I haven't seen it yet. And I am a fan of Silence of the Lambs, and the Red Dragon(I know, I get weird looks when I say that). So, I want to know from you true horror fans. I just have been afraid to watch the new one. Should I watch this movie, or will it be a waste of time?

Take this for what it is; my humble opinion.

I didn't want to see this one because I was, like you, afraid. And frankly, tired of the endless sequels that just get worse and worse.

I really liked this movie and think it stands alone. For me it was the implied gore that was so fantastically horrible. This movie is dark, disturbing, and creepy as hell. The guy who plays Hannibal is brilliant!!

I think you will like it. As I said, this movie could easily have stood alone.

Cool. Thanks a million. I just didn't want to get pissed off at another sequal that was put out 15 or 20 years after the original.

i loved this movie. it definately explains why hannibal is so jacked up in the head. great movie and one of the better ones of the series.

The movie kicked ass. I loved it.

I hadn't watched this yet even though I own it so I'm glad to hear that it's pretty good! I will now feel safe that I am not wasting my time! Thanx Guys!

Yeah, it's awesome. Don't waste anymore time and watch it.

DITTO. I wasnt afraid to watch it, because the dvd cover and trailer drew me in. It wasnt the garbage hollywood churned out for Hannibal and Red Dragon. This is coming from someone that's read the entire trilogy by Thomas Harris (red dragon came first, then silence, then hannibal--my fave of all).

This movie was well-directed, the european lanscape, three or four countries, it was just.....MUAH! the woman who played lady Murasaki (or whatever) was wonderful. The cannibal soldiers. The detective. The producer edited the film wonderfully, I didnt think any of the scenes played too long, or were irrelevant to the plot. I actually watched the outtakes (cut scenes) and thats why I say this.

And the unknown who played a young Hannibal, held my attention the ENTIRE time. Damn, he is sexy!

OK, so now I am curious-- did anyone NOT like this movie? It is perfectly ok if you didn't...I am just wondering.

To be honest, I only know of one person. And that was my guitarist. He said that he hated how Hannibal and his aunt didn't have sex, and that it wasn't realistic because they would have shagged, if the movie was real life.

But I was so relieved that he didn't go all of the way with her. Because it proved to me how ruthless and focused Hannibal Lecter is. It showed me that he couldn't be tempted by the pleasures of the flesh.

In the novel, they may have had sex. I could be mistaken, but in the director's commentary, they addressed the dilemma of whether or not to include a sex scene between lady murasaki and hannibal. They decided against it, because they didnt want that relationship to be the main focus of the movie, it would derail the storyline. Also, there was sexual tension between Lady and the detective guy. It was a subtle love triangle.

To say that they didnt have sex is rather presumptious. I didnt assume that....there were too many opportunities.

Well, they didn't have sex up front, you know? Which is good. The main thing is that he resisted her when she told him to stop the killing for her.

The only one I liked was Scilence after that they have all sucked.

I liked Red Dragon. I really disliked Hannibal.

Both of them were just bland for me. The new one was not that good either, I thought it was a bit unrealistic and did not have the feel of my favourite, which was silence.

I really liked the new one. It had alot less perversion than Silence, which is fine for me, because that one went a little overboard with that sexual stuff.

That was one of the things that confused me! A teenager would be much more preverse than an aged man who had matured. It was too toned down and felt unrealistic compared to the original.

Well, in Silence, very little of the perversion came from Hannibal. It was from that creep who tucked his weiner in, lol. I am sorry, but that was the most disturbing thing I've ever seen.

XD Yes that was disgusting! IT RUBS THE LOTION ON ITS SKIN OR ELSE IT GETS THE HOSE AGAIN!

If a movie did that these days it would get the NC17 rating for sure. Evil mpaa

I hear that.

Although, I could have gone a lifetime without seeing that.

IT RUBS ON THE GOD DAMN LOTION!

Actually, now I do want to watch that movie. I might later.

XD Well head over to the chat section and check out the movies coming on tonight to see if there is anything you want to watch with us.

LOL. I havent seen that man in any other films.

Because I am putting off actual work, I looked it up. According to IMBD he has been in a buttload of films since SOTL.

Ted Levine

Holy cow, do you really think so? They didn't really show anything and it was all so well done and brief. I wouldn't think it would be any big deal, now Sleepaway Camp's end might be another story! lol Or maybe even The Crying Game, but that would really be sad!

The MPAA stamps the R rating on movies if they say Fuck now, so I think a glimsp of a penis in a purposfully disgusting situation will get an R rating if they are lucky.

Yeah, the shot last about one second! I had to watch it several times to figure out what I saw. It looked like a vagina. And for whatever reason, a vagina is not considered as offensive as penises. Ive seen lots of vaginas in films, but if you see a penis, its considered porn almost.

Omg, speaking of hannibal; I'm watching random videos on mtv.com, and this came on just now. Ive never seen it before.

http://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?artist=502642&vid=118227

I honestly didn't like Hannibal Rising. I didn't like the fact we took a despicable manipulative serial killer and turned him into Charles Bronson with a knife.

I prefer the original Hannibal from Red Dragon/Silence/Hannibal, who we see was tortured by his past, but overcame it to be brilliantly psychotic who loved to play with people like they were pawns in some invisible Chess game.

Rather what we see of him in Hannibal Rising is a repressed vengeful worm who can't cope that he ate his sister.(After all, if Hannibal was so distraught by it, why did he later become Hannibal the Cannibal?)

It seemed like Thomas Harris wanted to take a truly Diabolical Villian and turn him into a Tragic Hero. I'm sorry, but it just didn't work for me.

I hated a lot of the things cut from the book, which would've added at least a bit more substance to the film.(Although I do like the fact this was a more faithful adaption than Hannibal several years ago. If they had done Hannibal right, we wouldn't have any need for Hannibal Rising, since this was all brought up in the earlier novel.) I missed the Handmaiden, Lady Murasaki's 'bath scene', and Hannibal on his way to Baltimore at the end.

But as I said, in general, I didn't like the fact we went from a Manipulative Criminal Mastermind, to a Whiney Sadistic Child. Sure he's younger, and inexperienced, but I didn't get one glimpse of Master Manipulator that Hannibal would become later in life. To me, Hannibal had a lot more grace than that.

Are you kidding me? The MPAA is being easier on movies now than they ever have before. I can think of a dozen movies off of the top of my head right now that have Fuck in it atleast once that are PG-13, as well as movies that are very intense that aren't rated R, either.

AVP has Fuck in it twice, I believe. I know once for sure.
Man of the Year has Fuck in it, as well as drug use, and voter fraud.
Black Sheep has the F word in it.
1408 was very intense, and should have been rated R in my opinion.

I could go on, and on, and on. Since the late 90s the MPAA has gotten softer if you ask me, atleast as far as language and suspense is concerned.

I watched this last night. I agree with Momma's Boy's assessment. It is difficult to compare any actor to Anthony Hopkin's Hannibal, so newcomer (at least to Americans) Gaspard Ulliel had little chance to impress me. I felt at times he tried to hard to exude Creepy evilness, when in fact, he was bent on revenge and unable to cope with the fact that he ate his little sister.

The movie, as a whole, was fairly well done. I think it is the weakest of the Hannibal films, even moreso than Hannibal and Red Dragon. It didn't have any suspense, and the twist at the end didn't surprise me. I didn't like the fact that they tried to portray Hannibal as some sort of tragic hero.

Depends on the usage of the word. You see the film Accepted, which is PG-13, has Lewis Black using the F Word in two different scenes. The MPAA allowed it in the first, however in the second scene they thought it was 'Too Over the Top', so instead of cutting a rather funny scene, the filmmakers instead bleeped it. Which I think adds even a funnier element to it.

The most blantantly visible usage of the word being a no-no to the MPAA is in the more recent Live Free or Die Hard. John McClane wasn't even able to finish his 'trademark' phrase, without the sound of the gun going off to cover it up.



Yea, Brian Cox did an okay job as Hannibal in Manhunter. However, the character had been SEVERELY cut from the entire movie, so he wasn't able to play him as 'skin-crawling' as Anthony Hopkins did.

MB, I'm sorry you didn't like Hannibal as I enjoyed it very much.

And thanks for getting back on topic.

I had to do a bit of scrolling before I found a post that was actually about the movie.

As for Ted Levine - you can see him every week on Monk on the USA network.

Also, he played the Dad in the remake of "The Hills Have Eyes".

Hannibal Rising was good. lol

Well, I agree with Momma's Boy.
But then I thought a good portion of the story itself was badly contrived. To me, this was all around the weakest of all of the films in the series. Honestly, up until the aunt it was fine. But afterwards? It seemed like the story was grasping at the most random and bizarre of concepts. It ruined any attempts at suspension of disbelief.

Why? Why did they feel the need to add in any themes beyond those dealing with Hannibal's character? Wasn't it enough to delve into the psyche and motivations of a sociopath with childhood traumas to that extent? Why did we try to make a sociopath into an anti-hero? Why didn't they just leave this character as something that made sense? Why throw in prejudice as a story theme? Didn't they realize that that would end up being too much? That the focus then would be on one of the secondary characters who was unbelieveable enough simply for being there. (Sorry, rhetorical questions.)

Bah. But then, I've never read the books. Perhaps, I'd appreciate the film more if I did?

I am pleased to see the favorable comments. I like many of you, love SotL.

I read the book and thought highly of it, but I disliked the changes they made to Hannibal. I loved the way the book ended and dislike the more sanitized ending to the movie.

^^The way they did Dr. Chiltons face was just a joke. I KNEW they were going to screw that up. It had to be done just right, or it would be very cheesy...and it was.

Also, didnt Ralph Fiennes play the killer? Again, not the best casting call. He didnt bring out the qualities of the character enough.

Thanks Sineater for the Levine tip on Monk! hehe

Yes, TA, the entire series of films based on Thomas Harris's novels The Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal, Red Dragon (which was made once before, as Manhunter, in 1987, and featured William Petersen (Lonesome Dove, CSI) and Dennis Farina (Crime Story, Law and Order) as 2 homicide investigators who are tracking down a serial killer who, as it turns out, has taken up with his potential next victim, a blind woman. I suppose you've seen the climactic scene in which the 2 cops eventually catch up with the killer and stop him from murdering the blind lady, and all to the buzzy strains of, appropriately enough, "In-a-gadda-da-Vida" by Iron Butterfly), and Hannibal Rising, wouldn't have been as chilling without the talents of Anthony Hopkins in the role of Dr. Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter. A fave line from Silence of the Lambs pops to mind: "I ate his liver, with a side of fava beans and a nice Chianti." Appropriately effective when it comes to frightening images laid on the imagination, eh, gang? It's just a thought that I wished to express. Thanks for your indulgence. MartinKandell September 2, 2008