I believe the film needed some work though. This time, I looked at the film through the eyes of a "director" and not an editor. First of all, NO OPENING credits (but that thing at the end with the birds was REALLY cool) I mean really, the credits were lame and did not need to be there, just start the movie off with the "Hannibal" in blood title, and boom that’s it.

There was the scene at the end where Hopkins, Moore and Liotta are having "dinner" They showed too much of his [Liotta’s] brain, really. I would have shot it more with looks. Also, I liked the ending; I don't know why so many people had a problem with it.

I also think that Ridley Scott should have NOT directed this film. He is more about epic and scope (Bladerunner, Gladitor) and I would think it beneath him to direct this film. I also think the film suffered greatly with no Jodie Foster, while Moore tried to be her best, there was and IS no substitute for Hopkins and Foster on screen. I also think that Hopkins performance was not great, I believe that he did it 10 times better in "Lambs."

As to Zimmer's score, it worked good in the film, it really did. Come to think of it, that was one of the best parts of the film. The opera parts were stunning and I hope they are on the CD. Zimmer has two parts that were loud and annoying, and the audience jumped at both of them, even me. When the first one hit I said, "Damn it Hans." while the audience laughed at each other.

All and all it was a fun experience, just too many holes, (that's the fault of the novel, not screenwriters David Mament and Steven Zaillian (Zaillian did Schindler's List) I wish they would have waited to get the rest of the "Lambs" cast and crew onboard.

That’s my two cents.

--Brian
Writer & Film/Video Editor

PS: I thought Gary Oldman's performance as Mason Verger was brilliant and one of the better ones in the film, not to mention his makeup was great.

It also is popular because of "Lambs" back in 1991, that was a great movie, with great actor performances, people want more.

--Brian
Writer & Film/Video Editor

In the past three years I've come to the point where I expect very little from a movie, and even less from a Hollywood movie. But even with such low standards, Hannibal sucked.
It is one of the most boring movies of the past 12 months. It had such a predictable screenplay, it makes Gladiator and Armageddon feel like Jaws or Alien.

The only parts in this movie which weren't expected half an hour in advance of their showing on screen were the disgusting scenes. The movie pretty much had two extremes: gratuitous violence on one side, and sleep inducing boredom derived from lazy screen story on the other. Nothing in between. Nothing to even pass the time.

Hopkins' performance was average at best. Moore wasn't so bad. I think I liked her more than Foster, no matter how much I love Jodie Foster.

Zimmer's score was appropriate only about half the time. The rest of the time, it had no place in there. The scenes would have been much better with simple silence. Not cellos and boy choirs. There were however one or two scenes where the score combined with the images was very good. But those never lasted long.

All in all, another useless sequel. Dino de Laurentiis should consider leaving the business if he can't do original movies anymore. After his fresh and entertaining movies in the 60's, 70's and 80's, De Lautentiis is getting tired.

I thought the shots of Florence were great.

the thing this movie lacked was the sheer audience involvement that the first produced.
I had problem with Lecter moving everywhere around the globe as a member of the 10 Most Wanted. And also with the whole hog thing.
are Italian hogs really going to be let into the US.
Hell, I can't even take an apple from New Mexico into Arizona without declaring it.
Basically a letdown, but not many sequels are as worthy as their originals.

thought the music was okay. the underscore itself was imminently forgettable.

the opera pieces -- whoever wrote them, and the JS Bach piece were most effective trying to establish some sort of irony.

It was not a sequel to me, just another film. It was a tad over the top at times, but I was highly entertained.

The end got to me. Id made me feel uncomfortable and irratated, which means I am very happy with Ridel Scott on evoking a reatcion. This film was just a shocker, maybe, but it never scared me. It is a journey into depravity and amorals, in that sense I loved it. After watching it I felt like I had just killed 14 people, that made me kinda disturbed, but proud of the film.

Scott is a master at what he does. What he does one can agrue over but whatever he does do, he is damn good at it.