Certainly the weakest of the Anthony Hopkins _Hannibal_ movies. Having read the books before I watched the movies, that actually does sort of track, as the first two books were better than the third. Even so, I actually think _Hannibal_ does the worst job of adapting the source material too. Looks pretty good and there's quite the cast list (although I don't think many of them are exactly giving career-defining performances here), Julianne Moore is fine as Clarice Starling (although not as good as Jodie Foster), and the story isn't **bad**, but if I'm being honest, I typically give this one a skip whenever I'm revisiting the Lecter mythos. _Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

As sequals go, this isn't a bad one - but somehow we are a bit more sanitised to the evil of Sir Anthony Hopkins' "Hannibal Lecter" in this; and Julianne Moore doesn't quite have the intensity of Jodie Foster as FBI agent "Clarice". The story is also a bit too contrived: Millionaire Gary Oldman ("Verger") tries to use "Clarice" to lure, for motives of revenge, "Lecter" out from his secret existence as a museum curator in Florence. Once she discovers where he is, she alerts the carabinieri to keep an eye on him; one of whom quite fancies the reward so tries to take matters into his own hands... Hopkins returns to the US with only one aim in mind, and a cunning game of cerebral chess ensues. It comes across as more of a compendium of short stories rather than as a flowing narrative; there is still plenty of gruesomeness, but without the subtlety - the script isn't at all sophisticated; and though there is plenty of classical music trying to replicate some of the class of "Silence of the Lambs" (1991) it just doesn't quite work. It's a good enough effort, but just lacks that je ne sais quoi.

Browse discussions about “Hannibal”

Jump to Reddit for live threads on this title.