Review of Hannibal (2001) by Dustin R — 06 Apr 2012

The film is a great follow up to 'Lambs' . I don't like comparing it to its predecessor because its a very different film. Not nearly as dark as the first, but still a great thriller. Anthony's Lector seemed differently portrayed to me.

I don't know why. I'm leaning towards the fact that he was once incarcerated and not too pleased about it, so his demeanor and personality were darker and fiendish. While in 'Hannibal' he is a free man and more playful, but still psychotic, nonetheless.

Julianne Moore is a good Clarice Starling. Her performance was received with mixed feelings, due to the fact that Foster won an Oscar for the role so it was, "her role and her role alone." Even though Starling holds the same moral code and values as an FBI agent as she did when we were first introduced to her in 'Lambs', she has changed over the course of 10 years later.

Thus Moore would be ignorant to play her the same way Foster did. To sum it up Ridley Scott did a great job. The scenes in Florence were eye candy and overall, though there are pretty steep differences between the book and film, it's still a worthy successor to 'Lambs'.