Watch
Hannibal

Hannibal

2001
Drama, Suspense/Thriller
2h 11m
Your probable score
Avg Percentile 44.05% from 8639 total ratings

Ratings & Reviews

(8639)
Compact view
Compact view
Rated 03 Apr 2010
40
28th
Though opting for grossfest, this is exactly the kind of Hannibalsploitation you'd fear from a sequel. Part supernatural being, scaring Haitians and dogs, part dirty old annoying man, stalking Starling and rambling about what kind of bird she is. Ridley Scott was a wrong choice for director: He likes his women strong and so, the balance between the delicate Starling and the horrendous Lector is ruined. Ironically this displays what a fragile conception Hannibal really is.
Rated 12 Feb 2007
57
35th
Giving up the intelligence and complexity of The Silence of the Lambs for more standard horror movie thrills with absurb violence. A real shame. While Hopkins, Oldman and Liotta are quite good the plot itself is actually rather bland.
Rated 27 Apr 2008
55
21st
Scott unwisely portrays Lecter as the hero (with flowing cape no less!) thereby diluting his menace and robbing us the guilty pleasure of rooting for the villain. An average plot leading to a stupid ending, cements this film as pointless and unsatisfying.
Rated 13 Mar 2010
55
19th
Good god almighty this was a horrible idea. Hannibal is almost set up like a slasher film. Ray Liotta is pretty terrible and campy as well. He's also in one gory scene that is so ridiculous that it has to be seen at least once. This combines numerous decent actors into one silly shitpile of a film. David Mamet's writing never seemed more ridiculous than in this nonsense.
Rated 31 Dec 2008
60
22nd
Huge disappointment after the brilliance that was The Silence of the Lambs. I don't necessarily fault the actors - if you likes Hopkins in Silence you'll like him here - so much as the script. Julianne Moore's problem isn't so much that she isn't Jodie Foster so much as it is that the novel this film is based upon mutilated the character she plays until unrecognizable. Even though the writers toned down the ending, they couldn't salvage the dreck that was the novel. A true shame.
Rated 08 Oct 2007
80
80th
I love this trilogy. Hopkins was immortalized, as Lector.
Rated 20 Sep 2010
54
18th
Hopkins Hannibal has become a weird caricature. Moore dials this one in, and a shitty book becomes a shitty movie.
Rated 30 Jul 2009
65
59th
I liked it more than most people seem to like it, so it gets a solid rating. The scene where he cuts the top of Ray Liotta's head and eats his brain is pretty much one of the best scenes ever.
Rated 12 Jul 2007
1
10th
Totally unnecessary. Hannibal is only really frightening when he's still something of an enigma. Having him step out of the shadows robs him of his mystique and makes for a dull film.
Rated 22 Mar 2007
65
26th
Really wore thin the novelty of Lecter.
Rated 28 Oct 2008
40
18th
Fuck this movie and fuck the book.
Rated 15 Jun 2010
4
87th
If you can avoid comparing it to "Silence of the Lambs" this can certainly be appreciated. Hopkins is still great as Lecter and Scott brings a lot of visual flair to the proceedings... the scenes in Florence are particulary memorable. Less frightening, more grand guignol, but still worth the time.
Rated 16 Jun 2017
61
30th
Only the second most disgusting Gary Oldman performance, after his portrayal of the Devil in the Guns n' Roses 'Since I Don't Have You' music video.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
30
14th
Boring, lacks the darkness and dread that "Silence of the Lambs" was full of, and of course, Clarice is nothing without the amazing Jodi Foster... sorry Julianne Moore.
Rated 05 Sep 2009
1
12th
Really terrible. Julianne Moore gives one of the worst performances of her career and is just embarrassingly bad. If she wasn't getting paid millions I'd feel bad for her. Just a really boring movie and that ending was so dumb. ugh, wtf Ridley Scott?
Rated 20 Apr 2007
4
55th
One of those flicks I never could tell why people hate. Gary Oldman is the fucking man (as usual).
Rated 27 Aug 2010
60
59th
A huge step down from Silence of the Lambs. Characters are flat and one-dimensional. Even though Lecter is still played by Anthony Hopkins his irresistible charm and intelligence is gone. Seems that the main goal of Scott was to gross everyone out. Well, the film is successful at that, but I was expecting something better than just a genre film.
Rated 25 Jan 2012
48
18th
Perhaps I should give this another go since Oldman is in it. I generally like horror and I love the character of Lecter, but I just don't like to see Ray Liotta hurt.
Rated 29 Nov 2010
2
10th
With regard to horror sequels, there have been worse defamations (Psycho, Exorcist), but this is one that most pointedly shows how much American horror has changed for the worst and, in 2010, the permanency of this shift from suspense to gore.
Rated 08 Aug 2009
40
10th
Where did the Doctor's balls go? Oh, I see, Ridley ate them. Well you ain't gettin mine, pal.
Rated 05 Jan 2008
68
38th
This is a killer line-up (great director, screenwriter, and actors) adapting a terrible book. They did the best they could with what they had.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
65
25th
Any sequal to "Silence of the Lambs" is going to have a hard time comparing to the original. Sadly the book, "Hannibal" is not much better than the movie. Juianna Moore is a good actress, but she's no Jodie Foster. Still worth seeing.
Rated 07 Mar 2015
40
16th
The very good acting and direction mean that I didn't regret that I watched this, and yes, there are some entertainingly wacky, random goings-on in this movie. But honestly, this lacks all the actual emotional impact and investment of the rest of the series. I haven't read the book, but I feel like the story just isn't very good, as it really is beautifully filmed, and very well acted (kudos to Julianne Moore for taking an iconic role and making it her own).
Rated 23 Feb 2007
40
13th
Worth watching for the brain scene, but uh, not very good overall.
Rated 31 Oct 2013
6
41st
Hannibal is a mediocre sequel to it's far superior predecessor 'The Silence of the Lambs'. Anthony Hopkins gives another compelling performance and Gary Oldman, Ray Liotta and Giancarlo Giannini are all worthy additions. However Julianne Moore is an unsatisfying replacement for the absent Jodie Foster. Hannibal swaps the slow mounting tension of it's predecessor for less effective and exposed gore. It is interesting and chilling but occasionally dull and very average by Ridley Scott's standards.
Rated 09 Jun 2010
40
16th
the only thing this movie took from the book was its name, so much of the story line is missing and they flat out change the ending turning the story of doctor Hannibal lector into a piece of crap
Rated 10 Sep 2008
39
14th
After a rewatch I was surprised that, for a film where we see someone eat his own brains, this film is entirely devoid of any intellectual substance.
Rated 28 Feb 2007
69
19th
The worst in the series, it seems Hannibal just doesn't work without a character to compliment him. It is much more fun to watch him mess with people's heads figuratively rather than literally.
Rated 14 May 2009
85
73rd
hopkins!!!!
Rated 28 Jul 2010
68
39th
Why does people hate it? Sure, it is no Silence of the Lambs, but still the film has superb performances and Scott's direction is very good. If you keep comparing it to Silence then you won't be able to enjoy it
Rated 04 Sep 2010
36
41st
#00s(e)#, hype, story, 'pt1', (casting)
Rated 22 Aug 2012
85
71st
Improves with repeat viewings despite Julianne Moore.
Rated 27 Apr 2009
48
17th
Nothing to do with Silence of the Lambs. They needed to make a sequel by contract.
Rated 01 Nov 2016
75
44th
The performances, even if no one is truly giving their all, are strong enough to carry an uneven plot for over two hours that feel very brisk. It's not a standout film, and pales in comparison to Silence of The Lambs, but on its own merits it's a pretty entertaining look at two bizarre Lecter relationships. The final 20 minutes are an amazing piece of horror, though. The whole thing is worth watching just for the payoff of that sequence.
Rated 20 Sep 2007
88
62nd
More of a bastardization of characters and the plot meanders in starts and fits, but this is still a very classy and fun film that isn't afraid to pass on as pure grand-guignol.
Rated 02 Oct 2008
80
67th
Definitely not as good as "Silence of the Lambs" mostly because of Jodie Foster's absence from this movie.
Rated 04 Aug 2008
90
93rd
I am a sucker for Serial Killlers and Hannibal Lecter is numero uno
Rated 21 Jun 2008
92
80th
A DELICIOUS movie! Anthony Hopkins, Gary Oldman, and Julianne Moore are phenomenal in this film. If you like serial killer flicks about cannibalistic crazies, you can't top this one! Ray Liotta is a sick, mean, twisted fuck who gets his head handed to him... almost literally. Hannibal appeals to anyone who enjoys being disgusted but amused at the same time. I could watch this twisted film any day of the week! Giancarlo Giannini is superb here as well. Ridley Scott directs this beauty.
Rated 20 Nov 2009
60
26th
Vale apenas pelo Antony Hopkins
Rated 12 Jun 2009
67
60th
Well acted and presented. A good shocking thriller and it's aged well.
Rated 18 Aug 2007
85
52nd
creepy man!
Rated 01 Jul 2007
35
6th
Takes one of the most effective and popular villains in movie history and turns him into a pretentious knockoff of Freddy Krueger. It's a nice-looking movie, but that's about all it has going for it.
Rated 16 Aug 2010
80
39th
A good sequel but not on par with the original. Hopkins is always fun to watch as the title character.
Rated 30 Apr 2011
60
32nd
There's much to recommend: the opening is good, the climax genuinely frightening. Hopkins nails the role again, and Oldman is at his unrecognizable best. But the photography and blocking looks like a TV show and Julianne Moore replacing Jodie Foster feels like just that-- a replacement. "Silence" made an unlikely masterpiece out of a mere best-seller through sheer filmmaking chops from everyone involved; Hannibal is ultimately unsatisfying because it lacks that pie-in-the-sky ambition.
Rated 18 Mar 2007
50
2nd
I remember very little about it, but OF WHAT I REMEMBER it looked okay. There was a brain eating scene or something? More my enviornment than the movie.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
60
44th
god
Rated 12 Mar 2011
1
4th
this film is no brain food
Rated 29 Mar 2011
25
15th
Without question Hannibal is Ridley Scott's worst film. While the source material leaves much to be desired, Scott's directorial decisions range from questionable to pathetic. Hannibal shares no resemblance to its predecessor, the Silence of the Lambs, save for the return of Anthony Hopkins as the namesake character. Even agent Starling is played by a different actress, the much less engaging Julianne Moore, who tries her very best to fill the enormous shoes of Jodie Foster.
Rated 02 Apr 2011
68
16th
Not quite as good as the previous installment of this killers, this film was too focused on the scary moments.
Rated 15 Nov 2011
65
40th
a bit too rushed...
Rated 04 Aug 2007
45
15th
Alright if seen as a comedy, terrible mess if taken straight.
Rated 26 Oct 2008
100
0th
Didn't need another dose after Silence of the Lambs.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
75
56th
Not bad, not bad.
Rated 02 Jan 2018
30
8th
What made its amazing predecessor so entertaining seems to be missing from this adaptation. Anthony Hopkins is still decent, and Julianne Moore could have been a suitable replacement. The story however falls totally short and only the ending even comes close to holding up against the other in the series. Despite a keen visual eye from Director Ridley Scott.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
74
29th
Oh, what could have been. At least Sir Anthony brings his game to the table, and his Hannibal game's his finest.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
81
71st
Anthony Hopkins continues his brilliant run as Hannibal Lechter, but pulling the Bewitched routine with Clarice Starling hurts the credibility of the movie slightly, I feel. Still enough creepy stuff to have you talking, regardless.
Rated 31 Dec 2007
77
35th
The worst of the Hannibal trio is still very entertaining, thanks to Anthony Hopkins.
Rated 18 Feb 2013
70
17th
Shallow, lacking in any of the brilliance of Silence. I will say, though, that if you have to replace Jodie Foster, Julianne Moore's a good choice.
Rated 18 Mar 2007
67
36th
It's hard to imagine that this comes from The Silence of the Lambs. Unbelievable.
Rated 24 Jul 2007
34
35th
Lots of seasoned actors, but when all is said and done this film was really needless.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
76
56th
Original "Silence" was better, but not bad for a sequel.
Rated 21 Nov 2011
45
15th
There's a scene where someone is sitting there, alive, with their brain completely exposed... Yeah... That happened.
Rated 23 Jul 2014
75
64th
Beautifully shot and cinemagraphed by Scott, as per usual. Also bolstered by the performances of Oldman, Hopkins, and Moore. Yet despite being good, it is nowhere near the level of its predecessor and was treated more like a Hollywood slasher flick, than a psychological horror. A well-acted and directed Lecter story, without the perfect pacing and tone.
Rated 11 Jun 2007
75
45th
It was far too slow and plodding, but had some awesome scenes.
Rated 16 Mar 2007
65
30th
Pointless.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
65
36th
i was happy pretending like this movie never happened
Rated 16 Nov 2007
35
35th
the ending made it almost worth it.
Rated 10 Jan 2010
50
48th
Definitely a guilty pleasure. Moore is abysmal compared to Foster, but fuck it, Hopkins is so campy he'll make you forget about her. If you think this was too ridiculous you should read the book (or at least wiki it), specifically Verger's fate and the ending.
Rated 21 Feb 2011
70
69th
Sadly not greater than the sum of its parts, but also not as bad as many make it out to be. Surely, silence of the lambs outshines it in every aspect, but that is quite a benchmark and hopkins still delivers as the charismatic dr. lecter, even though he often lacks his previous finesse.
Rated 17 Jul 2009
56
25th
The worst of the trilogy by far.
Rated 04 Jan 2009
90
66th
i love it ..:)
Rated 14 Aug 2007
60
27th
this was pretty tight. i couldnt really care about any of the characters though, including the titular.
Rated 03 Nov 2013
25
17th
No thanks. Worse than Silence in pretty much every way, and as much as I love Julianne Moore, she is not Clarice Starling.
Rated 07 Aug 2014
60
23rd
It wasn't going to be easy to follow The Silence of the Lambs, but by doing it with this I almost wish it hadn't been made. I felt most of the story in Italy wasn't very interesting. I didn't think Hopkins was as effective and I thought Moore tried too hard to emulate Foster. Not terrible by itself, but when compared to Silence and even the Hannibal TV series it fails in comparison.
Rated 22 Mar 2007
73
60th
Jodie Foster definitely needed to come back, but as is, Ridley Scott's sequel to "Silence of the Lambs" has its fair share of fun. Anthony Hopkins once again delivers.
Rated 27 Feb 2007
13
66th
Bad only when judged against the incredible "Silence of the Lambs"; in its own right, "Hannibal" is excellent.
Rated 28 Apr 2009
40
14th
Compared to Silence of the Lambs it's a complete letdown.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
50
12th
They ruined poor hannibal :(
Rated 10 Feb 2007
35
19th
Unneeded.
Rated 24 Jul 2017
82
56th
Beautiful, lush operatic (literally) OTT melodrama. I accept has flaws & side character SK Cannibal becoming action hero is....odd. Still, can't deny loved in cinema. Same flavor+flaws as book: If U've come to love the character enough for him to be focus/hero + U revel in lavish detail & research of his globe trotting, luxury & culture-loving life U'll enjoy it. But accept is not at all the taut, terrifying, powerful Dr L or film that SoL had & was. Poster here captures tone well; HL as LeStat
Rated 14 Nov 2008
75
70th
Julianne Moore ;)
Rated 21 Sep 2008
80
46th
Not as good as "Silent of the lambs" but good, cause of Anthony Hopkins!
Rated 28 Aug 2007
9
62nd
Excellent. Creepy. And more creepy.
Rated 23 Jan 2011
69
37th
Wonderful scenario... and Hannibal. But (sorry Julianne Moore...) do not change the actors in a sequel,please!
Rated 08 Jan 2012
55
35th
5 pretty good
Rated 20 Nov 2008
95
55th
'Silence of the Lambs' was a REALLY tough act to follow, but I think this movie does a decent job. The casting is great--while her take on the character is different, I think Julianne Moore was an excellent choice for Starling, and I've always found Ray Liotta just as creepy and vaguely smarmy as the books made him out to be. And Gary Oldman...like 5th Element, just wow.
Rated 24 Aug 2007
1
12th
piece of shit. this is one of the worst movies i've seen. jesus christ this movie is so bad. it makes the 94th installment of "halloween" series look like a class a-material.
Rated 24 Sep 2009
25
13th
It's too bad about this one. I expected better care would be taken with the films after "The Silence of the Lambs" but apparently no film is safe from cash-grab sequels. Hopkins holds up but is portrayed as a more obviously evil character than in the original. I find it makes him less interesting.
Rated 09 May 2010
55
27th
We all knew it was going to be bad when Jodie Foster didn't come back, but at least it has brain eating.
Rated 23 Jun 2012
54
31st
While superbly acted and stylishly filmed, Hannibal lacks the character interaction between the two leads which made the first move so engrossing.
Rated 08 Jan 2014
68
57th
It's hard to suspend disbelief when watching a different actress play Clarice. I liked Oldman's character a lot more. Some of the police scenes seemed contrived and there were a couple of directorial choices that I felt were there to shove the creepiness down your throat rather than let you appreciate the disturbing nature of the story on its own.
Rated 16 Oct 2008
30
3rd
Um, they replaced Clarice. No good.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
75
46th
Didn't read the book, so I can't say how it compares. I liked this movie overall. The part where Ray Liotta is eating his brain is hilarious.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
63
38th
A dissapointing sequel to Silence of the Lambs.
Rated 17 Nov 2009
83
27th
A guilty pleasure
Rated 21 Jun 2012
51
38th
Hopkins still looks incredibly threatening and provocative as Dr. Lecter -- Julianne tries too hard to look like Jodie --, but Hannibal lacks the pathos of Demme's vision and prefers to show easy gore than to build an uncomfortable atmosphere of sickness and desire.
Rated 15 Sep 2008
95
72nd
IMHO, not that good as Silence of the Lambs... unfortunately.
Rated 19 Sep 2010
95
86th
Though I love Hopkins in his gentlemen English roles, he brings chills in the thrillers!
Rated 01 May 2012
60
62nd
Hannibal is not a waste of your time if you enjoyed Anthony Hopkins' performance in The Silence of the Lambs and want to see more from him. It is, however, not worth watching if you want a solid plot, because it's all over the map here. The relationship between Lecter and Clarice gets more development, but the psychological battle between the pair is all but gone, and the only suspense comes either at the end or with Giannini's character. It's only truly worth your time for Hopkins.
Rated 29 Nov 2013
20
5th
I liked Silence of the Lambs, I didn't mind The Red Dragon But this No Oh no

Collections

(38)
Compact view
Showing 1 - 24 of 38 results

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...