Hannibal(in Hollywood Movies) Hannibal (2001) - Download Movie for mobile in best quality 3gp and mp4 format. Also stream Hannibal on your mobile, tablets and ipads
Plot: The continuing saga of Hannibal Lecter, the murdering cannibal. He is presently in Italy and works as a curator at a museum. Clarice Starling, the FBI agent whom he aided to apprehend a serial killer, was placed in charge of an operation but when one of her men botches it, she's called to the mat by the Bureau. One high ranking official, Paul Krendler has it in for her. But she gets a reprieve because Mason Verger, one of Lecter's victims who is looking to get back at Lecter for what Lecter did to him, wants to use Starling to lure him out. When Lecter sends her a note she learns that he's in Italy so she asks the police to keep an eye out for him. But a corrupt policeman who wants to get the reward that Verger placed on him, tells Verger where he is. But they fail to get him. Later Verger decides to frame Starling which makes Lecter return to the States. And the race to get Lecter begins. Runtime: 131 mins Release Date: 08 Feb 2001
You'll say Jodie who? as your take your first bite of Hannibal (by motta80-2)
While hard to compare to its predecessor Silence of the Lambs was a true masterpiece the reintroduction of Hannibal Lecter, M.D. has truly been worth the 10 year wait.The film strikes a very different tone from the outset, and this is down largely to director Ridley Scott. He and Sir Anthony Hopkins are having fun with this character and Hannibal film and character is very funny, albeit with a dark slightly twisted sense of humour. Hannibal is, essentially, the hero here and you like him and route for him to the end which is quite different from the book. I will not go into plot as most <more>
people have probably read the book and saying more could only work to spoil the enjoyment so I will now just tackle the actors and production. Needless to say the film looks spectacular. The Florentine sets are breathtaking, but what else would you expect from the director of Blade Runner, Gladiator and Thelma & Louise - we know Ridley Scott can deliver the visuals.As for the actors, Hopkins delivers the goods as we have come to expect from him. But here he is having a blast with a character he clearly enjoys inhabiting and he is rarely more powerful and commanding a presence than he is in this film and Lambs.An unrecognisable Gary Oldman and uncredited it the opening titles and on posters holds his own as subvillain Mason Verger, Lecter's only surviving victim and the flashback of his mutilation is well handled. The film does provide plenty of gory surprises.As for the key question, what of Julianne Moore? We all know how good an actress she is Magnolia, Short Cuts, Boogie Nights but can she fill Jodie Foster's Oscar winning shoes? The answer is yes! You will not give Foster a second thought in this film as Moore is Clarice Starling from the moment she appears. She is not trying to be Jodie Foster, she IS Clarice Starling. Hannibal is more a cat and mouse chase than the one-to-one Silence of the Lambs and it is difficult to imagine Foster playing this side of the character. That is the key, showing a different side to the character gives Moore something to work with more substantial than just being Jodie Foster. Personally I love both actresses but I wouldn't want Foster in this role having seen it if you paid me. This is Moore's part and she equips herself well.See this film, marvel and then see it again. It may not quite be the masterpiece of Silence of the Lambs but it's close and it's a lot more entertaining. You'll laugh, you'll sit on the edge of your seat, you'll say "now that's just plain sick!"Enjoy!
I have to go against popular opinion on this one. Most people hate this film; I love it....well, 95 percent of it, anyway.The shame of it is that most people only remember the last 10 minutes, a totally gruesome scene in which the top of a man's head is cut off and he's fed a morsel of his own brain. Of course, it's disgusting and I don't find it easy to watch, either.However, the first two hours of the film offers a feast, if you'll pardon the pun, for the eyes and ears that is not revolting except for one other three-second shot. This is one of the most <more>
beautifully-filmed movies I've ever seen. Scene after scene is just jaw dropping and features some of the best shots, outside and inside, of Florence, Italy, you could ever imagine. Ridley Scott is known for his stylish direction and that is certainly the case here.The dialog is fascinating, led by Anthony Hopkins' famous "Hannibal Lecter" character, whose vocabulary and intelligent sarcasm and baiting are clever and entertaining to hear. Unlike "Silence Of the Lambs," there is little verbal crudeness in this film, very little profanity at all. On the third viewing, I played this with the English subtitles on, so I could catch all the dialog.This was a much lower-key film than it's famous predecessor, which probably disappointed a lot of people who prefer a lot more violence and f-words in their crime movies.Although Jodie Foster performed well in the role of FBI Agent Clarice Starling, I preferred watching and listening to Julianne Moore play the part in this film. A "sleeper" here, too, was the great performance by Giancarlo Gianni, as the greedy Italian lawman, who winds up paying a huge price for his avarice.Like "Godfather III," this is a very unjustly-criticized and overlooked third installment of a famous film trilogy.
This was a good sequel - Hannibal returning brought me goosebumps once again with him out of jail at large..Thats bloody fun to me having a serial killer missing for 10 years and returns caused by an old patient of his wants revenge.However - He gets Clarice involved the dangerous game where she has been looking for him for a long time since after shooting Buffalo Bill. One thing is I wasn't too sure about Moore as Clarice - She was good, but we all like the same actress to play the same person in the story's.Anyway - Gary Oldman as the villain was superb..evil, twisted and absolute <more>
rich..Good Sequel Indeed!! "Your brother smells just as bad as you do" - Hannibal Lector
Hannibal is a pure pleasure! While a little unevenly paced the beginning was a bit slow , David Mamet and Steve Zallian have done a good job of telling the basic story Thomas Harris gave to us - and, incidently, the book was incredibly underrated by critics whose thought processes seem to have been damaged by too little quality literature. People have complained that it took ten years for Harris to write it - well, read it! It is chock-a-block full of mythology, astronomical and religious themes that weave their way throughout. The threads never break. The movie would have had to be eight <more>
hours long to even begin to explore the depths plumbed by Harris in the book.Anthony Hopkins is, as usual, brilliant! Julianne Moore was sexy and strong. Giancarlo Giannini was outstanding and Gary Oldman creditable. My only complaint with casting was Ray Liotta, who just didn't have "it".Having seen this movie three times thus far, I will say that watching it is like peeling layers off an onion. You see more and more with each viewing - little treasures and nuggets that you find almost by accident. The first time I saw it, I left the theatre not really knowing what I thought of it. Then I found myself smiling. I did like it. When I went back again and again! I liked it more and more.Gory? Not really - and I consider myself pretty sensitive to gore. I have seen far worse. The story does have violence in it, and I think Ridley Scott, while depicting an integral part of the story, handled the violence tastefully if you'll pardon the expression .Is it as good as Silence of the Lambs? No. It's DIFFERENT from SotL. In Silence we had a caged monster whose intensity was extremely focussed. Here, we have a monster who is on the loose in a great big world, free to indulge in his passions. Hannibal Lecter's essence has not changed. He's merely in a different situation.My only disappointments were: The changed ending. This was the major one. I realize the critics lambasted Thomas Harris for the ending in the book, saying "Clarice would never have done that", but Clarice was the child of Harris' imagination. The author is god, and if god says a character will do something, who are we to second-guess?The length of the movie. It could have been a little longer and more focus could have been put on the relationship between Hannibal and Clarice - specifically, his obsession with her, and the time they spent together after the fiasco at the Verger Estate.It was also too bad that Mason Verger's sister, Margot, was written out of the script.All in all, though, I thoroughly enjoyed the dark humor and the adventure. Hans Zimmer's score is magnificent! This is a really good film - not a great film, but a really good one. Don't go into it expecting to see another Silence of the Lambs. It's not - and I don't think anyone has ever tried to claim that it is. Expect to see a weird and wonderful love story and an adventure! It's just too bad about that ending!
Its very good, so see it on the big screen. (by louise2104)
I haven`t been affected this much by a movie in years, so that must be considered good value for money. The controversial gore scene towards the end made myself, and the majority of the audience, flinch, scream and nervously giggle simultaneously a feel good/feel bad movie rolled into one! .Having never read the original book I took the film at face value. It is beautifully filmed by a talented director and crew, and features lovely Italian location scenes which contrast with the grim plot. The acting is mainly excellent. Hopkins character appears creepier due to him beginning to resemble a <more>
kindly grandad, who suddenly turns and eats your brain. Julianne Moore`s excellent Clarice vaguely reminded me of Ripley, the star of Ridley Scotts masterpiece Alien. At worst, the rest of the cast were well above average.The film had me captivated with its style, twisty plot, acting and gore. I found myself slightly rooting for the baddie Hannibal at some points, something I haven`t experienced since my empathy for evil Alex in A Clockwork Orange. If people find the deaths of some characters predictable, then maybe Scott has directed well in projecting Hannibal`s approach and morality.This is the sort of big budget horror film movie-goers have been waiting for, so go see it on the large screen before its too late! Okay, it is not the same as Silence, so what? Ten years have passed and things have changed. I`ve heard the book is better. Well, I may now read it, but in the meantime I have enjoyed an excellent, thought provoking Film Of The Year!
I like this film a lot, but of course it suffers - as all sequels do - by comparison to its predecessor, in this case 'Silence of the Lambs' The main reason for having a sequel at all was to showcase again the character of Hannibal Lecter, a monstrous creation everyone wanted to see more of after the first film. It could have bombed badly therefore if writer and actor had let us down by failing to catch the magic again. It was after all a decade after the original was made. But they don't, and Anthony Hopkins turns in another delicious performance as the man with the evil intent <more>
cloaked in inestimable, menacing charm.Julianne Moore drew the short straw in having to re-create the Clarice Starling role that had been so memorably played by another actress. She does well in my opinion, but inevitably we keep thinking 'where is Jodie Foster?', and this lends her portrayal a lack of credibility which is entirely unfair. Gary Oldman's Mason Verger is suitably loathsome and manages to make Lecter seem almost like the hero in their battle of wits. If there is a weak link, Ray Liotta's Krendler seems a bit misplaced.The direction deserves special mention. The lush, beautiful settings are mocked by the horror of what is happening in them and the perfectly-selected atmospheric music stayed in my mind long after the film had ended.Once again, the film lacks realism, but as with the original, it doesn't matter. Of course things like this don't really happen - but so what? It's a film. Get over it! I was prompted after seeing it to read the books, and the right decision was made in changing the ending of this story from that written by Thomas Harris. We were subsequently treated to another look at Lecter in a decent prequel movie, 'Red Dragon,' but I will not be alone in hoping that some day we will see yet more of him in a further instalment. Unlikely I suspect - but not impossible.
An initial disappointment that gets better with time. (by sean73267326)
If "The Silence of the Lambs" is a thriller played liked a character-study, then "Hannibal" is a character-study played like a thriller. This isn't a good point, or a bad point it goes both ways , but it's the most clear observation I could make out when I watched this film again recently. Another realization I came to was that, despite not really liking it on first viewing, this is actually a very good movie - one more deeply creepy, violent, and sad.The plot lies more or less on the same level as the previous film. Hannibal is now free, Starling is disgraced <more>
after a scandal with the FBI, and an old victim of Hannibal's contacts her with a proposal to trap him once and for all. Things go awry, chaos ensues. The performances are just as brilliant as the original, and that goes a long way to helping the slightly over-the-top story stick together. The thing is, it's a completely different movie, which is probably why I and many others didn't like it upon release. Gone is the tension of the first movie, replaced instead by a much more potent sense of paranoia and dread - mostly down to Hannibal's new found freedom. Also new to this movie is the blood and gore that it's so infamous for. It did feature in the original, but not like this. This is an exceptionally violent movie, and features one of the sickest, nastiest scenes in the history of mainstream cinema you know which one I'm talking about .Unlike other movies, though, the violence means a lot here. Sure, it's gross and icky and what have you, but more than anything, the nastiness reveals a lot about its characters that the original film didn't touch on. Unlike the original, this isn't a film that particularly likes Hannibal - here, he's not the endearingly-creepy movie-monster, but he's an utter psychopath. This is bound to put some people off, but it feels like the natural thing for this film to do. Does it go too far? Possibly. Some things never need to be shown, but it's all integral to the film's vision so it gets a free pass... just about. As for the film being a drama played like a thriller, that does mean it loses the probing character-based drama of the original. Starling's story in the original is so raw on screen that it practically bleeds - this film deals with similarly prickly affairs, but never really addresses them. The knock-on effect is that it ends up being a less involving film, but a more exciting one. Again, this isn't really a good point or a bad point, but it's more just a point of comparison. Don't come into Hannibal expecting the virtuosic drama of the original.What ultimately saves Hannibal the reason I've given it an 8 is the grand, darkly romantic vision it commits to. It's a sweeping, perfectly orchestrated film that feels as if it's what could have been made if film existed at the height of the romantic era. The sets are some of the most lavish to ever grace the crime-thriller genre most of it is set in Florence , the music exists solely in the realms of opera and classical, and the plot, flawed as its logic sometimes is, hits every note with an intensity lacking in most crime movies. It's all fantastically realized.In the end, it's not the perfect sequel to Silence of the Lambs. Some may find it too gory yours truly included , and that's a fair comment. The plot enters a territory that will probably aggravate some, and that's also a fair criticism. If you can come into it realizing it's a different film to the first, however, you may ultimately end up finding a lot to like.
It's been many years since I've seen Hannibal, but I can still remember the absolute beauty of the film: the cinematography, the colors, and that gorgeous opera in piazza.For any fan of the Hannibal Lecter or Clarice Starling character, however, I think it's vital to read Thomas Harris's book as well. The movie and the book are quite different, so I don't think one spoils the enjoyment of the other. The book does what the movie just can not--gently and completely explores the inner workings of Hannibal's mind. It is an amazing feat, one that Harris should certainly get <more>
more credit for producing.Also, The endings of the book versus the movie do present very different pictures of Clarice as a person--either of which I think is a valid interpretation of her character. Please read the book AND watch the movie and decide for yourself. It is really worth your time.
To start with, Hannibal is an exceptional film. As for those who say, "Its no Silence of the Lambs", they are right. Silence of the Lambs was an Academy Award winning Best Picture. Can you name any other Best Pictures to garner a sequel? Didn't think so. No its not Silence, its different, its darker, its better.With that said, lets start with the good Vices the bad, because the movie isn't perfect . Sir Anthony Hopkins is once again brilliant as Hannibal. Oscar worthy? Definatly. Julianne Moore is a more sexy, smarter Clarice, a nice change. Though not to take away from <more>
Jodie Fosters excellent turn at her . The direction is amazing, Ridley Scott can take on Cannibals, Gladiators, Aliens, and Thelma & Louise, and make them all destined classics.Now for the gripes. The novel Hannibal, by Thomas Harris is one of my favorite all time reads I rank the novel right at the top along with almost anything by the great Dean Koontz . The ending in the movie was changed from the book. The DVD presents Hannibal with two quite different endings both 100% different from the book . I almost hated the ending shown at cinemas. As we watch Hannibal we look at him as the hero. Maddenly Brilliant. He's better matched along side Indiana Jones than Charles Manson. Keeping that in mind we want Hannibal to, Firstly get the girl, secondly to escape plight with no injury, and thirdly we want those who want to hurt him to pay. The movie, following its climax, gives us this and more.....minus the first two points. incidently the book gives us all three .So, for all you true Hannibal fans out there, I recommend the following: Read the novel first. Watch the film at night with all lights out of course and if you have the DVD, check out the alternative ending Its gives us all points except the first...a little better .