|Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) | Release Date: February 9, 2001||CRITIC SCORE DISTRIBUTION|
A banquet of creepy, gory or grotesque incidents is on display in Hannibal. but this superior sequel has romance in its dark heart.
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.
Hannibal, riding the malicious wit of Hopkins' sophisticated fiend, is a gorgeous, wild, sometimes sick thriller, a feast for enraptured eyes and strong stomachs.
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.
''The Silence of the Lambs'' was a classic; Hannibal is only a good movie of its type.
It's gory, really gory, gratuitously and often inelegantly.
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.
Much has, and will, be made of the grisly scenes throughout the film.
The film goes from stylish to ghoulish to foolish.
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. Read full review
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.
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.
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.
Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy Userscore