Konterr Brilliant and touching

Patience Watson One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Cody One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

maxcarnage I found this movie to be unnecessary the plot is interesting but is executed very poorly and is just boring everything was predictable. I absolutely despised the characters they all seemed life less and generic and forgettable compared to silence of the lambs which had some of the most iconic pop fiction characters. The main problem with this movie is that only the first 20 minutes and the last 30 minutes really matter since the rest is just filler to fill the 2 hour 9 minute screen time the filler is so boring i would rather stare at the DVD cover for 2 hours and 9 minutes. This movie is an absolute disgrace to the masterpiece that was silence of the lambs. I hope with all my heart that this review will save the poor souls who are about to watch this.

Smoreni Zmaj Seriously underrated and unreasonably criticized movie. It is accused to exist only to milk additional money from successful franchise, that demystifying of psycho killer is spoiling whole franchise, that Gaspard Ulliel can not fill the shoes of Anthony Hopkins and similar nonsense. Lack of Hopkins is one and only downside of this movie, but it was unavoidable. And yes, no one could possibly fill the shoes of Hopkins, but Hopkins could not act young Lecter, he had to be replaced and Gaspard did great job in this role. To me, he is even more creepy than Hopkins. In every other way this movie does not fall behind the rest of the franchise.7,5/10

arhandasad While the beginning is quite good, too much is cramped into too little, taking too many liberties with the book. Here are the problems i have with this film1. While Gaspard Ulliel's acting is brilliant as a person who knows he is going to be a vicious serial killer, not good for a damaged person who has still to completely embrace his dark side as in the book. 2. A large part of the book deals with Hannibal trying to remember what happened in the lodge, the cool part about creating a mind palace. In the film, that is given very little time.3. Too much background music.4. The major problem is that the acting and story is set like a prequel. It is as if the characters know already the events of "Silence of the lambs". That is the whole feel of the film.5. Too much grandiose acting. That is one great thing about SOTL that all the films in the Hannibal saga got wrong. All of them tried to be too grandiose. Whereas, SOTL had a more realistic treatment. 6. Lady Murasaki seems smitten by Hannibal and weak. The book however gives her a lot more character.

Leofwine_draca Designed as a prequel to SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (and MANHUNTER before it), this is a film that aims to show how Hannibal Lecter ended up as the human cannibal that we all know and fear. Many people criticised this film, arguing that familiarity breeds contempt and the more we learn about a killer's background and origin, the less frightening he becomes. They have a point, but they're also missing something: HANNIBAL RISING is a very well made and entertaining movie in its own right. My advice is to forget all about the connections with the later films and just enjoy this film on its own merits.It's a distinctly European film with a European sensibility and a young, French, unknown lead actor. It has a level of classiness that's not present in many an American film; a sheen of quality that sets it apart from the rest. The opening sequence, set in the latter days of World War 2 and detailing horrific events in Lithuania, is very well handled, full of foreboding, great effects, and sinister actions. It ably sets up the rest of the film, which turns out to be a revenge flick with the added intrigue of having the main character becoming more and more sick and twisted as the movie progresses.One thing that stands out is the quality of the cast. The unknown Gaspard Ulliel is weird and brilliant as the young killer, and you quite believe he's a sociopath. There's a romantic sub-plot that goes nowhere involving the lovely Gong Li (CURSE OF THE GOLDEN FLOWER) but it does serve to humanise the monster a bit. The ever-reliable Dominic West is also very good as the policeman investigating Hannibal's crimes, although his role is completely extraneous to the thrust of the film. The bad guys, too, are very well cast and all of them thoroughly despicable chaps: Kevin McKidd, Richard Brake, and in particular a cast-against-type Rhys Ifans all make an impact here.The violence that plays out is entertaining because the villains all deserve it: from the butcher slashed apart with a samurai sword to the guy strangled and eaten, these men are repulsive and their deaths well earned. Another highlight is that the film doesn't focus on the gore, either, not in a repulsive way like HANNIBAL; there's nothing stomach churning here. The cannibalism ends up as a sub-plot, really, not involved with the main film, but that didn't bother me too much. I enjoyed the pacing, the acting and the direction, and found all three of those elements assured and designed to entertain.