Reviews (601)

Seriously underrated horror film.
Watch this movie back-to-back with Brett Ratner's "Red Dragon" and you'll understand what separates a great director from a pedestrian one. Ridley Scott has crafted a classic horror film. A film that, despite justifiable complaints about the "easy way out" ending, leaves a surprising amount of the novel's surreal mayhem intact.

Dark cinema fans should embrace this one. It's not often you get a true horror film with a dazzling cast (Hopkins, Giancarlo Giannini are incredible, and Julianne Moore doesn't make us forget about Jodie, but makes the best out of a tough situation).

Oldman's portrayal of Mason Verger makes the film, however. Pathetically evil, obsessed with revenge -- it's impossible to take your eyes off him. The opening sequence of the movie (where Verger purchases Hannibal memorabilia) is a delightful intro. Verger's self-mutilation flashback is jarring and surreal.

The Grand Guignol gore style of the movie has been seen by some as laughable. I thought it was quite disturbing, the absurdity adding another dimension of terror to the film. Like all great horror films, as a viewer, you're not sure just how far into nightmare territory this one will go (particularly if you haven't read the book).

If only DeLaurentis had chosen a worthy successor to direct Red Dragon, the Lecter trilogy would've easily been the best horror cinema series ever.

While "Silence" is clearly the biggest crowd pleaser of the bunch, and a very sophisticated thriller, my heart is with Hannibal. It's absolutely beautiful to look at, holds up amazingly well under repeated viewings, and never shies away (until the very end) from the novel's most appalling elements.

Good horror flick. Bad Hannibal Lecter movie.
Hannibal is one of those sequels that continues from the original, but completely changes the story line. The Silence Of The Lambs was a drama about entering the mind of a serial killer with the help of a past one. Hannibal is just about tracking down a serial killer. This was definatly made to be a horror movie, not a suspense drama.

Hannibal picks up awhile after The Silence Of The Lambs. In the first film, Hannibal breaks out of prison torwards the end of the film not to kill again, but to retire and live a normal life. But now Dr. Hannibal Lecter(returning Anthony Hopkins), is about to come out of retirement to hunt again. But only Clarice Starling(Juliane Moore replacing Jodie Foster) knows enough about him to track him down and catch him.

The plot is simple, nothing near the plot of Silence Of The Lambs, the acting is not bad but definatly not at its best(Anthony Hopkins still plays his role rather well, but could have done better). The only thing I could say was rather good was the directing from Ridley Scott(Alien, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down). But other than that, fans of horror movies will probably enjoy this much much more than fans of The Silence Of The Lambs, like myself.

"Hannibal" runs for a little over 2 hours. It is rated R for very strong gore and gruesome violence(some may not even be able to handle the some of the extreme gore), some strong language, and disturbing images.

Disappointing, floundering follow up
When Thomas Harris wrote Hannibal, it was a safe bet that a film wouldn't be far along. Silence of the Lambs director Jonathan Demme and star Jodie Foster declined to take part in Hannibal claiming they found the story distasteful; so director Ridley Scott (Black Hawk Down, Gladiator, Alien) and actress Julianne Moore (replacing Foster as FBI Agent Clarice Starling) were brought into this disappointing follow up. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins reprising his Oscar winning role), now living the life of luxury in Italy, finds himself on the run from Mason Verger (an unrecognizeable and uncredited Gary Oldman), a former patient who at Hannibal's advice peeled off part of his face. Meanwhile, Clarice finds her career on the downward spiral as she as used as bait by Verger to lure Lecter out of hiding. The suspense can't hold up to that of Silence of the Lambs (movie or book that is) and Scott's direction, even though he gives it his own slick look, is disappointing. Moore, as good an actress as she is, can't hold a candle to Jodie Foster as we find the once strong willed but vulnerable Clarice be more of a victim here than anything else. Finally, Hopkins just isn't scary anymore as Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter. That alone is probably the worst part of the film, and while Hannibal isn't necessarily bad, it's one of the most disappointing films to be released over the past few years. The cast also includes Francesca Neri, Frankie Faison, and Ray Liotta in the film's most infamous scene.

Great, not completely accurate, but very good.
The film is based on Thomas Harris' third installment in the "Hannibal Lecter Series" (Although, Hannibal Lecter is only a major character in one book.) The movie's ending was completely different than that of the book. WARNING: IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK, AND WANT TO, DO NOT READ THE NEXT SENTENCE! In the book, Lecter basically brainwashes Starling and takes her as his wife and moves to South America. WARNING OVER

Hopkins' acting was not as good as it was in "Silence of the Lambs," but it's very good. Julianne Moore's performance was not as good as Jodie Foster's.

The movie excluded the character Margot, Mason Verger's lesbian sister. I think she greatly enhanced the story's progress. In the movie, anything Margot did that was pivotal to the story (basically, just pushing Verger into the pigpen) Verger's personal doctor did.

Basically, if you're just looking for an amazing movie, DON'T pick this up, if you're looking for a gory movie, pick it up. If you're looking for a good sequel to an amazing movie (Silence of the Lambs.)

Mediocre yet oddly satisfying
Let's face it: "Hannibal" is nowhere near as good as "Silence of the Lambs" (I'm talking movies, not books). To quote Charter, "Far-fetched and gory." Plus it fails to capture Lecter's true intentions toward Starling (as brotherly or fatherly, not romantic). Yet, somehow, the film is oddly satisfying, and I find myself draw to it whenever it's on. The mix of operatic score during chaotic scenes is strangely effective (similar to the ethereal tracks during intense scenes in the LOTR series of films). So, no, it's not a great movie, and Lecter's behavior is sometimes "out of character," but the movie is satisfying nonetheless. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Based on Thomas Harris's novel, Jonathan Demme's terrifying Silence of the Lambs really contains only a couple of genuinely shocking moments (one involving an autopsy, the other a prison break). The rest of the film is a splatter-free visual and psychological descent into the hell of madness, redeemed astonishingly by an unlikely connection between a monster and a haunted young woman. Anthony Hopkins is extraordinary as the cannibalistic psychiatrist Dr. Hannibal Lecter, virtually entombed in a subterranean prison for the criminally insane. At the behest of the FBI, agent-in-training Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) approaches Lecter, requesting his insights into the identity and methods of a serial killer named Buffalo Bill. In exchange, Lecter demands the right to penetrate Starling's most painful memories, creating a bizarre but palpable intimacy that liberates them both under separate but equally horrific circumstances. The Silence of the Lambs won 1992 Oscars^® for best picture, actor, actress, director, and adapted screenplay.

Ten years later in Hannibal, Dr. Lecter (Hopkins) is living the good life in Italy, studying art and sipping espresso. FBI agent Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore, replacing Foster), on the other hand, is now a quiet, moody loner. A botched drug raid results in her demotion--and a request from Lecter's only living victim, Mason Verger (Gary Oldman, uncredited), for a little Q&A. Little does Starling realize that the hideously deformed Verger is using her as bait to lure Dr. Lecter out of hiding. Taking the basic plot contraptions from Harris's baroque novel, Hannibal is so stylistically different from its predecessor that it forces you to take it on its own terms. Director Ridley Scott adeptly sets up an atmosphere of foreboding, but it's all buildup for anticlimax, as Verger's plot for abducting Dr. Lecter doesn't really deliver the requisite visceral thrills, and the much-ballyhooed climatic dinner sequence wobbles between parody and horror. Hopkins and Moore are both first-rate, but the film contrives to keep them as far apart as possible, when what made Silence so amazing was their interaction. When they do connect it's quite thrilling, but it's unfortunately too little too late. ... Read more

Reviews (7)

Solid thriller combo.
The Silence of the Lambs-Probably the most genuinely disturbing psychological thriller ever made, Silence of the Lambs is a must see, but its dramatic power, dark insight into the human psyche, and ugly violence (most of which is implied) ensures it's unlikely you'll watch this film more than once. But on a first viewing, almost nothing matches this thriller's heart-pounding suspense, from Hannibal Lecter's attempted escape to the literally dark climax. Howard Shore's foreboding score adds nicely to the intense atmosphere.
**** 1/2 out of *****

Hannibal-This underrated sequel looks and feels quite different from its predecessor. It has no intention of excelling as a pyschological thriller, but neither is this a straight through-and-through gorefest. Certainly entertaining but hardly mind-blowing, Hannibal is at least visually stylish and unpredictable, if not also somewhat silly.
*** 1/2 out of *****

Two GREAT, GREAT movies on wonderful special edition DVDs!
While it is a bit sad that all four Hannibal the Cannibal classics will most likely never be released in a box set, I can understand it because of the different companies who have made the movies. This box set, however, is quite excellent. I myself feel that The Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal are both equally brilliant and deserve a place in any person who calls himself a movie buff's collection.

The Silence of the Lambs was director Jonathan Demme's academy award winning 1991 classic. The success of the film, however, should not only be attributed to the director, because it was the work of the cinematographer, editor, writer, set director and, most of all, brilliant actors. Jodie Foster -IS- FBI agent Clarice Starling, brilliant, young, attractive (well, not really) and tough. Foster perfectly displays the emotions that go through her character and her growth throughout the picture. Some of my favorite scenes were where she discovers Buffalo Bill (the way she yells "freeze" is great!) and when she stands up to a crowd of men and orders them out of the room where an autopsy is taking place. Anthony Hopkins completely deserved his academy award as Hannibal. His portrayal of Hannibal and his personality was quite interesting. The way I see it, Hannibal is quite a nice gentlemen, but has a very large problem, that being his love for the taste of human flesh. I think you can tell from his scenes with Clarice Starling what a polite person he is. He might ask some personal questions, but the way he talks is courteous and friendly, if a bit intense. The cinematography of the film is fabulous, too. Clarice's descent into Lecter's holding cell is expertly handled, and the near final sequence with Clarice and Buffalo Bill is almost unbearably intense, thanks also to some wonderful music by Howard Shore. All in all, The Silence of the Lambs is a classic thriller which will live forever and deserves a place in everyone's collection.

The controversial sequel, 2001's Hannibal, is really quite an underappreciated piece of brilliant cinema. Ridley Scott is in top form as director here. The movie is overloaded with style of every type. Slow motion, overhead views, stylish flashbacks, sped up film, intense action and a brilliant use of classical music all add up to create an extremely memorable viewing experience. As for actors, they are all perfect. I was surprised to not think once about how well Julianne Moore was doing in comparison to Jodie Foster, and that was because she was equal to Foster. Rather than copying Foster's performance in The Silence of the Lambs, Moore makes the character her own. The Clarice of this film is meaner, more cynical and has a much smarter mouth than Foster's Clarice. This is because Hannibal takes place ten years after The Silence of the Lambs, so naturally, she wouldn't be such a goody goody, follow-the-rules woman. Anthony Hopkins steals the show as Hannibal. He is just as great as in the previous movies. In this film, Hannibal is free and loose, and from Hopkin's great acting, you can tell how much he treasures his freedom. Just look at how he sips his brandy and his cappachino. I loved that Lecter was free to do what he wanted in this film. Critics like Roger Ebert didn't seem to, and felt it took away from his mystery and creepiness. As much as I love Ebert, I must disagree. Having Hannibal out of the mental home was a work of genius and added a ton of creepiness to the flick. I have read Thomas Harris' novels The Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal and feel that both movies do the books extreme justice, and, unbelievably, outdo them. In the case of The Silence of the Lambs, the movie version very accurately portrays the book version. Hannibal, however, was changed quite a bit. One part of the book I really liked that is nowhere in the film was Mason Verger's lesbian, body building sister, Margot. Also, Mason's love of terrorizing kids wasn't shown much in the film. The ending was suprmemely changed, but believe it or not, I liked the movie ending better. Hopkin's and Moore's performances in the finale are pitch perfect. Nothing removed from the book lowered my love for the film.

This set comes with two fantastic special editions. On The Silence of the Lambs, we find two documentaries, one old and one new, with the latter being quite fabulous. There are twenty minutes worth of deleted material. Some stuff was worthless and some stuff was very good, like one where Clarice is suspended by the FBI (Krendler's hate of her is set up for the sequel). There's also a rather funny phone message Anthony Hopkins left on his answering machine. Finally, posters, TV spots and a trailer are presented. The movie is in excellent 1:85:1 anamorphic ratio and has great 5.1 surround sound. The sequel is a fully laden two disc extravagenza which includes commentary by Ridley Scott, a very long documentary, 38 minutes of deleted and extended scenes, trailers and an "anatomy of a shootout" feature. Also presented in 1:85:1 anamorphic widescreen and with really good 5.1 surround sound. If there is any problem with these DVDs, it is the fact that the The Silence of the Lambs disc has almost none of the features found on the Criterion DVD, which included what I hear was an excellent audio commentary. It sounds like Criterion has a real problem with passing over any special features to a different company, so I can't blame MGM.

Overall, both of these films are masterpieces and the set is great. Also pick up Manhunter and Red Dragon on DVD from Anchor Bay and Universal.

If you found my review helpful, please vote for me. Thank you.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm having an old friend for dinner. Ta ta.

A Thrilling DVD Collection
1992: "Silence Of The Lambs" struck a chord with audiences, causing them to visit their therapists more often, it was said, and people became fans of Anthony Hopkins' portrayal as the elegant, intellectual, charming but psychotic cannibal ex-therapist Hannibal Lecter. Based on the novel by Thomas Harris, the movie won a host of awards, including best picture. Jodie Foster portrayed the novice FBI agent Clarice Starling, whose chemistry with Hopkins was what carried the weight of the film and made it an Oscar winner.

On DVD, the experience is very thrilling and state-of-the art. Silence Of The Lambs still sends chills down our spines, and engages us in a disturbing world of madness, tinged with cynical humor and engrossing conversations between Hopkins and Foster. Anthony Hopkins is Hannibal Lecter, the former therapist turned cannibal and criminal. It's undoubtedly Anthony Hopkins' trademark role and one that he will be remembered by. We are unnerved when Hannibal Lecter first meets Clarice Starling in the dungeon of the prison, where he confesses that he once "ate a man's liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti". To extract information revolving the transvestite skin-collector Buffalo Bill, Clarice must reveal deeply personal and traumatizing events from her childhood. She recalls running away from an abusive home only to witness the slaughter of innocent lambs in a farm house. The memory continues to haunt her and is reawakened by the hypnotic power of Dr. Lecter. The movie ends with the capture of Buffalo Bill and Clarice Starling's promotion. But Dr. Lecter manages to escape his cell and vanishes into Italy. Which brings us to the next film in the collection, the sequel, also based on the book by Thomas Harris. The follow-up "Hannibal".

2002: Ten years after the release of "Silence Of The Lambs", and ten years after the plotline of that particular film, we find Clarice Starling in a precarious situation. She has been demoted during a violent incident and is still haunted by memories of Dr. Lecter. A lonesome woman, she receives letters from Dr. Lecter, who (like old times) wishes to help Clarice get her career going again and capture another notorious psychotic killer. Dr. Lecter has been living a comfortable and reclusive life in Florence, Italy, a city which had always enchanted him. In Florence, Lecter attends operas, plays Bach's "Goldberg Variations", sips champagne and yes, still hungers for human flesh. Clarice and another agent (played by Ray Liotta) attempt to foil Dr. Lecter's machinations, but are captured and imprisoned in the dining room of Starling's home. In a disturbing sequence, Dr. Lecter, Starling and the FBI agent eat a dinner with the main course being the agent's own brain. Dr. Lecter manages to escape once again.

Most recently, the pre-quel to the events in "Silence Of The Lambs" was released, based also upon the successful Thomas Harris novel "Red Dragon". Red Dragon is still to be released on DVD. These films are the perfect "thriller" collection, each with its own striking features, plus interviews with the actors and director. For fans of the Thomas Harris novels and fans of the films, this is a genuinely superb gift.

Good Movie, Good guy Lecter
I honestly think this is a good movie, but their are a few things that bother me. For one, besides when he hung the one guy, Hannibal Lecter is more of one of the good guys in this movie. Lecter has some sort of skill to make people do what he wants, He even made Mason's helper throw Mason into a lair of boars and Clarice helps him escape.

Brilliant Anthology
Although Hannibal may not have been nearly as good as the first I still thought Ridley Scott did a great job of directing it and The Silence of the Lambs was also very very good and had great acting all around. Be sure to check out Red Dragon it's as good as The Silence of the Lambs! ... Read more

Reviews (28)

"But I have no regrets."
In "Live Flesh" police partners David (Javier Bardem) and Sancho (Jose Sancho) respond to a call that shots have been heard in an apartment building. They stumble into an argument between a wealthy young woman, Elena (Francesca Neri), and Victor (Liberto Rabal)--a man she's trying to brush off.

Almodovar--the master storyteller of the bizarre twist of fate--picks up the tale 5 years later. Victor is released from prison, and David--now a paraplegic--is married to Elena. Elena has cleaned up her act and devotes herself--and her money--to an orphanage. Victor is bent on revenge, and David, although physically at a disadvantage, wants to protect his wife.

In the midst of all this unfinished business between Victor, David, and Elena, are David's old partner, Sancho, and his beautiful wife, Clara (Angela Molina). Victor's passionate, erotic affair with Clara complicates matters.

No one can begin to make a future until coming to terms with the past, and all five characters collide as blame and retribution exact a heavy cost. "Live Flesh" marks a departure for Almodovar from his usual comedies, and this film deals with some rather painful issues while subtly criticizing the Franco regime. "Live Flesh" is an extremely solid, unflawed Almodovar film--replete with excellent performances from each of the five main characters. Almodovar always creates the most intriguing female characters, and Clara was particularly complicated and interesting to watch. Victor's character was also extremely well done--when he's released from prison and returns to the abandoned hovel he calls 'home', he is immediately a much more sympathetic character.

Almodovar films launched Antonio Banderas into Hollywood, and Javier Bardem was soon to follow the same career pattern. Penelope Cruz appears in a small role as Victor's prostitute mother. Nudity, adult themes, erotic sessions--in other words ... Almodovar--displacedhuman

A brilliant erotic thriller
Almodovar here shucks his tendency to blend campy sexuality and what he calls "screwball drama" for a strong work that instead fuses intense, real eroticism and the violence of a thriller into a powerful drama of fever-pitch emotionality.

Victor, born on a bus in a more typical Almodovar opening sequence featuring Penelope Cruz as his mother, is a loner and a man on the edge. He stalks Elena, a junkie-prostitute-drug dealer and forces his way inside her apartment. When two cops subsequently bust her for possession, they don't count on Victor, there with her, who pulls a gun on the cops in a scene that ends with one of them being paralyzed from a shot to the base of his spine.

Victor is nabbed and sent to prison. On his release, he discovers that Elena, whom he still lusts for, is now married to the paralyzed cop. And of course Victor cannot leave well enough alone.

It's the interplay of the second cop, the second cop's wife, Victor, and Elena that brings the emotional fluids here to a boil. The story development including surprising revelations establishes a momentum that results in a climax more than worthy of the preceding events, and that more than justifies the label of thriller for this film.

Lust, jealousy, murder, betrayal--all the juicy stuff that thrillers are made of--are, in the hands of a unique Spanish director, given a searing life of their own. It's truly a wonder to see this perfect mesh of out-of-control emotions, Spanish culture, and dazzling eroticism.

A brilliant film. Although All About My Mother is superb, it is more a return to Almodovar's sensibilities. Live Flesh is unique and is even unique for Almodovar. This makes it really special.

another reason i love modern european cinema
Besides just simple good film-making, I've figured out WHY European dramatic cinema is better than that found in the U.S.

They make more REAL honest movies about human behavior. Whereas in the U.S, a great percentage of films are juvenile comedies, trash pop culture flicks or shallow horror movies. The more you make the more likely you're able to turn out quality- and this film from Spain is no exception.

My Spanish cinema experiences are few, but I've enjoyed what I've seen... one of which being the wonderfully creepy movie: "The Devil's Backbone"

so, go order this or buy it, turn the lights down, pour your drink, and get comfy for a good quality movie...

and hey, it's one of Penelope Cruz's first movies!

Heady stuff that never compromises - typical Almodovar
"Live Flesh" begins with Victor Plaza being born on a bus in Franco's Spain in 1970 and ends, twenty six years later, with... well, I wont spoil the ending; but typically with Almodovar, it is fitting and poetic. In between, we follow Victor on his journey into manhood, as he learns the hard way about disillusion, betrayal, love, lust, life, death, and tragedy.

As a young man, Victor believes that a one-off sexual encounter with a beautiful Italian junkie is something more than it is, and pesters her to such an extent that she draws a gun on him in order to get him to leave. A struggle ensues. The gun accidentally goes off, and although noone is hurt, it brings the unwelcome attention of two policemen. Another struggle ensues. Another shot is fired. One of the policemen is paralysed from the waist down. From then on, all four of their lives become tragically entwined; with deception and misunderstanding leading towards bitterness and envy. Inevitably, the lies are stripped away, unwanted truths are revealed, and all the various dilemmas are resolved amidst a scene of emotional and actual carnage.

This must sound like heady stuff, almost melodramatic? It is. This is Almodovar, after all. There is the usual complex plotting that reveals the strains that pull apart and bring together relationships while the emotional lives of the characters are laid bare. There is the relentless drive to resolve the emotional dilemmas while avoiding sentimentality. In short, there are all the usual touches that one expects from Almodovar, including the wonderful acting from the cast. Wonderful! A film that will draw you back again and again and again.

Powerful
(Read above for storyline)

Another incredible film from Pedro Almodovar!
He never fails to tell the most incredible, tragic stories with warmth and genuine affection for all of his characters, no matter what they have done, or how they live their lives.
A powerful film and tragic film, with powerful performances from all the leads. ... Read more

Reviews (601)

Seriously underrated horror film.
Watch this movie back-to-back with Brett Ratner's "Red Dragon" and you'll understand what separates a great director from a pedestrian one. Ridley Scott has crafted a classic horror film. A film that, despite justifiable complaints about the "easy way out" ending, leaves a surprising amount of the novel's surreal mayhem intact.

Dark cinema fans should embrace this one. It's not often you get a true horror film with a dazzling cast (Hopkins, Giancarlo Giannini are incredible, and Julianne Moore doesn't make us forget about Jodie, but makes the best out of a tough situation).

Oldman's portrayal of Mason Verger makes the film, however. Pathetically evil, obsessed with revenge -- it's impossible to take your eyes off him. The opening sequence of the movie (where Verger purchases Hannibal memorabilia) is a delightful intro. Verger's self-mutilation flashback is jarring and surreal.

The Grand Guignol gore style of the movie has been seen by some as laughable. I thought it was quite disturbing, the absurdity adding another dimension of terror to the film. Like all great horror films, as a viewer, you're not sure just how far into nightmare territory this one will go (particularly if you haven't read the book).

If only DeLaurentis had chosen a worthy successor to direct Red Dragon, the Lecter trilogy would've easily been the best horror cinema series ever.

While "Silence" is clearly the biggest crowd pleaser of the bunch, and a very sophisticated thriller, my heart is with Hannibal. It's absolutely beautiful to look at, holds up amazingly well under repeated viewings, and never shies away (until the very end) from the novel's most appalling elements.

Good horror flick. Bad Hannibal Lecter movie.
Hannibal is one of those sequels that continues from the original, but completely changes the story line. The Silence Of The Lambs was a drama about entering the mind of a serial killer with the help of a past one. Hannibal is just about tracking down a serial killer. This was definatly made to be a horror movie, not a suspense drama.

Hannibal picks up awhile after The Silence Of The Lambs. In the first film, Hannibal breaks out of prison torwards the end of the film not to kill again, but to retire and live a normal life. But now Dr. Hannibal Lecter(returning Anthony Hopkins), is about to come out of retirement to hunt again. But only Clarice Starling(Juliane Moore replacing Jodie Foster) knows enough about him to track him down and catch him.

The plot is simple, nothing near the plot of Silence Of The Lambs, the acting is not bad but definatly not at its best(Anthony Hopkins still plays his role rather well, but could have done better). The only thing I could say was rather good was the directing from Ridley Scott(Alien, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down). But other than that, fans of horror movies will probably enjoy this much much more than fans of The Silence Of The Lambs, like myself.

"Hannibal" runs for a little over 2 hours. It is rated R for very strong gore and gruesome violence(some may not even be able to handle the some of the extreme gore), some strong language, and disturbing images.

Disappointing, floundering follow up
When Thomas Harris wrote Hannibal, it was a safe bet that a film wouldn't be far along. Silence of the Lambs director Jonathan Demme and star Jodie Foster declined to take part in Hannibal claiming they found the story distasteful; so director Ridley Scott (Black Hawk Down, Gladiator, Alien) and actress Julianne Moore (replacing Foster as FBI Agent Clarice Starling) were brought into this disappointing follow up. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins reprising his Oscar winning role), now living the life of luxury in Italy, finds himself on the run from Mason Verger (an unrecognizeable and uncredited Gary Oldman), a former patient who at Hannibal's advice peeled off part of his face. Meanwhile, Clarice finds her career on the downward spiral as she as used as bait by Verger to lure Lecter out of hiding. The suspense can't hold up to that of Silence of the Lambs (movie or book that is) and Scott's direction, even though he gives it his own slick look, is disappointing. Moore, as good an actress as she is, can't hold a candle to Jodie Foster as we find the once strong willed but vulnerable Clarice be more of a victim here than anything else. Finally, Hopkins just isn't scary anymore as Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter. That alone is probably the worst part of the film, and while Hannibal isn't necessarily bad, it's one of the most disappointing films to be released over the past few years. The cast also includes Francesca Neri, Frankie Faison, and Ray Liotta in the film's most infamous scene.

Great, not completely accurate, but very good.
The film is based on Thomas Harris' third installment in the "Hannibal Lecter Series" (Although, Hannibal Lecter is only a major character in one book.) The movie's ending was completely different than that of the book. WARNING: IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK, AND WANT TO, DO NOT READ THE NEXT SENTENCE! In the book, Lecter basically brainwashes Starling and takes her as his wife and moves to South America. WARNING OVER

Hopkins' acting was not as good as it was in "Silence of the Lambs," but it's very good. Julianne Moore's performance was not as good as Jodie Foster's.

The movie excluded the character Margot, Mason Verger's lesbian sister. I think she greatly enhanced the story's progress. In the movie, anything Margot did that was pivotal to the story (basically, just pushing Verger into the pigpen) Verger's personal doctor did.

Basically, if you're just looking for an amazing movie, DON'T pick this up, if you're looking for a gory movie, pick it up. If you're looking for a good sequel to an amazing movie (Silence of the Lambs.)

Mediocre yet oddly satisfying
Let's face it: "Hannibal" is nowhere near as good as "Silence of the Lambs" (I'm talking movies, not books). To quote Charter, "Far-fetched and gory." Plus it fails to capture Lecter's true intentions toward Starling (as brotherly or fatherly, not romantic). Yet, somehow, the film is oddly satisfying, and I find myself draw to it whenever it's on. The mix of operatic score during chaotic scenes is strangely effective (similar to the ethereal tracks during intense scenes in the LOTR series of films). So, no, it's not a great movie, and Lecter's behavior is sometimes "out of character," but the movie is satisfying nonetheless. ... Read more

Reviews (136)

This looks Great!
Arnold's new movie looks fantastic!
I can't wait for it to be released as Arnold looks like he's back on action form and its being directed by Andrew Davis whom directed the smash hit 'The Fugitive'.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is the king of action,noone can beat him!

Oh and jesse ventura,whatever your name is,movies are made for entertainment,fun,an escape from reality.You've just wasted about an hour writing all that nonsense.Are you jelous of Arnold cos it sure looks like you are.
Noone can change what happened on september 11th but if we all censor violence,sex whatever it means the terrorists/badguys win.

Anyway feedback on collateral damage has been extremely positive and looks to be a big success as with all of Arnold's movies.
(Well barring Red Sonja!)

Arnold's fight on Terrorism
It's surprising that films such as Collateral damage and Behind Enemy Lines were filmed before September 11th. Collateral Damage which is about a fireman (Arnold Schwarzenegger) who loses his wife and son to a terrorist bombing. He seeks revenge and trys to find the man responsleable for what happend. The film was pushed back after September the 11th, I guess that was sort of smart. I mean I doubt it's the type of movie people would rush to see after what happend. But what his character does is pretty much what anybody would of liked to done to Bin-Laden after what he did. So in some ways this is sort of a feel good movie, lol.

Well anyway the movie is always engaging and suspenseful and Arnold is actually very good. There's some nice twists at the end too. The movie is sort of silly and not very realistic of course but at least Arnold doesn't turn into Commando and kill an entire army by himself like he does in.....Commando. If you want to see something like that then you should be looking forward to Stallone's fight on Terrorism. As it's been rumored that Rambo 4 will be set in Afghanistan. Next Steven Seagal and Van Dame will probably have a movie like that too, lol.

Collateral Damage movie imitates real events
Collateral Damage is the great and partially real action film in which Arnold Schwarzenger plays a fireman hell bent on getting his hands on the Terrorist who killed his wife and kid
and many other citizens near a shopping mall.

With the attacks on Sept 11 , movies have tried to cash in but Collateral Damage is different. Arnold even dedicated the movie to firefighters everywhere in an interview with Byron Allen.
The movie is brilliant in showing what only what the motivation behind terrorist attacks , but the depiction of slow agencies like fbi to counter these terrorist attacks.

Basically, the FBI and CIA tell Gorden Brewer(Arnold
Schwarzennger) that they are working to bring down the
terrorist who killed his family, when in fact they have no good leads on the suspect.

Rather, than sitting on his butt, and waiting for the FBI to do something, Gordon takes the law into his own hands and seeks to get justice for his family by going into Columbia and getting "The Wolf" as the terrorist is called.

There is a great scene in which Gordon goes crazy
and literally beats the hell out of a cold-blooded radio news reporter who says that the victims are pure garbage by saying their "collateral damage". The radio reporter explains the reasons behind terrorist attacks but shows no feeling for victims. I loved this scene, because this reporter clearly has no remorse for the dead. He probably has no family of his nose, and doesn't know the meaning of life, except to cover his own.
Now you might say to yourself what's the difference between
Arnold's character (who is going for justice) and the terrorist well here is the big difference from Arnold himself:

"The difference between me and you is that
I am only going to kill you".

Unbelievable action and twists at the end, that you're literally be on the edge of youre seat, and just when you think the movie is over.... it's not !!!

Director Andrew Davis not only gives a fact type based movie based on Columbia, but also a factual based type movie that deals with Terrorism and the lessons that we must learn to see that things like this don't happen again.

In fact, most people will remember the horrible case of Wall
Street Reporter , Daniel Pearl, who was executed after the
U.S. failed to meet the demands of the Middle East terrorist holding.

The U.S. should have gone after these terrorists like the way Arnold does in this movie. However of course not all terrorists
are MiddleEastern like some racist white bigots like this person
named Nate Howard, an Army Ranger who has been harassing people says. In fact alot of Terrorists have been born and bread here in the US, Timothy McVeight, the UnaBomber and God knows how many others.

This is a great action film that you must see

SMOKE SCREEN
Arnold Schwarzenegger is starting to show his age, as evidenced in this below average Arnie film. In an attempt to rely more on his thespian abilities than his massive brawn, Arnold plays a fireman who loses his wife and son in a terrorist bomb attack. The range of emotions he is required to exhibit demonstrate the Austrian's limitations. Granted, he's a much better actor than he was years ago, but he cannot truly convince us that he is the character he plays. Of the supporting cast, only Elias Koteas as the CIA rogue, displays any true acting abilities. Francesa Neri as the Wolf's wife comes close, but she telegraphs a key plot twist early on. Cliff Curtis as the Wolf is stock nasty hero and the movie's message that terrorism vs. terrorism tactics is not the humane thing. There are a couple of nasty scenes involving a snake and Arnold's mandibular strength. The movie slows down somewhat in the Colombian sequence, but the climax in DC is appropriately tense and exciting.

Certainly not one of Arnold's best, but somewhat entertaining.

you get exactly what you expect with this one
A film by Andrew Davis

"Collateral Damage" was originally supposed to be released in September or October of 2001. In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a movie about terrorism on US soil would be seen as insensitive and inappropriate, but it would also have been a bad business decision. It seemed that this movie was marred by the taint of association. It was also marred by the fact that it was a fairly ordinary movie.

Gordy Brewer (Arnold Schwarzenegger) is a New York City firefighter. His wife and son are killed in a terrorist attack and Brewer just happened to get a look at the man believed to be the terrorist. The terrorist who pulled off the attack is a Columbian known only as The Wolf (Cliff Curtis). The Wolf's agenda has to do with getting the Americans (and their interests) out of his country. Unfortunately, other than agent Peter Brandt (Elias Koteas), the intended target of the attack, nobody in the government is willing to pursue the Wolf in his own country. In fact, Brandt is being pulled off the case and reassigned. Brewer decides to take matters into his own hands and finds a way into Columbia and starts to track down The Wolf.

Have you seen Arnold's other action movies? Are you a fan of the genre? If so, you know exactly how this movie will play out. If you like these kind of movies, you'll like this one. "Collateral Damage" has its moments, and when Arnold actually gets to Columbia, the movie is at its most interesting (despite being at its most implausible). This is simply an average movie. It's not particularly awful, but neither is it very good. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Moving, lyrical film
This is the rarest of films -- action and violence are present, certainly -- yet, due to the vulnerability of the protagonist, a young boy, the viewer is "brought into" the film in a way that is impossible with the macho, untouchable action heroes that frequently litter such films. The tension and suspense is offset by a lyricism also not present in most "action" films. Ultimately, this is a beautiful, life-affirming film wrapped up in the guise of an action film. A unique film -- don't miss it.

Mediocre
Little boy witnesses his entire family gunned down in a small Italian village. He must flee from pursuers and police to save his life, and any chance of creating a family of his own. This film attempts to blend foreign sensitivity with American, "Peckinpah" violence. Although the pacing of this film is enthralling, it fails to create enough tension to keep the viewer interested. Although it may be recognized as an achievement in Europe, it fails to deliver the potent suspenseful moments promised.

An auspicious debut!
This film has suspense, beautiful cinematography, a haunting score and a real sense of style on the part of it's first time director. Well worth taking a look at! ... Read more