Metascore
57

Mixed or average reviews - based on 36 Critics What's this?

User Score
6.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 142 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: ,
  • Summary: Hannibal continues the story begun in "The Silence of the Lambs." Ten years have passed since Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Hopkins) escaped from custody, ten years since FBI Agent Clarice Starling (Moore) interviewed him in a maximum-security hospital for the criminally insane. The doctor is nowHannibal continues the story begun in "The Silence of the Lambs." Ten years have passed since Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Hopkins) escaped from custody, ten years since FBI Agent Clarice Starling (Moore) interviewed him in a maximum-security hospital for the criminally insane. The doctor is now at large in Italy, gloriously at liberty in an unguarded world. But Starling has never forgotten her encounters with Dr. Lecter -- his cold voice still haunts her dreams. (Universal Pictures) Expand
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 18 out of 36
  2. Negative: 1 out of 36
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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."
  5. Even by its own dark standards, the movie's conclusion is as dramatically dissatisfying as it is disturbing.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.

See all 36 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 30 out of 42
  2. Negative: 1 out of 42
  1. 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. Expand
  2. 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 isMake 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 Expand
  3. 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 relationshipHannibal 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
    Expand
  4. 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 castingObviously 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
  5. 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. WORSTI 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! Expand
  6. 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 makesIt 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. Expand
  7. Oct 3, 2014
    4
    While Anthony Hopkins once again puts on a stellar performance, "Hannibal" unfortunately lacks the general character interaction that made theWhile 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. Expand

See all 42 User Reviews

Trailers

Related Articles

  1. Ridley Scott: All Films Considered

    Ridley Scott: All Films Considered Image
    Published: May 12, 2010
    The famed director's latest big-budget adventure, "Robin Hood," arrives in theaters this week. We take the opportunity to look back at Scott's career and rank his films from best to worst.