Metascore
57

Mixed or average reviews - based on 36 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 18 out of 36
  2. Negative: 1 out of 36
  1. 63
    A 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.
  2. Hannibal lacks the rounded emotional elegance of ''The Silence of the Lambs'' (that was a great film; this one is merely good).
  3. 90
    It'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.
  4. The 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.
  5. 60
    Though the movie is clearly meant to work on its own, the relationship between Starling and Lecter plays best if you're familiar with "Lambs."
  6. The 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.
  7. Much 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.
  8. Though 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.
  9. Creepy 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.
  10. Perhaps 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.
  11. Even by its own dark standards, the movie's conclusion is as dramatically dissatisfying as it is disturbing.
  12. Reviewed by: David Edelstein
    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.
  13. 75
    It'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.
  14. 50
    Hannibal, 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.
  15. Misfires on so many levels that we have to wonder if there is more than one meaning to this story's wild boars.
  16. The film goes from stylish to ghoulish to foolish.
  17. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    80
    The 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.
  18. It's certainly not scary; it's not even suspenseful. The tension in Hannibal is purely sexual.
  19. 67
    It's gory, really gory, gratuitously and often inelegantly.
  20. Hannibal, riding the malicious wit of Hopkins' sophisticated fiend, is a gorgeous, wild, sometimes sick thriller, a feast for enraptured eyes and strong stomachs.
  21. Has almost none of the nail-biting suspense and fascinating character interplay that made the original so authentically terrifying.
  22. 50
    Less monster than monstrosity—albeit, as superfluous sequels go, not on par with the memorably idiotic "Godfather III."
  23. Reviewed by: Mike Clark
    50
    Hopkins' 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.
  24. 40
    The 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.
  25. Reviewed by: Richard Corliss
    90
    A banquet of creepy, gory or grotesque incidents is on display in Hannibal. but this superior sequel has romance in its dark heart.
  26. It 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.
  27. Reviewed by: Jay Carr
    75
    ''The Silence of the Lambs'' was a classic; Hannibal is only a good movie of its type.
  28. Hannibal 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.
  29. Reviewed by: David Ansen
    50
    Strikingly 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.
  30. Much has, and will, be made of the grisly scenes throughout the film.
  31. 70
    Stylistic 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.
  32. 0
    Hannibal, 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.
  33. 50
    Every 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.
  34. 40
    More than just a disappointment. It is also a spoiler, possibly weakening the impact of "Silence" for its fans.
  35. Reviewed by: Robert Horton
    70
    More complicated, more outrageous, less controlled in every way. But its owes its power to that earlier, greater film.
  36. Reviewed by: Moira Macdonald
    70
    Unlike the original, Hannibal may make us hide our eyes, but it doesn't get inside our heads.
User Score
6.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 132 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 29 out of 40
  2. Negative: 1 out of 40
  1. May 9, 2012
    7
    I would say: more action, less psychology. Lecter, as an aesthete and connoisseur of art, in some other delivery, with the brain in a box.I would say: more action, less psychology. Lecter, as an aesthete and connoisseur of art, in some other delivery, with the brain in a box. There is nothing surprised: the relationship between him and Starling must be fascinating, and is also really tasty. Full Review »
  2. Jan 4, 2011
    10
    Hopkins portrayal of Lecter was not like it's predecessor (Silence of the Lambs)...Making Hannibal feel more like a pompous old geezer with aHopkins portrayal of Lecter was not like it's predecessor (Silence of the Lambs)...Making Hannibal feel more like a pompous old geezer with a taste for hedonism and human flesh. Full Review »
  3. R.Dalvi
    May 2, 2006
    5
    The brain scene is awful and disgusting. But Anthony hopkins' terrifc performance almost lifts it from the pits of mediocrity. The brain scene is awful and disgusting. But Anthony hopkins' terrifc performance almost lifts it from the pits of mediocrity. Moore's charcter sketch is very poor though. but her performance is very good. Not as suspenseful as The Silence of the Lambs but has more gruesome violence than it. Also, Oldman is good but is not recognisable. Full Review »