.
-
75Hannibal, riding the malicious wit of Hopkins' sophisticated fiend, is a gorgeous, wild, sometimes sick thriller, a feast for enraptured eyes and strong stomachs.
-
75Much of the action is as ponderous as it is predictable. Lector fans will get their fill, but be warned that the menu contains at least two scenes with over-the-top excesses that Hannibal himself might not want to swallow.
-
75It's best to just enjoy Hannibal for what it is: A decadent, elegant waltz about evil's seductive bloom. As sequels go, you could do a lot worse.
-
75''The Silence of the Lambs'' was a classic; Hannibal is only a good movie of its type.
-
70More complicated, more outrageous, less controlled in every way. But its owes its power to that earlier, greater film.
-
70Unlike the original, Hannibal may make us hide our eyes, but it doesn't get inside our heads.
-
70Stylistic excess, comedy, and romance often help make extremes of cruelty and horror function as cathartic metaphor, and all three figure, not always successfully, in this sequel.
-
67It's gory, really gory, gratuitously and often inelegantly.
-
63A carnival geek show elevated in the direction of art. It never quite gets there, but it tries with every fiber of its craft to redeem its pulp origins, and we must give it credit for the courage of its depravity.
-
63It's certainly not scary; it's not even suspenseful. The tension in Hannibal is purely sexual.
-
63Much has, and will, be made of the grisly scenes throughout the film.
-
63Perhaps to compensate for the absence of compelling drama and tension (and a few continuity gaffes), Scott has retreated to his TV commercial roots and crammed Hannibal full of busy, art-directed visuals.
-
63The film goes from stylish to ghoulish to foolish.
-
60Though the movie is clearly meant to work on its own, the relationship between Starling and Lecter plays best if you're familiar with "Lambs."
-
60The audience for Hannibal is far more primed for a good time; if the film is a hit, it will be because Lecter has been cartoonized; his ghoulish panache, his double entendres about cannibalism, and his pet phrases like "goody-goody" and "okeydokey" all serve to make him a figure of fun.
-
60Though Hannibal the movie is unresolved in ways the book is not, that isn't Mr. Hopkins's fault. He's still a star for all seasons, and seasonings.
-
60Even by its own dark standards, the movie's conclusion is as dramatically dissatisfying as it is disturbing.
-
60It 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.
-
58Has almost none of the nail-biting suspense and fascinating character interplay that made the original so authentically terrifying.
-
50The picture is willfully gross, fundamentally stupid and in no way worth the discomfort of watching it. Yet it may be the most well-crafted piece of garbage this year.
-
50Hopkins' Hannibal is no longer mysterious, Clarice is no longer vulnerable, and the overextended Florence scenes dash any hopes of early momentum, even if Giancarlo Giannini is perfect as the cop.
-
50Every 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.
-
50Less monster than monstrosity—albeit, as superfluous sequels go, not on par with the memorably idiotic "Godfather III."
-
50Creepy and grotesque rather than terrifying. It's more distasteful than anything stronger, a sour bottle of a celebrated vintage that a gourmet like Lecter wouldn't hesitate to send back with the sommelier.
-
50Hannibal, a silly though handsomely staged adaptation of the Thomas Harris novel directed by Ridley Scott, is a movie meant for the whole family -- the Manson family.
-
50Strikingly devoid of suspense. It’s not always clear who’s the protagonist and who’s the antagonist. Nor is it scary—at its most intense moments, it’s merely yucky.
-
50"The Silence of the Lambs," was morbid but also a rich and satisfying serial-killer thriller—a cunning weave of the fairy tale, the forensic, and the fetishistic. Hannibal, on the other hand, is simply a fat slab of sadism.
-
40Misfires on so many levels that we have to wonder if there is more than one meaning to this story's wild boars.
-
40The flabbiest of cop-outs. Moore gives a flat, spiritless performance, almost matched by that of Anthony Hopkins, who, notwithstanding the Armani threads, shuffles around like a pensioner in bedroom slippers.
-
40More than just a disappointment. It is also a spoiler, possibly weakening the impact of "Silence" for its fans.
-
0Hannibal, 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.
prev
next
Page:
- 1
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 18 out of 28
-
Mixed: 8 out of 28
-
Negative: 2 out of 28
-
10