Hannibal

Wenn ich Hannibal mit einem Wort bewerten müsste, dann wäre es: würdig. Hannibal ist sicherlich eine würdige Fortsetzung eines legendären Films. Das gibt Hopkins reichlich Gelegenheit, nicht von der Leinwand zu verschwinden und eine sehr angenehme Beziehung zu seiner Lieblingsagentin zu entwickeln. Ja, Julianne Moore ist anders als Jodie Foster, aber das ist eigentlich eine gute Sache. Clarice ist in dieser Zeit sehr gereift, und als Beobachterin verlange ich nicht, dass sie das gleiche Gesicht wie während des Studiums hat. Auch der Schauplatz, das intellektuell versnobte Italien, ist für mich eine nette Note. Also auf zum Roten Drachen. (20.09.2012)

"Was meinen Sie? Wird er sie vögeln, töten oder verspeisen?" – "Alles drei denke ich... obgleich ich mich nicht festlegen will in welcher Reihenfolge." Die Fortsetzung von Das Schweigen der Lämmer ist zwar nicht so gut wie der erste Film, sie hat aber trotzdem einiges zu bieten. Meine Aufmerksamkeit hat Hannibal dank Scotts beeindruckender erzählerischer Regie, der wunderschönen Szenen aus Florenz und dank der ekelhaften Momente verdient. Nun ja, warum nicht. "Also, wie darf es sein? Eingeweide drin oder Eingeweide draußen?" (19.06.2010)

Comparing Hannibal with The Silence of the Lambs is nonsense, they are two completely different movies, their only connecting factor is the main character, Hannibal Lecter. It is clear that the visually talented Ridley Scott took on the directing duties, and it was not a mistake at all. The plot is much simpler and more linear, with more focus placed on combining visual elements (captivating Florence) and brilliant atmosphere (Hans Zimmer's music, excellent camera work). The opening raw shootout stands out in this delicately crafted film sore thumb. Anthony Hopkins benefits here primarily from his voice rather than actual acting, which may disappoint true Lecter fans, whereas Gary Oldman in the role of Mason is outstanding and the makeup artists once again excelled. (26.10.2003)

Dr. Lecter returns in a bloodthirsty style, but satisfaction is not present this time. The worst possible start is all the actions of Clarice, who with her tired face, forced me to fall asleep with every line about "shooting at a woman with a child." Thanks to the perfect Hannibal and surprisingly skillful Liotta, the seemingly unnecessary movie eventually becomes a sufficiently thrilling thriller, but the lengthy silent parts condemn it to be labeled as a violently stitched sequel. (19.03.2006)

After the tremendous success of The Silence of the Lambs, it was quite logical that we would not have to wait long for the sequel, and both the film studio and the fan community had high expectations due to the attractiveness of the material. To a large extent, these expectations were not fulfilled, although it is true that the first installment of the series set a very high bar. This is mainly due to the screenplay and the quality of the dialogues, where the element of tension - so strong in The Silence of the Lambs - simply did not work in the majority of scenes. It is interesting that even though in The Silence of the Lambs, the main antagonist, Dr. Lecter, was in prison and seemingly completely powerless, every shot he appeared in was charged with emotions and suspense, as well as the dark anticipation of the viewers, whereas in Hannibal, Lecter is free and has a really wide scope of influence, but you rarely feel afraid or drawn into the plot. Lecter lacks one important element, and that is a truly worthy opponent. Perhaps only the scene with the disposal of the pickpocket gets under the skin. The direction itself is skillful, Ridley Scott is experienced, and from what the screenplay gives him, he does a good job. The recasting of Agent Starling is not essential because Julianne Moore is a quality character actress and embodies both the time gap from the first installment and a certain internal transformation of the burnt-out main protagonist. Otherwise, the literary source is more appreciative on the one hand, but also more pandering and with its ending rather a pulp affair, so if the film followed what the book offered, it could have turned out worse. In the book, Agent Starling becomes the lover of Dr. Lecter, and the book ends with a feast where they both savor their defeated enemy... Overall impression: 55%. (26.10.2008)