User Score
6.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 132 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 91 out of 132
  2. Negative: 12 out of 132

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 22, 2014
    6
    I would say it's pointless, but it was still thrilling, which is the only reason it's a 6 out of 10. Otherwise, Julianne Moore. WORST REPLACEMENT EVER!
  2. Oct 3, 2014
    4
    While Anthony Hopkins once again puts on a stellar performance, "Hannibal" unfortunately lacks the general character interaction that made the first film so good, and seems to focus solely on being more graphic.
  3. Sep 19, 2014
    8
    I don't understand the absolute hatred for Hannibal. The script is understandable, considering the characters of the first two parts of the trilogy, and with Sir Ridley Scott, Sir Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, Gary Oldman and Ray Liotta, things are always going to be both well acted and directed--and interesting to boot!
  4. Sep 2, 2014
    9
    "Hannibal" isn't as good as "Manhunter" or "The Silence of the Lambs", but it's still just as dark, shocking and intense as its predecessors. It's highly underrated, and I recommend it if you enjoy the other Hannibal films.
  5. Aug 31, 2014
    6
    Yes, we are undoubtedly missing Jodie Foster; nevertheless, Anthony Hopkins in his definitive role is back and just as brilliant. Julianne Moore takes her turn as Agent Starling and does a fine job of it.
  6. Jan 30, 2014
    5
    Much, much more graphic than its predecessor, this follow-up to the classic (and my personal favorite film) The Silence of the Lambs is all kinds of disappointing. Beyond the fact that Jodie Foster is clearly not replaceable as Clarice Starling as the makers of this film believed, the excessive and gratuitous gore and horror elements that were not present in the prior film are ever presentMuch, much more graphic than its predecessor, this follow-up to the classic (and my personal favorite film) The Silence of the Lambs is all kinds of disappointing. Beyond the fact that Jodie Foster is clearly not replaceable as Clarice Starling as the makers of this film believed, the excessive and gratuitous gore and horror elements that were not present in the prior film are ever present here and serve no purpose. The great part about The Silence of the Lambs was how it could cover such horrific violence and spare you the viewing of it, but its description of it was good enough for you to get the full picture. Here, I do not know if it just lazy writing or what, but here, everything is shown in every gory detail. In addition, another major issue is the lack of dialogue between Clarice and Hannibal. In the prior film, that was a major part of the story and what made the film so great. Here, however, that is simply not the case. Finally, Clarice is not who she was in the first film. There was much more depth to her. Now, they seemingly made her a carboard cutout of a cop in film/television. There is no originality to her character, she no longer felt like a real person. There are positives, though, that really help this film out. Firstly, Anthony Hopkins is phenomenal as expected. It is hard to imagine anyone else playing Hannibal Lecter for me, as he seems to capture the character so beautifully and really does a fantastic job. In addition, Ridley Scott does a fine job in the director's chair and really helps boost this film up a bit. Finally, the suspense elements are good and help keep you interested and on the edge of your seat waiting to see what happens next. Overall, a solid film, but as a follow up to a classic, it was always going to look bad, but I was still hoping for more. Expand
  7. Aug 30, 2013
    6
    It was not like the first and classic one. It is still watchable though and the fact that Hans Zimmer composed the soundrack of Hannibal makes the movie better.
  8. Aug 19, 2013
    9
    Hannibal wasn't as bad as some people write.Yes, this film was ,,a little" different then Silence of the Lambs but the developing relationship between Dr. Lecter and Clarice was awesome. I canĀ“t describe my feelings but I know HANNIBAL totally caught my attention. This was one of the best filmy I have ever seen.
    (in its category)
    90/100
  9. Feb 23, 2013
    7
    The thing about Hannibal is that it was a good movie, but there was something just off about it. Anthony Hopkins was simply amazing as he is in most everything he does. The rest of the cast was equally as good, but the story was a bit odd. Out of the four Lecter movies, this is the one that doesn't really fit. I didn't like the whole overseas aspect, although the manhunt was good. ClariceThe thing about Hannibal is that it was a good movie, but there was something just off about it. Anthony Hopkins was simply amazing as he is in most everything he does. The rest of the cast was equally as good, but the story was a bit odd. Out of the four Lecter movies, this is the one that doesn't really fit. I didn't like the whole overseas aspect, although the manhunt was good. Clarice Starling was a completely different character and it had nothing to do with that fact that another woman was playing her. Juliana Moore did a great job, but Starling, wasn't the same Starling we came to love in Silence of The Lambs. Overall I liked the movie and it had some great parts to it, especially the end, but my feeling is that something just wasn't right about it. Expand
  10. Jan 12, 2013
    9
    I like the fact that it was different from it's predecessor because that's what sequels are for, continuing the storyline and not showing the same stuff over and over again (like in the butterfly effect 1, 2 and 3).
  11. Oct 15, 2012
    6
    I like more if jodie foster was in this movie , julianne played Clarice badly and wasnt likeable like in the first movie , I understand that Foster dropped out, but they shouldn't have made it without. Moore sucked at this role.
  12. Jul 17, 2012
    6
    Obviously this movie had a lot to live up to following its predecessor and to be honest it didn't really live up to expectation. The casting was pretty poor, however I did enjoy seeing Hannibal as the solo main bad guy in the film unlike the others. The ending was poor compared to the book and I was left disappointed with it. I would give this movie 6/10 and this is solely down to AnthonyObviously this movie had a lot to live up to following its predecessor and to be honest it didn't really live up to expectation. The casting was pretty poor, however I did enjoy seeing Hannibal as the solo main bad guy in the film unlike the others. The ending was poor compared to the book and I was left disappointed with it. I would give this movie 6/10 and this is solely down to Anthony Hopkins yet again outstanding performance as Hannibal Lecter. Expand
  13. Jun 28, 2012
    6
    After finally getting around to reading the book I was truly excited to see the film adaption of Hannibal. Unfortunately, I was pretty disappointed. One of the most intriguing and important features of the book was Lector's background, revealed through multiple flashbacks throughout the story. I see no logical reason for Ridley Scott and the screenwriters to cut out such an integralAfter finally getting around to reading the book I was truly excited to see the film adaption of Hannibal. Unfortunately, I was pretty disappointed. One of the most intriguing and important features of the book was Lector's background, revealed through multiple flashbacks throughout the story. I see no logical reason for Ridley Scott and the screenwriters to cut out such an integral element. Anthony Hopkins second performance as Lector is just as focused and well-executed has his first, so full credit to him. Gary Oldman plays Mason Verger perfectly, and the rest of the supporting cast are also fine. Julianne Moore however, gave what in my opinion was the weakest and least charismatic performance of the entire cast. She's no substitute for the brilliant Jodie Foster, and it shows. Ridley Scott gives some stylish flair, with some impressive cinematography, but overall the film feels less focused and streamlined than Silence. Expand
  14. 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. There is nothing surprised: the relationship between him and Starling must be fascinating, and is also really tasty.
  15. Nov 11, 2011
    10
    This movie is superb, i strongly believe that those that didn't enjoy
    it did not or perhaps cannot appreciate its finer points. I don't know
    what people were expecting but i watched this alone and still gave a round of applause when the credits rolled. Its a deep and interesting story because while Hannibal is a killer, and of course a gruesome cannibal, everyone he killed in some way
    This movie is superb, i strongly believe that those that didn't enjoy
    it did not or perhaps cannot appreciate its finer points. I don't know
    what people were expecting but i watched this alone and still gave a
    round of applause when the credits rolled.

    Its a deep and interesting story because while Hannibal is a killer,
    and of course a gruesome cannibal, everyone he killed in some way
    deserved it, and if youve read the books you will know that the trauma Hannibal suffered as a child goes a long way to excuse him. So the films begs the viewer the question as to his
    morality, and his punishment if any at all. The viewer perhaps will
    grow to like Hannibal, and so will be presented with many philosophical
    quandaries as the film progresses, would they rather see him jailed or
    free, alive or dead?

    Hannibals interaction with Agent Starling is a fascinating one, wrought
    with sexual and psychological tension as agent Starling and the viewer
    both *feel* that Hannibal wouldn't harm her, but you are never quite
    sure and neither is she.

    The pace of the film builds up to a climactic finish which doesn't give
    itself away until the very end. You are always guessing, will they run
    away together? will he kill her? will she kill him? will she hand him
    into the police? will he escape? Watch it and see.

    I would say that this film doesn't hold your hand, there are a lot of
    finer details which may be unappreciable to those who haven't read the
    books or at least seen the "dragon rising" movie which explains
    Hannibals childhood. Many will be dismayed by the end because they
    think that Hannibal is meant to be a cardboard cut out villain, he
    isn't, and they're wrong, this is a fantastic movie.
    Expand
  16. May 24, 2011
    10
    Make sure you finish your popcorn early when viewing Hannibal for the first time. While most of this film is based on suspense, there is certainly plenty of gruesome horror by the end. Anthony Hopkins revisits his infamous role of Hannibal Lector in this disturbing sequel to Silence of the Lambs. Julianne Moore revises Jody Fosterâ
  17. 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 a taste for hedonism and human flesh.
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. Misfires on so many levels that we have to wonder if there is more than one meaning to this story's wild boars.
  2. Hannibal, riding the malicious wit of Hopkins' sophisticated fiend, is a gorgeous, wild, sometimes sick thriller, a feast for enraptured eyes and strong stomachs.
  3. 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.