IMDb user comments for
Hannibal Rising (2007) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 35:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

341 comments in total

---

313 out of 519 people found the following comment useful :-
could it be better than Red Dragon and Hannibal?, 14 December 2006
Author: kidsparkle from United States

I went to a free screening of this movie tonight, Thursday December 12, 2006 at the mall cause they gave out free passes at my work across the street.

I wont give really much away...but the movie itself was great. Great locations, great acting--especially by Gaspard Ulliel as Hannibal. I swear his acting was so good that it was scary and near perfect as the demented Hannibal Lechter.

The story about how he came to be was great also starting with his youth during WW2 in 1944. And 8 years later, the main plot line unfolds showing him becoming a medical school student in France where he begins to learn of the many body parts that make a human work.

All in All this movie is a delectable revenge type movie with scary, dark bad guys and many gruesome deaths.

*two thumbs up*

---

187 out of 284 people found the following comment useful :-
Why is this movie getting such bad reviews?, 11 February 2007

Author: egodominustuus from United States

I've heard a lot of reviews saying this was a bad movie. I disagree! I don't know if any of these people have read any of the books, let alone Hannibal Rising, but I loved the movie. Given, it seemed like Thomas Harris wrote the book strictly for the movie, but I felt this movie was made to have people understand how Lecter, "the monster" was created.

Yes, Lecter is irrational and that's the point. Hannibal Lecter is suppose to be distant because he's a psychopath. He's suppose to be apathetic. Some people mistook that for bad acting.

Comparing the movie to the book...they were about 85% compatible. Minor changes were made, but nothing too critical.

I think some people are quick to make this movie out to be horrible because they really are milking the Hannibal Lecter story, but I felt it to be a decent movie.

---

116 out of 168 people found the following comment useful :-
Tasty Flick, 13 February 2007

Author: ecoli8 from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Isn't it interesting that most critics of this film whine that it didn't measure up to "The Silence of the Lambs"? If you merely want a reworking of Lambs, go rent Lambs and watch it again. Frankly, anyone who goes to see "Hannibal Rising" hoping to have the same response and emotions engendered by "Lambs" is a boob of the first magnitude.

The fact is, "Red Dragon" and "Lambs" are psychological thrillers, "Hannibal" is an action flick and "Hannibal Rising" is a biopic/action flick. Of the four Lecter films, "Hannibal Rising" is second only to "Lambs" in overall quality. ("Red Dragon" was spoiled by Ed Norton's astoundingly robotic performance; "Hannibal" was a visual masterpiece but was ultimately tainted by the the screenwriters' obvious desperation to concoct an ending that bore no resemblance to the novel's very cool conclusion.) "Hannibal Rising" has it all. 1) Superb direction (Lecter's riverside encounter with Paul Momund is stunning in its ballet-like choreography); 2) a perfectly paced screenplay; 3) beautiful art direction and design; and 4) powerful performances.

Li Gong's Lady Murasaki is actually as I pictured her in the novel: beautiful, mysterious and not-to-be-trifled with. But it's Gaspard Ulliel who steals the show. It amazes me that he successfully played someone who's simultaneously a sweet, vulnerable youth victimized by the Nazis and the Soviets and a calculating, coldblooded murderer. Ulliel's finest moment is when Lecter unleashes his unhinged wrath in the climatic scene aboard the river barge; it was thoroughly disturbing.

Don't listen to the critics. Go see this movie.

---

148 out of 254 people found the following comment useful :-
I loved it, 9 February 2007

Author: alkinsey1982 from United Kingdom

Contrary to a lot of other comments on this board I thought this was a great film. And having just finished the book beforehand it met all my expectations no problem. Ulliel looked very menacing as the anti-hero Lecter but charming at times as well, just as Hannibal should be and he is backed up by a strong supporting cast (Rhys Ifans in particular).

There are nice references to The Silence of the Lambs the Samurai's face mask that Hannibal tries on resembling the mask worn in SOTL and the music that he listens to in his room at the medical school which is the same as he has playing in his cell in Baltimore.

I was hooked from start to finish and would recommend this film to anyone.

---

59 out of 81 people found the following comment useful :-
Satisfying., 8 February 2007

Author: A_Roode from Halifax, Nova Scotia

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

'Hannibal Rising' faces many of the problems that will beset any prequel. When the audience already knows how the larger story arc is going to resolve itself, how do you make the new prequel engaging? With a charismatic enigma like Hannibal, there is also great risk of the new young version seeming like a hollow parody of the older more familiar version played by Anthony Hopkins. I believe that 'Hannibal Rising' is largely successful. It didn't strike me as a stand out film but I was satisfied with it overall and do think that it has more value than just to enthusiasts of the Thomas Harris books. I'd rate it a comfortable second place out of the five films with Hannibal as a character (I count 'Manhunter').

'Hannibal Rising' does seem a bit choppy and for a plot that explores what drives a character into psychosis and lust for revenge, it didn't really spend much time trying to flesh out the Hannibal character. You get the brush strokes and the gist of things but a lot of the minutiae seems glossed over. I guess my point is that the audience curiosity for this film would be, I suspect, about what things turn Hannibal INTO Hannibal -- the internal process-- and not just solely about watching him hunt down and destroy those who have crossed him. A minor point perhaps but it struck me as odd in watching this that a series of films devoted to one of cinema's richest characters wouldn't really get in depth character exploration in the prequel for the series.

This is not intended to criticize what I thought was a well directed and tensely executed film. It is a violent film -- no kidding, right? -- but a lot of the violence is implied, in the background or off-camera. I really commend this decision as my imagination is much more vivid when things are suggested and not shown. 'Hannibal' worked not through terrorizing the audience but more through horrifying. I was balanced on the edge of trepidation and distaste as Hannibal entered each show down with characters he wanted to extract vengeance from. I love sitting through a tense thriller that offers no relief and this was almost the case here. My fellow Canadians and I were in tears of laughter when it was announced that a character had fled 'to a village outside of Saskatoon.' Surely unintended humour, and almost certainly audience specific.

What interested me most was the discussion I had with friends after we finished watching the film. I asked them when they felt sympathy for Hannibal was lost in the film -- and make no mistake, the events in the opening act are very much designed to put you behind Hannibal. Some said after the first killing. Some said the moment he transforms from child to youth. I think it comes later. Hannibal is rooted for almost out of default initially. His antagonists are just that much more evil and repellent that you throw your sympathy to him. This changes when a policeman asks Hannibal to help him track down these same antagonists. Hannibal has the choice of doing or not doing this. His response and subsequent actions for the remainder of the film decided my sympathies for me. Lesser acts of evil, might be used to purify and cleanse greater acts of evil, but are still evil in themselves when the motivation and the cost are the substitution of salvation and justice for corruption and revenge.

---

78 out of 126 people found the following comment useful :-
Wickedly Delicious, 10 February 2007

Author: MaskedRobin from United States

'Hannibal Rising' reveals not only the childhood of literature's most notorious serial killer, but also his descent into madness and the birth of a twisted monster. After witnessing the brutal death of his family and his sister being cannibalized, he promises to make the ones responsible pay. And he does.

I admit, I was wary of the film when I first found about it. I've loved the Hannibal series for years now, but I wasn't sure how to feel about this. I was worried that seeing Hannibal's pain at the loss of his sister would force me to feel sympathy for him. I was worried that his acts of vengeance would seem...excusable; less monstrous. I'm pleased to say that I wasn't disappointed. Hannibal is insane. He's a monster. And this film gives you a satisfying glimpse of how he evolved into the murderer we've all grown fond of.

I can't promise that you'll enjoy this movie, nor can I guarantee that you won't feel the urge to walk out. However, I do advise you to give it a try. It's something true Hannibal fans shouldn't miss!

---

50 out of 77 people found the following comment useful :-
No need for this movie, 12 February 2007

Author: Antonio (noodles-13) from Italy

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Presented as a prequel of the well known "Manhunter" and "The silence of the lambs", this movie pays apparently no care for verisimilitude. Lecter - we learn - is a victim of brutal violence suffered when he was 8 years old. He survives bombing, war criminals, a Soviet orphanage, a travel from USSR to France in the 50es (with also a jump through the Berlin Wall), where he finds a beautiful Japanese (!) aunt (Gong Li). He already speaks a perfect French and is able to study medicine without apparently having had any education (in the orphanage scenes he cannot even speak due to the war trauma). Since he is Lithuanian, he probably could speak German (very common in those countries before WW2). Weird enough, the Japanese aunt is a survivor of the Hiroshima nuclear bombing and she is a sort of Super Geisha Samurai who can fight under the ancient rules of Kendo (something a woman of the 40es or 50es could not even dream to do in Japan). Lecter himself shows to be able to cut a man's head off in one single hit of sword, in a scene so silly that I could not keep from laughing. In the end, this movie is simply an example of commercial exploitation of a once good idea, just like "Red Dragon" (a completely useless remake of the masterpiece "Manhunter" by Michael Mann) and "Hannibal". Stick to the original ones and let this movies out of your "to see" list.

---

147 out of 271 people found the following comment useful :-
people are stupid ..., 13 February 2007

Author: SpiderbiteStudios from United States

every time I give people the benefit of the doubt ... they go ans screw it up by saying something stupid. when I went to see 'Hannibal Rising' those around me in the theater were no different.

"I thought this was supposed to be about that Hannibal Lecter dude." this is the kind of crap I heard around me, and of course I turned and 'shushed' them ... but come on ... what did you expect people? this movie is about how Hannibal got STARTED, there is no Anthony Hopkins, no other serial killers, NOTHING that makes it like the other 3 movies (yes I know there are 4 but I don't want to see Brian Cox as Lecter) so why would you go in and expect it to be like them. it is a story, not a copy of the other 3 movies ... so seriously, if you are going to go see this movie, expect a good story, some pretty good acting from most of the people involved, a few bloody scenes, and a very disturbing beginning to the life of Lecter.

if you go in expecting anything else, you are just wasting your time.

---

36 out of 50 people found the following comment useful :-
No, it's not that bad..., 13 February 2007

Author: theshadow908 from London, Ontario

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Hannibal Rising tells the story of Hannibal Lecter from age 8 to his early 20s. After his parents are killed during World War II, only he and his sister are left alive in their family lodge. A group of Nazi soldiers stumble upon the lodge and take shelter, but as they begin to starve they decide to use Hannibal's sister for food. Hannibal ends up escaping and ends up in an orphanage where he has gone mute due to his traumatic experience. He escapes the orphanage and goes to live with his late uncle's widow. When he finds the names of all those responsible for his sister's death, he goes on a murderous revenge spree, and he begins to cannibalize his victims. Not even he can see the monster that he is becoming. The fifth entry into the Hannibal Lecter series is entertaining, but could have been better.

Lets start off with what's good about this movie. As a revenge story, it's very good and very entertaining. It's about a young boy that watched the person he loved most brutally murdered and used for food. As soon as he's old enough, he makes a promise to his sister to do something about it, and he does. This movie would have been even better if it was a standalone film, but instead it's an origin story of the greatest movie villain ever. As a Hannibal Lecter movie, there are a few problems. They show some of the more important aspects of Hannibal Lecter beginning to shine through, such as his interest in medicine, and his loathing for rudeness. It even shows him beginning to taunt people who are interviewing him ("Now tell me inspector, did you choose war crimes?"). Hannibal Lecter shows more emotion in this movie than all the others combined, but that makes sense since he's not a monster quite yet. The only thing I really had a problem with was that they way the script was written, it seems that Hannibal would get his revenge and then stop. The movie doesn't really explain why Lecter would turn into a serial killer.

The acting is pretty good. Not one big name American actor appears in this film, which is kind of cool because we're not distracted by any big names, which leaves more focus on the characters. Gaspard Ulliel does a really good job as Lecter. Taking over for Anthony Hopkins isn't the easiest thing to do. He does the Lecter tone of voice pretty good. I didn't really feel like Dominic West was as involved with the plot as he could have been.

Overall, this is an entertaining movie, and it's nice for Hannibal fans to see him in a movie again, but they missed some opportunities to make connections to the other movies.

7/10

---

53 out of 85 people found the following comment useful :-
Offensively bad, 11 February 2007

Author: msamet from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I love this site, and haven't yet commented on any movies, but I feel Hannibal Rising in all its bloody, spectacular awfulness, merits a pass. Don't bother with this one -- that's two hours of my life and $6 I'll never get back.

From the cookie-cutter dialogue to the put-on accents to the cliché-ridden plot devices (a rich Asian aunt who just happens to live in a giant château in France -- c'mon) to murder after pointless murder after pointless murder, with no element of suspense or plot tension, Hannibal Rising comes off like Final Destination 3 but with a thinly realized pseudo-sophisticate veneer that strives, unsuccessfully, to "connect" it to the stark, intellectual landscapes of Silence of the Lambs.

I left the theater with friends debating over who, exactly, had been Lecter's first victim, because none of us could remember (turns out it was the fat French butcher, killed for making one off-color comment at the market to Lecter's aunt, who looks to be exactly his age) who was killed when, or how, in the pointless bloodbath that comprises the latter 2/3 of the film. Yes, some bad men killed and ate Hannibal's sister, and yes they are still bad men, involved, apparently, in the slave trade and other evil doings, but the characters are so flimsy, so two-dimensional, that we grieve not when they meet their maker in the form of a vengeful Hannibal.

Production is sloppy, sets are claustrophobic, there is no back story to how or why the Lecters reign from a mammoth castle in Lithuania (Are they longtime royalty? What's going on here?), and Hannibal's transformation into a monster is barely believable. Plenty of children survived similar horrors during WWII (read The Painted Bird, if you're interested in a deeper look at eastern European WWII orphans) and didn't go on to become serial killers. So, why Hannibal? This film certainly doesn't have the answer. It, in fact, barely raises the question.

I left Hannibal Rising feeling like I had been both raped and lobotomized. Maybe that was the filmmaker's intention, but I'm wishing I'd spent that same $6 for a second viewing of Pan's Labyrinth, one theater over.

---

---

Page 1 of 35:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Parents Guide
Official site	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history