Hannibal Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Break The Silence
Never Forget Who He Is
He's A Man After Your Heart[UK - Valentine's Day Preview]
How long can a man stay silent before he returns to the thing he does best?
The silence will be broken.
The silence is broken.
His genius UNDENIABLE. His evil UNSPEAKABLE. His name... HANNIBAL.
His genius... UNDENIABLE - His evil... UNSPEAKABLE - His name... UNFORGETTABLE
Ten years ago he could get to you from behind the glass. On Feb 9th, he's out. HANNIBAL
The world's most deliciously evil gentleman is back!
May the silence be broken!
Part four in the Hannibal Lecter Quadrilogy. Having escaped the asylum in "Silence of the Lambs," Dr Lecter goes into hiding in Florence, Italy. Back in America, Mason Verger, an old victim of the doctor's, seeks revenge. Disfigured and confined to a life-support system, he plans to draw Lecter out of his hiding place, using the one thing he truly cares for: Clarice Starling.
| Anthony Hopkins | Dr. Hannibal Lecter |
| Ray Liotta | Paul Krendler |
| Gary Oldman | Mason Verger |
| Julianne Moore | Clarice Starling |
| Frankie Faison | Barney Matthews |
| Giancarlo Giannini | Inspector Rinaldo Pazzi |
| Francesca Neri | Allegra Pazzi |
| Zeljko Ivanek | Dr. Cordell Doemling |
| Hazelle Goodman | Evelda Drumgo |
| David Andrews | Clint Pearsall |
| Francis Guinan | FBI Director Noonan |
| James Opher | DEA Agent Eldridge |
| Enrico Lo Verso | Gnocco |
| Ivano Marescotti | Carlo Deogracias |
| Fabrizio Gifuni | Matteo Deogracias |
| Ridley Scott |
6.30 out of 10 (43013 votes)
Visitor Reviews
better then the book
posted on 22 Aug 2009i just finished reading the book, curiosly most of the time it is the other way around, but this time i like the movie A LOT more then the novell. even though in the end it had a very suprising (shocking, whatever) twist, which was written out of this flic, because Jodie Foster didn't like it. and i can see why.and, what's more important: dr. lecters character was creepier the way he was before i read the book. he was mysterious, well educated, a canibal, and this time they wrote too much background into it. you know, his traumatic childhood n stuff. i didn't wanted to know!!! i liketo stay puzzled! anyhow, nice work mr. harris, but don't try to milk a cow too hard.
Great Acting, Unfortunate Script
posted on 18 Aug 2009While this was a magnificent book, and a brilliant series, I wish they would have made the movie ending the same as the book. But then, if they had, people would not have seen the same effect as the did in the book due to a time rush. Hannibal and Clarice have a beautiful, yet complicated relationship, which many would have viewed as sloppy if rushed and squeazed into a 2 hour 11 minute movie. As it is, I spend my happy little free time explaining the slightly difficult to understand ending of the novel, which had unlimited space to thoroughly explain their love. You see, Thomas Harris loves metaphors and mystery, and his novels do as well. They were made for those who would, "see beyond his plight," in terms of the Good Doctor. So, sadly, the movie leaves shallow, less thoughtful, and/or closed minded people seeing a ravenous cannibal killer with a crush, and a decadent, bad girl FBI agent in a twisted love plot, and the Lecterphilles who fell in love with the complex couple completely in a state of disdain. We loved the book because it wasn't afraid to say what was meant to be, it had INTEGRITY. Where is the movies? I guess it's a good thing Sir Anthony Hopkins is a seemingly wonderful kisser.KW
A nice blend of gory, mystery, and suspense
posted on 16 Aug 2009Having never saw The Silence of the Lambs since it first came out, I could barely remember the premise of the movie when I went to see Hannibal. I think this worked in my favor. I wasn't trying to compare the two films together and was, perhaps, able to enjoy this film more than some others.Mild Spoilers AheadThe opening was a very typical Hollywood product, where a gun fight was used to "hook" the audience's interest and to provide the momentum for the next act. The pace slowed during the second act, when the script was trying to establish the major characters. This was where we get to know their motivations and their personalities. This part receives the most criticism on my part because I felt the characters could be developed more. This act is slow but there is that beautiful score by Patrick Cassidy "Vide Cor Meum" that grabs your attention every time it comes on. Nevertheless, the ending was very good, which propelled beyond the usual nice-and-tidy Hollywood ending. The writers definitely were planning on another sequel.End SpoilersI do vaguely remember the Silence of the Lambs. And I have to admit that this film doesn't compare to what I remember about the original. But, this film stands well on its own. There were moments when the dark humor used in the movie that could send you giggling and shivering at the same time. If it is not titled "Hannibal: the sequel to Silence of the Lambs", then perhaps people wouldn't be as critical on this film if it was "just another horror film". And by the way, you have got to check out that song sung during the opera scene "Vide Cor Meum" (which is also played again near the end). That song is incredibly beautiful!
The 'Speed 2' of cannibal movies...
posted on 14 Aug 2009===== Rating System: ***** Must see **** Very good *** I liked it, but you might hate it ** I hated it, but you might like it * Avoid =====I was going to bring structure and logic in this comment, but since the writers (!!!) of Hannibal didn't bother either, here it is...Positive aspects: Gary Oldman's make-up was brilliant...The murder sequences are really well done, only the Scream-factor is a little too high...The film is consistently entertaining...Some of the acting is pretty good...The pigs...THAT final Dinner Sequence!!!...The music is excellent. Negative aspects: Hannibal Lecter is twice as much in this as in Silence, but he is not half as scary...Clarice Starling's character is totally unnecessary and forgettable...There was a focus on too many characters, which made the film confusing and uninteresting...The photography of the first action sequence is the same as in Saving Private Ryan and Gladiator; very original...There was little to no plot, the film has no real beginning, middle or end...There was no suspense whatsoever...The way Hannibal acts to Clarice and vice versa makes you think Silence never happened...Silence's Hannibal was a real psychopath, In Hannibal he seems like a standard slasher character...The film is too long, and doesn't seem to have a real point...I don't remember Hannibal's shift from Venice to America, pretty confusing...There film doesn't seem to give its audience anything to solve, like Buffalo Bill in Silence, misses the excellent climax it needs so badly.An entertaining film but could have been so much better and feels a little disappointing afterwards because expectations are too high. It's a little like Speed 2 and Batman and Robin. (not so highly) Recommended.***
Excellent film which is sometimes very gory
posted on 12 Aug 2009HANNIBAL, in my opinion, is an excellent film which is sometimes very gory. I thought that Clarice (Julianne Moore) looked very beautiful in all the dressy clothing she wore -- Especially the fancy, black dress she had on during the time she was at Dr. Lecter's (Anthony Hopkins) house. Also, I really liked the boars that were in the barn towards the end of the movie. They looked really adorable, even though they're wild animals. In addition, if you ask me, the Pazzis (Giancarlo Giannini and Francesca Neri) looked very nice in the attire they wore to the opera. When Clarice yelled, "F.B.I," at the fish market, which is where she confronted Evelda (Hazelle Goodman), I really felt good and smiled. I must say that I absolutely loved the fish market scene! Before I wrap this up, I'd like to say that Hopkins and Moore deserve a Golden Globe for their smashing performances as a psychotic serial killer and a disgraced F.B.I. agent. Now, in conclusion, to all you Anthony Hopkins or Julianne Moore fans that have not seen this excellent film which is sometimes very gory, I highly recommend it! You're in for a good time as well as some pure chills and thrills, so, go to the video store, rent it or buy it, turn down the lights, lock all your doors and windows, kick back with a friend, and bon appetit!
A Superb Black Comedy. Better than the first!
posted on 10 Aug 2009The only reason that this film has gotten such bad reviews is because people don't understand it. It was never meant to be like the first one and WAS meant to be campy and over the top. The filmmakers knew that if they even tried to make a movie like the first, they would fail miserably. So, they took another route and, boy, it was the right one.Ridley Scott, Dino Delaurentis, Anthony Hopkins, and Julianne Moore have all CLEARLY stated in numerous interviews that it is supposed to be something for you to be entertained by and to get a chuckle out of.I think that it is completely unfair to even compare it to the first, which, by itself, was no masterpiece. Lets break the first one down:Plot: The plot was not anything earth shattering. It was recycled from countless books and five o'clock news programs.Acting: Anthony Hopkins MADE the movie. The man is the finest actor in history! While Jodie Foster was good, anyone could have played her role. She was too subtle and, in my opinion, didn't fit in with a cast that was anything but subtle.Script: Nothing spectacular. Most of the dialogue was lifted out of the book and was only made good because of the actors.Direction: A little annoying sometimes. It got to the point where I was sick of closeups. It was overdone.Now lets look at the masterpiece that is HANNIBAL:Plot: Great. Over the top and hysterical! The characters were fleshed out, the scenes in Italy were breathtaking, and they did a better job than the book (with the exception of Margot being cut out!:()Acting: Beyond words. Anthony Hopkins was fabulous, Julianne Moore was outstanding (AS ALWAYS! Probably the best actress of our time!), Gary Oldman was a hoot,Giancarlo Gianninni was fantastic, and Ray Liotta was great, as he is in every role! One of the best casts ever assembled!Script: Remarkable. The dialogue never felt strained or fake and made me laugh quite a bit.Direction: I was spellbound. This is one of Ridley Scott's best films. The scenery, the shots, everything about it was breathtaking. Demme, eat your heart out!Hannibal packs a punch. Run, jump, leap to see it. Don't look at it as a sequel, its not. Its an entertaining, funny, gory, breathtaking thrill ride that will keep you on the edge of your seat. Thats why I give it an 11 out of 10!PS: The dinner scene will make you cringe with excitement and laughter!11/10
Great great film
posted on 10 Aug 2009It's surprising to see so many poor reviews of this film, I'd think the average IMDb reader/writer would know better than to expect a "sequel" to Silence of the Lambs (it takes place 10 years from those events people!!). Lets not also forget that this film is call 'Hannibal' not 'Clarice" so obviously HANNIBAL IS GOING TO BE THE MAIN CHARACTER. If you want to compare it to Silence of the Lambs understand first that this is not a pyschological thriller, nor a race against time thriller, nor a character study, in fact other than Anthony Hopkins and a few other minor simularities Hannibal is a film all on it's own. Ridley Scott was very smart and making it as far different from Silence of the Lambs as possible so *cough cough* morons wouldn't keep on comparing it to Silence of the Lambs but a film completely different. The characters have changed over the decade, just like we all do; so don't expect Clarice to be doing the same things as she did in Silence and don't expect Hannibal to still be sitting behind bars. This is a devilishly good film and those of you who won't accept it because of it's change of pace nor read the Thomas Harris novel that came out a year ago (Hah! And you call yourselves Silence of the Lambs fans!) than perhaps you should stay away from this one. For those that want to have a good time at a great movie, from a great director, with great acting, and great cinematography will have a blast with this. 9/10
What a boring movie
posted on 10 Aug 2009This movie was so boring I almost fell asleep. The plot was a joke and the "shocker" scenes were ridiculous (people in the cinema were laughing). I am very, very disappointed. I expected a mediocre thriller, but there was no suspense at all. The script was so dull, I wasn't interested in the plot after half an hour. Instead of creating suspense they added some flesh, gore and a scarface. If you'd like to see an intense movie, go and see "What lies beneath". One of my favourites.
One of the biggest letdowns of the year
posted on 10 Aug 2009*Warning - Spoilers* Hannibal has to be one of the most overhyped, and underdone films I have ever seen in my life. Fresh off success with Gladiator, which somehow managed to steal some really undeserved oscars, Ridley Scott has taken on an absolute mission of a project, and predictably blown it. In New Zealand, there was a lot of anger and controversy about the strict R18 rating, which only added interest to the film. The presence sounded good, and previews made the film look incredible, and Jonathan Demme said he wouldn't direct it because it was too morbid!! What a film Hannibal was going to be! Well thats what we were tricked into beleiving. Upon first inspection Hannibal is one of those films that starts slowly, and you expect to speed up. Unfortunately, Hannibal starts slowly, and doesn't get out of first gear, until the end, where it gets to about second, and then slides into reverse. Why did i not like this film so much? 1 - Too much hannibal. In Manhunter and Silence of The Lambs Hannibal is in it for about 20 minutes altogether in BOTH films. His eery presence is undeniably brilliant, and only adds to the brilliant tension. In Hannibal, he is free and just pretty much leading a normal life. His presence lacks charisma, and to be honest he is just in it way too much. 2 - The Mason Verger angle. Well okay its not bad at first, but seriously who wants to capture a man and feed him to wild boars? Thats kinda well stupid! 3 - The film is just plain boring. Too slow, not scary, unimaginative, and way overhyped!! It probably wouldn't have been a bad film if it was just a seperate film from manhunter and silence of the lambs. But the point is, it's not, and if you've seen either of the other two, I can guarantee huge degrees of dissapointment.
Has it's good points, but not worthy of "Lambs".
posted on 08 Aug 2009"Hannibal" could've been to "The Silence of the Lambs" what "The Empire Strikes Back" and "The Godfather, Part II" were to "Star Wars" and "The Godfather", respectively: a sequel worthy of the first, which elevated the first to the level of "Greatest Motion Picture of All-time Candidate". It missed, though, and here's why.First off, while the performance of Anthony Hopkins is undeniably Grade A, as usual, he just doesn't come off as a believable Dr.Lecter anymore. While he still possesses an aura of dangerousness in the role, Hopkins has gotten too pudgy and grandpa-ish to pull off something like, say, the "tongue thing" from "Lambs". He doesn't try to, mind you, but that's still a double-edged sword. Like I said, his performance is great, as is Julianne Moore's, who, let me say, I did buy as Clarice Starling. That would usually suffice for a film, but, being the sequel to "The Silence of the Lambs", it doesn't here.Gary Oldman's makeup is superb. I actually forgot he was in the film until I saw his name in the ending credits. The entire "brain scene" with Ray Liotta, however, is a different story. It looks more like something that would be in "Friday the 13th, Part 8", not the sequel to "Silence of the Lambs". The gore in the film was stylish and very well done up to that point, but that was just plain cheesy to me.I guess there's just no getting around it. Even the amazing camera work can't put it on par with the first film. If it weren't the sequel to "Silence of the Lambs", I would say it was a good film. It is the sequel to "Silence of the Lambs", though, and because of that, it's just not good enough. After much deliberation, I give it 5 stars on a scale from one to ten.
BIG DISAPPOINTMENT
posted on 04 Aug 2009I was thoroughly disgusted with this movie. It was nothing but a horror flick with some pretty sick and twisted scenes. The original is such a masterpiece that messed with your minds and had you on the edge of your seat. Not to mention, the relationship between Dr. Lecter and Clarice was so intriguing while this movie was just shallow and gross. Anthony Hopkins does a great job but I did not like Julianne Moore. She did not fit the character at all. I salute Jonathan Demme and Jodie Foster for having enough integrity to not do this movie because of the content. I would not recommend this movie to anyone.
The sum is less than the parts.
posted on 04 Aug 2009There is a lot to like about this movie. The sound track and the Florence settings are absolutely fabulous. Anthony Hopkins is still wonderfully creepy extreme. Julianne Moore is good enough to make us (almost) forget about Jodie Foster. The cinematography is exceptional. The special effects are not overdone, and extremely well done where needed. They provide the punch for a few unforgettable scenes. The problem: the story. It just doesn't go anywhere. There is no build up of mystery, no growing suspense. The DVD deleted scenes suggest Ridley was aware of these problems, and just couldn't resolve them. Other glaring problems exist. Hannibal is caught way too easily. Clarice is uninteresting in the extreme in the first half of the movie. The ending with Hannibal and Clarice didn't work for me (I just don't believe Hannibal would be so easily trapped, and didn't really believe the solution he took to escape). All in all, a beautifully made, wasted movie.
And it started so well!
posted on 02 Aug 2009Having been saving my hard earned money for this unmissable cinema extravagence i was little to say totally besotted for the first hour of this film...(despite Gary Oldmans comedic overacting) only to be totally devastated by the second half.For what started off well..dark , atmospheric and well acted developed into a crummy non- Psychological farce which had me nearly rolling around and laughing...tears of joy?? NOT tears of absolute disbelief!!...Ridley Scott ( as talented director as he is) managed to capture the first half of the story in Italy very well and Lectors character was darkly intelligent and impressive as i had hoped...good start me thinks! After Lector had escaped and ended up back in the USA things really took a turn for the worse...gone was all the intelligence and the last half of the film seemed to me to have been rushed and made into a comedy horror film! with Lector cracking jokes and ridiculous torture scenes...its totally apparent that the film is never gonna live up to the book but i had high hopes for this sequel and for the first hour i wasnt disappointed..its a shame it didnt stick through to the (unintentionally funny) ending =^,^>
No, they just wanted to show what Lambs only spoke of.
posted on 02 Aug 2009I can see some unity in what they were after, Lecter becomes more human and less mystical in this, suspense comes off pretty Ok but it is hard to get past the ridiculousness of the gore parts. It was basically just a slasher flick. Lecter is however the only real lead character, even Clarice Starling comes off as a pretty underwhelming as a character, I did not even realise that Oldman was the rich victim Verger. Scott does not manage to pull this off, and as said, he is one for showing everything on the screen, which worked like a charm with Gladiator but turns this into more of a slasher flick than a psychological thriller. It is great at being offputting and sickly provocative in parts that have to be seen to be believed. The whole thing just did not flow.Blame should best be put on the original book for this however. Hopkins does great for fear in this one he never lets up, I can see why Jodie Foster did not return but I really cant see why Ray Liotta and Julianne Moore and especially Gary Oldman signed on. I could sense betrayal pending around the Verger role just past half way through.Some sure signs of a slasher formula are things like everybodys inability to react to the cle she'd "look behind you" idea, a maverick cop, a highly trained FBI agent and a hired thug all fail to defend themselves when he does that "voice from behind, shocked he quickly spins around but its too late" thing. A thug for some reason is looking one way wimpering for his partner and when he hears a sinister voice all he does is turn around, despite having a gun which he could have at least tried to shoot his enemy with. As for feeling no pain when the top of your skull has been cut to seperacy it was just laughable. But yes, it was extremely sickening how vulnerable the relevant character had become. Off that, Moores accent seems to fade in and out, it was extremely strong in the original here there are only some strong points.One thing worth mentioning as a plus is Hannibals loyalty to Clarice, she saves his life and the curtesy he extends her was in a way touching, the end left me baffled, "what thats it?".I recommend never laying eyes on this one, its as bad as any of those cheap "killer on the loose flicks", with some secondary sound and picture quality it would fit right in in a $2.00 80s horror flick bin. Dont bother with it you'll be doing yourself a favour.
An excellent horror film.
posted on 02 Aug 2009Even if this isn't a great follow-on from Silence of the Lambs, it's still an excellent horror film. If you like horror, Hannibal is worth watching just to see the final scene involving Ray Liotta's character. The last time I saw a scene like that was when I watched The Re-animator in the 80's. Anthony Hopkins does good job again too. 7.5/10.
Cheated expectations.
posted on 27 Jul 2009Not realizing that 2 and a half hours had passed is one way of knowing that the movie is doing it's job (in one respect). The sequel was not at all like the first and that was a partial disappointment.'Silence' was filled with suspense and surprise; it teases us like a sensuous woman, whereas 'Hannibal' takes it all off like pure porn.The sights are disturbing- another indication that it is doing it's job, however, many people won't expect this and will feel cheated if they are expecting to see something a little more like 'Silence'.Aside from that the technical and creative aspects of the film were enchanting and respect-worthy.
Elegantly violent
posted on 21 Jul 2009Greetings again from the darkness. It is always disheartening when a director, even a superb one such as Ridley Scott, mishandles a sequel to a great movie. When the story involves one of the most fascinating characters in movie history, it is all the more disappointing. Hannibal Lechter mesmermizes me. His elegance, his rationalization of his disgusting actions, his speech patterns, his humor, his obsession with beauty, properness, and especially Clarice, captivate my attention. Ridley Scott just doesn't get it. Blood and guts are not what Hannibal is about.
Although I must say any movie with a brief appearance by Spike Jonze (director of "Being John Malkovich") and a wonderful supporting performance by Italian screen legend, Giancarlo Giannini gains some leeway! The role of Clarice is poorly written in this sequel, so it is not fair to compare Julianne Moore to Jodie Foster. The problem with this movie is script and execution. The thrill of the chase in the original does not exist in this one. There are no real mind games between good and evil. As a matter of fact, Hannibal's evil is downplayed thanks to the twisted actions of an unrecognizable Gary Oldman. We even find ourselves rooting for Lechter.
The obvious institutional corruptness is played by the usually fine Ray Liotta. What a joke ... and a waste. Too much of a good thing is never best. Where's the tease? This is more cold slap in the face than psychological thriller. I hear a prequel is in the works. PLEASE find a new director. Return the evil of Lechter to the heights he deserves. Pay attention to the remarkable score and use of music. It prevents the film from being just another slasher.
goody goody
posted on 19 Jul 2009Elegantly violent, sadistic and yet tasteful. What else could you have expected from the good old Dr. Hannibal Lecter? A person whose world is even more mysterious than the man himself. A character so unique it is impossible not to have him in mind once you had the pleasure to meet him, and of course not being the dinner that same night. Dr. Lecter is a man who really enjoys life on his own way without asking anyone anything, and believe you me, it is a very unique way!. Wouldn't you love to have a coffee with him?And on the other hand there is Clarice Starling, oh yes Clarice!!!. The long lost love of Lecter. The only person who could ever stand before Lecter and survive; the antagonist that was able to trick Lecter and won his admiration for it. If there was a person in this world worthy of Lecter affection that is Clarice. Starling understands Lecter and appreciates what he does, but she lives in a world she promised to take care of even though she doesn't feel like she belongs here. So, how could Lecter not get excited when he found Clarice Starling was back on the case?, to proof himself he was still capable of get away from it from the only person he admires/loves. To face again the one person who is capable of bringing him down.Hannibal is a film in which the struggle between good and evil resides in the eyes of the same person, Lecter himself. He is not bad, he is not good either...he is just HIM!!. A character who can kill you or save you depending of your role in this world. Ask yourself...did Lecter kill an innocent man during the film or at the first two films? Of course not, in that sense Lecter is like a punishment from God trying to erase the bad element. A different person trapped in a world hidden in hypocrisy and who would like to be like him but can't. And who is to play Lecter better than Anthony Hopkins? Hopkins did a marvelous job, elegant, cynical (which I loved the most), and even romantic.Love kill the demons,but...Do these persons really love each other or it's just a matter of fight between good and evil?To tell you the truth, as opposite from many people I know, I've never been a fan of SOTL. What attracted to me about this film was the fact that Ridley Scott directed it as I've always been a fan of his work (except G.I.Jane). And the truth is, I love this film much more than I do the first one. Saying this, "Tata" see you round for the next piece of mind!!!.
Hannibal is one crispy kidney of a sequel with some tasty morbid bits to keep you engrossed in epicurean conversation for months to come.
posted on 22 Aug 2009Just as the Chianti jokes have died down, and the ominous slurping sounds friends repeatedly left on your answering machines have ceased, the amiable doctor returns. And what extremely patient little human appetizers we all have been, awaiting to see what Herr Doctor Hannibal Lecter would serve up for us in his Silence of the Lambs sequel...Hannibal doesn't disappoint. I know people are already whining it's not as scary as the first...well, that's true. How could it be? Partly because we already know what's in store for us with the intellectual ripper. And partly because we are so desensitized to the whole genre these days...But, I assure you several scenes in this deliciously tasty horror will have you squirming in your seat and covering your eyes in the armpit of your companion for fear of "seeing to much."Blunt Hint: Be sure to pack your MPB (Movie Puke Bag) for the final scenes-you're gonna need it!Hannibal's story goes...Clarice has heard from Hannibal, again. He's sending little notes- just to say "told you so" Seems Clarice has had a bit of trouble in her post at the FBI and she's about to be served up to the press as a sacrificial lamb if you will... Hanny just wants her to know he's there for her.Clarice's slithering boss Paul Krendler is incahoots with someone hell bent on "getting" to Clarice. Get Clarice, get Hannibal...At least that's what Paul's evil puppeteer, Mason Verger reckons. Mason's setting an elaborate trap for poor totally suspecting Hannibal.Mason was Hannibal's fourth victim and only survivor...Of course survivor is a strong word. Mason is too vile a human to feel an ounce of semi-bad for . He's a raping pedophile Hannibal had been court appointed to. Hanny was actually doing the world a favor -attempting- to rid the earth of this heinous man. But he failed, and it's now Mason's life mission to hunt down Lecter at any cost and produce a human haggis (of sorts) from the man. And Hannibal's the deranged one...This Mason guy oozes with a particularly strong scent of Eau de Creepay folks! Think, quintessential Boogie Man. Sleeping is going to be tough this week.What's this Mason ? Hannibal has been found? Thanks to his peculiar tastes in hand creme? In Florence? A semi-crooked cop Pazzi (Italian favorite Giancarlo Giannini) has managed to parlay a true matching (17 points) finger print off the old boy and tip of the angry fetus faced victim.You wanna take on Hannibal do you Mason? Okeedoekee, he's coming out of hibernation.Ah, but just who's hunting whom? Hmm? And dear Clarice has always held a very special part of Hannibal's heart...Will he come to rescue her from her awful ongoing scandal? Mmm, could be.Having read the book, I will say, I found the David Mamet script's ending much better. An ending you'll have to see for yourself.Ray Liotta, who is looking extremely handsome these days, plays the sexist Paul Krendler, crooked FBI guy, purrfectly. His final scenes will go down in the history books of horror as some of the most repulsive special effects frames ever preserved onto film- too bold a statement- see Hannibal and get back to me... Since the "work" on Ray's face he's become a a double order of properly seasoned manbeef. Scrumptious!Gary Oldman is barely recognizable here. Argh. But, even under all his makeup the actor shines through. Gar's done some fascinating- albeit whacko -work. If, for some ungodly reason, you're not familiar with him go here, rent Sid and Nancy and then peruse from there - a must see actor...Enjoy.Julianne Moore did an admirable job in the shoes of Clarice. She had that same gollygee- I'm an officer- and just gonna go by the book sir- at what ever cost, attitude Jodi Foster brought to the original role. Her accent wasn't as Holly Hunter annoying either. Admittedly the new Clarice was disturbing for the beginning of the film, in a switching of the Bewitched Darrin's way- you know that unsettling feeling one gets when a major character in the story is suddenly not the same- except no one in the story seems to notice? Of course we were all ready for this rude switch-a-roo as the press made such a stinkfest over Foster poo-pooeing a reprise of her role. Julianne did just fine. Check out End of the Affair for more Julianne in action-and of course Ralph Fiennes' naked.Finally there's our scene and liver stealer, Hannibal...The Sir Anthony Hopkins. There are a handful of sexy older actors...Tommy Lee Jones, Sean Connery, Jack Nicolson, Brian Dennehy and Mr Hopkins. With Hopkins it's all in his brilliant eyes. Though he's probably best known as Hannibal, Hopkins is a consummate actor as comfortable in the role of the human steak connoisseur madman, as playing a writer destined to pen a child's classic (C.S. Lewis) or beneath some make-up in a quality version of Quasimodo. Versatility and talent wrapped in a nice sturdy package of manyum.Okeedokee. Get out and see this. Hannibal is one crispy kidney of a sequel with some tasty morbid bits to keep you engrossed in epicurean conversation for months to come. The way a real horror movie should!Snack Recommendation: Braised Bolognese Belly, Ray Style Sweetbreads, of course, chilled Chianti served in crystal flutes.