sign in
register
Watch
MGM Plus Hoopla fuboTV
+13
Hannibal
MGM Plus Hoopla fuboTV
+13
JustWatch
Remove ads

Hannibal

2001
Drama
Suspense/Thriller
2h 11m
Hannibal returns to America and attempts to make contact with disgraced Agent Starling and survive a vengeful victim's plan.
Directed by:
Ridley Scott Ridley Scott
Written by:
Steven Zaillian Steven Zaillian David Mamet David Mamet Thomas Harris Thomas Harris
+2 more
Starring:
Gary Oldman Gary Oldman Frankie Faison Frankie Faison Anthony Hopkins Anthony Hopkins Ajay Naidu Ajay Naidu Julianne Moore Julianne Moore Ray Liotta Ray Liotta Giancarlo Giannini Giancarlo Giannini Zeljko Ivanek Zeljko Ivanek Francesca Neri Francesca Neri Mark Margolis Mark Margolis Don McManus Don McManus Terry Serpico Terry Serpico
More
Franchise:
Hannibal Lecter
Genres:
Drama, Suspense/Thriller, Crime
Countries:
UK, USA
Languages:
English, Japanese, Italian
imdb More information at IMDb
See title update history
Suggest an edit
Show Less
Your probable score
?

Hannibal

2001
Drama
Suspense/Thriller
2h 11m
Your probable score
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer
Avg Percentile 44.06% from 8647 total ratings
Ratings & Reviews Cast Collections Similar Stats Trailer

Ratings & Reviews

(8647)
Compact view
clear
Compact view
Show
Sort
davidblastDavidBlast
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 concept Hannibal is.
Rated 03 Apr 2010
doctor7doctor7
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 12 Feb 2007
la_bohemela boheme
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 31 Dec 2008
cinemaasiaCinema_Asia
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 13 Mar 2010
tonytheponyTonythePony
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 27 Apr 2008
optimusmikeOptimus_mike
Rated 28 Oct 2008
40
18th
Fuck this movie and fuck the book.
Rated 28 Oct 2008
thelastdayxthelastdayx
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 14 Aug 2007
kubricksuckskubricksucks
Rated 22 Mar 2007
65
26th
Really wore thin the novelty of Lecter.
Rated 22 Mar 2007
joojooJooJoo
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 20 Apr 2007
hellboy76hellboy76
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 20 Sep 2010
manhattaManhatta
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 05 Jan 2008
desertpunkDesertPunk
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 16 Jun 2017
capttesticleCaptTesticle
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 08 Aug 2009
lookjabbaLookJabba...
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 31 Oct 2013
florvdeFlorVdE
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 15 Jun 2010
jdiddy381Jdiddy381
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 30 Jul 2009
vengefulkbmVengefulKBM
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 07 Mar 2015
mentaculusMentaculus
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 10 Sep 2008
endellionendellion
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 09 Jun 2010
paxtonPaxton
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 25 Jan 2012
chemical404chemical404
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 27 Aug 2010
pickpocketPickpocket
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 05 Sep 2009
shmendrekShmendrek
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 12 Jul 2007
dorkovskyDorkovsky
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 29 Nov 2010
pilgermannpilgermann
Rated 23 Feb 2007
40
13th
Worth watching for the brain scene, but uh, not very good overall.
Rated 23 Feb 2007
nandorizzinandorizzi
Rated 08 Oct 2007
80
80th
I love this trilogy. Hopkins was immortalized, as Lector.
Rated 08 Oct 2007
lachapellelachapelle
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 14 Aug 2007
manilla_73manilla-73
Rated 14 Aug 2007
25
9th
Terrible
Rated 14 Aug 2007
tsvetetsvete
Rated 12 Jan 2011
93
67th
1-2
Rated 12 Jan 2011
paganelpaganel
Rated 06 Mar 2009
88
36th
Anthony Hopkins - magnificent as always. A must see movie for people who like somewhat thriller stuff.
Rated 06 Mar 2009
mystericemysterice
Rated 14 Aug 2007
25
29th
Bah.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
pyroclausticpyroclaustic
Rated 13 May 2008
80
81st
Had decent plot, and cast of actors. Hopkins does a good job of playing Hannibal Lector and Jodie Foster is a great Clarrise Starling; but as most movies base don books it deviated.
Rated 13 May 2008
watchdogwatchdog
Rated 24 Nov 2008
65
0th
nice back story
Rated 24 Nov 2008
rufamRufam
Rated 08 Oct 2010
50
14th
If there was anything special or unique about "Silence of the Lamps", it's not present in "Hannibal", a mostly formulaic and uninspired thriller. Much of the original's fascination stemmed from the intense interaction between the protagonists, but here, it has been reduced to some cliché quips. Scott does an adequate job in the director's chair, but can't match Demme's visual splendor. Hopkins was scarier behind the glass/Moore is misrecast/I like Liotta better when he's not eating his brain.
Rated 08 Oct 2010
matthew_parkinsonMatthew Parkinson
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 01 May 2012
oneohhoneohh
Rated 07 Sep 2012
76
45th
Not terrible, but it's impossible not to compare Hopkins performances here, and while that's unfair, it's no less impossible. The original is legitimately one of the great performances in movie history.
Rated 07 Sep 2012
samanthadextsamanthadext
Rated 18 Oct 2007
90
50th
Creepy-the Ray Liotta brain scene is so gross!
Rated 18 Oct 2007
walkearthwalkearth
Rated 12 Dec 2018
65
72nd
As a Ridley Scott film - I'd rank it at the top half of his filmography. As a Hannibal franchise film - miles away from Silence of the Lambs, but then again few can compare with a masterpiece. The change of main lead from Foster to Moore is not the biggest problem of the film. In fact, while Moore definitely brings a different feel to the character, she brings incredible presence. The film goes one step darker in its shock factor too, but less so in consistent atmosphere and overall horror.
Rated 12 Dec 2018
emir_hanEmir Han
Rated 30 Jan 2015
73
34th
The Silence of the Lambs was epic. We used to see Jodie Foster as Clarice. New director and new actors affected to film, not in a good way. Except ending, "Hannibal" is a typical adaptation movie. I think if Jonathan Demme had directed this film, we would see something more extraordinary.
Rated 30 Jan 2015
vincentevincente
Rated 14 Aug 2007
40
18th
null
Rated 14 Aug 2007
fudgiebfudgieb
Rated 14 Aug 2007
63
21st
What a disappointment.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
kamrankamran
Rated 14 Aug 2007
71
61st
Very underrated; I can never understand why critics went off on Scott for adopting a different visual style. If he'd appropriated Demme, they'd have ripped him apart regardless. Over-the-top, operatic and bordering on camp, it's a thrilling ride.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
sopachuco13sopachuco13
Rated 10 Sep 2012
70
36th
This installment in the Hannibal series is a much bloodier more graphic addition to the series. The casting of the movie was great, especially Gary Oldman, who always brings his best to any part. The cinematography was great and the locations really were well chosen. The back and forth between Italy and Virginia really helped make the scenes bright and colorful. The parts in Italy really helped bring Hannibal's eccentric love of the classical world to life.
Rated 10 Sep 2012
jennajenna
Rated 14 Aug 2007
50
11th
A huge disappointment. If it aint broken, don't fix it. Silence of the Lambs was so good, there's just no excuse for a sequel. It can only get worse, and it sure as hell did.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
spanksSpanks
Rated 30 Aug 2009
65
62nd
What's with the hate? I thought this was totally decent. I mean, obviously it's not Silence of the Lambs, but there was still some cool moments and the story is entertaining enough.
Rated 30 Aug 2009
sickornotsickornot
Rated 04 Jan 2009
90
66th
i love it ..:)
Rated 04 Jan 2009
vince_leoVince Leo
Rated 13 Feb 2007
57
31st
If you couldn't get enough of the characters from the first film, HANNIBAL gets a mild recommendation as long as you have two essential things: lowered expectations and a strong stomach.
Rated 13 Feb 2007
joebahoejoebahoe
Rated 24 Jul 2008
30
3rd
Yaaawwwnnn. This seemed like it was made just to bank on the success of Silence of the Lambs.
Rated 24 Jul 2008
pigletPiglet
Rated 23 Jul 2009
65
41st
Isn't the same without Foster.
Rated 23 Jul 2009
rttntomatoesrttntomatoes
Rated 22 Dec 2013
39
16th
While superbly acted and stylishly filmed, Hannibal lacks the character interaction between the two leads which made the first movie so engrossing.
Rated 22 Dec 2013
anomalyAnomaly
Rated 19 Jun 2012
43
14th
Well that was completely unnecessary and irredeemably awful!
Rated 19 Jun 2012
overratedoverrated
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 10 Jan 2010
neonmanNeonman
Rated 30 Jan 2022
60
15th
Awful, but amusing fan-fic of the original. Retaining absolutely none of the psychological and storytelling trickery of the first, Hannibal plods along dull-brained, but does stumble on some audacious moments of this cannibal that are at least unboring, particularly the rather funny climax, as well as the genuinely shocking final scene.
Rated 30 Jan 2022
peaceanarchyPeaceAnarchy
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 01 Nov 2016
joegayeskiJoeGayeski
Rated 01 Aug 2007
50
25th
Ridley Scott is a great director, and great cast, but the novel itself sucked, and so even with the great David Mamet, HANNIBAL is dogged by, well, a dog of a story.
Rated 01 Aug 2007
mr_freezemr-freeze
Rated 26 Nov 2008
60
17th
Blöder zweiter Teil eines Kultfilms. Statt des fiesen unterschwelligen Horrors des ersten Teils, setzt man hier auf Ekelszenen. Absolut überflüssig. Red Dragon (Teil drei der Reihe) bietet da schon wieder ein wenig mehr !
Rated 26 Nov 2008
groovysoulsGroovy_Souls
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 23 Jul 2014
quez2goquez2go
Rated 18 Apr 2012
44
13th
The main problem with this movie is that it just doesn't go anywhere. Clearly the author of the book felt the need to write a follow-up to the success that was Silence of the Lambs, but didn't have any good ideas. Nothing good about Silence of the Lambs finds its way into this movie, so while the performances are fine, the characters are not really the ones we loved from the last film and the story isn't nearly as compelling. Plus it loses points for the unearned ending...
Rated 18 Apr 2012
mrolivierMr.Olivier
Rated 11 May 2018
52
34th
Enjoyed Hopkin's performance more here than in Silence, because his hamminess fits with the silliness of the script. This was never gonna be a great film, but its biggest failure is in not being as over-the-top as the book. I understand a lot had to be trimmed, but it loses out in not including Verger's butch sister, & Lecter's & Starling's happily ever after.
Rated 11 May 2018
cestmoicestmoi
Rated 06 Jun 2008
25
8th
The book betrayed the characters and was a total disaster. The movie follows suit. They never should've made it.
Rated 06 Jun 2008
triletrile
Rated 14 Aug 2007
40
29th
Third part of the saga. Poor as the second was. Silence of the Lambs cannot be redone in the same horrifying way. Antony you should skip this one.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
kavkav
Rated 12 Jul 2008
60
34th
A bit boring.
Rated 12 Jul 2008
ladybugLadyBug
Rated 15 Oct 2008
60
16th
although hopkins is always scaring and amazing it cant keep up with silence of the lambs
Rated 15 Oct 2008
renatoromerorenatoromero
Rated 14 Aug 2007
60
25th
Good, but not as good as the other films... Ridley Scott could do much better than that...
Rated 14 Aug 2007
ripviciousripvicious
Rated 14 Aug 2007
81
85th
Great sequel even though Foster did not return.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
hakkanarejohakkanarejo
Rated 19 Aug 2015
95
63rd
It's a safe bet that Ridley Scott's Hannibal is one of the most anticipated motion pictures of 2001. It has taken ten years for the sequel to The Silence of the Lambs to reach the screen (much of the delay due to the length of time it took novelist Thomas Harris to pen the book), and, sadly, it's not worth the wait. Hannibal isn't a terrible movie, but it is a disappointment, and more than a small step down from the level of its predecessor.
Rated 19 Aug 2015
clockworksclockworks
Rated 08 May 2019
80
65th
Horror without jumpscare. Wonderful
Rated 08 May 2019
philsalephilsale
Rated 14 Aug 2007
64
43rd
A bit predictable
Rated 14 Aug 2007
caponeCapone
Rated 27 Apr 2009
48
17th
Nothing to do with Silence of the Lambs. They needed to make a sequel by contract.
Rated 27 Apr 2009
teeceeteecee
Rated 17 Sep 2008
40
54th
hmmm, ikke lige som den kunne være
Rated 17 Sep 2008
x_humanx-human
Rated 14 Aug 2007
80
66th
Almost the opposite of Silence in that I feel the psychological aspect was dropped while it gain much better cinematography. It's a little heavy handed with the cross-dissolves and like effects, but beyond that it's a very tight film.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
sailorripleySailorRipley
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 20 Sep 2007
hehhehhehheh
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 Aug 2007
joemcmahonjoemcmahon
Rated 17 Aug 2007
80
70th
Gary Oldman. 'nough said.
Rated 17 Aug 2007
kerrekKerrek
Rated 14 Aug 2007
68
43rd
Not too good, though at least they remedied Harris's ending.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
tyler170018tyler170018
Rated 14 Aug 2007
60
44th
god
Rated 14 Aug 2007
ktulurisesktulurises
Rated 03 Jul 2012
65
18th
A huge letdown in the face of Silence of the Lambs. Overacting and poor dialogue, culminating with Ray Liotta's gross out scene at the end would make some think this was intended to be dark farce.
Rated 03 Jul 2012
maddogmaddog
Rated 04 Apr 2019
74
42nd
Whereas the first movie feels intricately constructed, this one much more feels like a 'get Hannibal'. The backstory doesn't contribute anything particularly deep. Hopkins is wonderful- and they really needed Foster.
Rated 04 Apr 2019
lolocaustLolocaust
Rated 28 Apr 2009
40
14th
Compared to Silence of the Lambs it's a complete letdown.
Rated 28 Apr 2009
sammagesammage
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 18 Mar 2007
infamous639infamous639
Rated 12 Nov 2007
50
8th
The most awfully boring, dull, and disengenous horror film ever made in the Hannibal Lector trilogy, trite.
Rated 12 Nov 2007
murravenerMurravener
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 28 Feb 2007
laserdragonlaserdragon
Rated 09 Sep 2008
90
69th
One cannot help but love Anthony Hopkin's portrayal of the most fascinating serial killer in cinematic history. If you liked Silence of the Lambs, you'll most likely enjoy Hannibal as well.
Rated 09 Sep 2008
elmakebabielmakebabi
Rated 22 Feb 2020
30
6th
Are you kidding me?
Rated 22 Feb 2020
bookhouseboybookhouseboy
Rated 04 Sep 2010
36
41st
#00s(e)#, hype, story, 'pt1', (casting)
Rated 04 Sep 2010
cokes311Cokes311
Rated 31 Dec 2007
77
35th
The worst of the Hannibal trio is still very entertaining, thanks to Anthony Hopkins.
Rated 31 Dec 2007
rianmillerrianmiller
Rated 21 Jun 2011
10
9th
Ridley Scott directed one of my favorite movies of all time (Alien) and another movie that I really love (Black Hawk Down). Aside from those, he's directed a bunch of movies that I either haven't seen or don't care for. He took one of the most intense, intriguing mystery/thrillers of all time and made a sequel that could put a speed freak to sleep. If you can make it to the "Ray Liotta eating pieces of his own exposed brain scene," you may want to laugh or cry. Both are acceptable reactions.
Rated 21 Jun 2011
tripleshTripleSH
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 14 Aug 2007
mariamariaMariaMaria
Rated 16 Oct 2008
30
3rd
Um, they replaced Clarice. No good.
Rated 16 Oct 2008
ocelotOcelot
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 03 Nov 2013
braddad68braddad68
Rated 25 Jul 2011
50
0th
I love Hopkins' portrayal of Hannibal Lechter, but this movie has one of the most disturbing scenes I have ever witnessed in film! The image still haunts me. I think they went WAY over the line! I was shocked Hopkins and Ray Liotta went along with it. I won't describe the scene. If you've seen it, you know. If you haven't, I recommend skipping the movie and seeing Red Dragon instead.
Rated 25 Jul 2011
teddedonTedDedon
Rated 18 Mar 2007
67
36th
It's hard to imagine that this comes from The Silence of the Lambs. Unbelievable.
Rated 18 Mar 2007
metalhankmetalhank
Rated 07 Mar 2017
64
61st
Here we have a sequel with Hopkins returning as the ever intelligent, sick and twisted Hannibal; but Foster is not back as her great character which hinders the film a bit. The story is a little lacking, but they do add a few little gory tidbits.
Rated 07 Mar 2017
jacoiiiJacoIII
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 24 Sep 2009
runningrunning
Rated 03 Jun 2008
84
55th
quite ok
Rated 03 Jun 2008
bebe426BeBe426
Rated 14 Aug 2007
85
65th
Liked it, a little creepy, but liked it.
Rated 14 Aug 2007
adssmiffads_smiff
Rated 30 Jul 2007
54
20th
a mess
Rated 30 Jul 2007
mjvmoviemanMJVmovieMan
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 22 Mar 2007
sonovagunsonovagun
Rated 17 Oct 2007
20
9th
Not as good with Silence of the Lambs
Rated 17 Oct 2007
gr8googlyGr8Googly
Rated 06 Mar 2011
84
83rd
Not Silence of the Lambs but what could be? More stylish but still has its more creepy moments
Rated 06 Mar 2011

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...