Plot Details: This opinion reveals no details about the movie's plot.

I am breaking one of the many rules that I have imposed on myself. I thought I would not write about something as mainstream as “Hannibal,” but I couldn’t resist. I want to offer a look at some movies that most people don’t see, but that is something that I had to fight against with this one. Why? Well, it has Anthony Hopkins in it first off. The main reason is Hannibal himself isn’t it? The true reason is that this movie has stirred a general opinion unlike any other movie in the past month or two. Why, there was a full-page story on people’s opinions in my Sunday paper after the movie was released. It has had some varying reactions, but one thing is for sure. It is much more in your face than “Silence of the Lambs” ever was, and it brings a whole new meaning to the gore of Hannibal.

I have to say that I was a bit skeptical about Jodie Foster’s departure and the entrance of one Julianne Moore. It is not only a fundamental change to the movie, but it is a change that is not easily made without a lot of thought and time taking into consideration. After the initial shock of seeing a blazing redhead as Clarice wore off though, I was deeply entrenched in this film, and the shock of Gary Oldman’s character caused a flabbergasted conundrum afterwards. Was that really him? Why surely he couldn’t have been that sadistic character that proved yet again that Oldman is one of the truest morphing stars of the past decade or two.

In the end, though, this movie was as full of depth and breadth as the first one with some poetic dramatics offered by one genuine Ridley Scott. He has a certain cinematic style that is unrelenting and stark at times. In this movie, it leads your heart to jump one notch closer to the pits and bowels of your stomach and then ultimately lead to the feeling that so many viewers of “Hannibal” felt . . . disgust. I want to protest here and make a note about Ridley’s choice of direction for this movie. I have not read the book yet, but assuredly I will after this blitzkrieg. What I hear most people complain about is the gore level that is presented in its ultimate naked splendor here. “Was it really necessary that he show that?” Yes. It was.

I even have a good argument to back this one up here. I can feel good about all of the thousands of dollars that I have dropped into a college education now, right? This movie is about Hannibal. It is him. Albeit, the 20 or so minutes that are used in the beginning to set up the story with the absence of our beloved hero Hannibal are long at times, the rest of this movie oozes with everything about him. To make the story that much more convincing and a stark contrast from the first Ridley used a touch of the macabre and some of the disgusting to produce a haunting picture of this man's gruesome mind. We want to see this deranged relationship between Clarice and Hannibal build, and we want to secretly root for character is so purely and innherently evil.

I can’t understand why so many people are automatically turned off by the movie. It has been dubbed by so many people as a lesser equal to “The Silence of the Lambs,” but I would like to say that I think it is the perfect follow-up to such a landmark film of the 90’s. “The Silence of the Lambs” opened up a lot of eyes and it proved to be an important landmark film for the time that it came out. It pitted the inherently evil person against the good . . . but more importantly it pitted the evil of both Clarice and Hannibal against the good of each. It was about the relationship that was built between them and the sickening and estranged “love” that proved to be a central part to the development of the film. The gore was a secondary byproduct of everything else.

“Hannibal” is much different. While it is still about the relationship between Clarice and Hannibal, it is about the mental state of this man -- this doctor that is inherently evil inside. His psychosis is what makes him such a stark and psychologically scary realization. Is there really such a person out there? Yes. It is possible, and that is what makes both movies and all three books work so effectively. Ridley Scott steps up the ante though, and decides to bring the viewer into the graphic world of Hannibal. Instead of relenting at most of our thresholds, Scott goes beyond that delicate point into the realm that would make most people run out screaming. Maybe this is why so many people’s faces were filled with utter disgust as the movie reached its climax. I would like to say it was tastefully done. It is not far fetched to say that many would disagree, but I think that it was a good choice by Scott. Who else could pull off such a character as Hannibal except Hopkins? So, if you have his talents enlisted in the film, why not push the envelope a bit further than some would have done under different circumstances?

The performances of both Hopkins and Moore were convincingly real. The supporting cast is also what made the film such a working horse in my mind. They drove the obsession in this man’s twisted mind a bit further, and let us see the sick labyrinth that he plays within. We also get a glimpse into the truest wishes and desires behind Clarice which is something that I wish was played out more in the first film. Ridley Scott has a distinct style about his films and it is readily available here. Like “Gladiator,” he wants to show you all of the realism filled within this poetically sharp world that it is surrounded by. Sure, the roughness of the cinematography is absent in this second entrée, but isn’t that a part of his film style? It does not mean that because it has a fluid feel to it that it has become the work of a relentless Hollywood veneer. I found "Hannibal" to be quite tastefully done, although I knew that the people joining us felt much differently. They were deeply against the gore and realism of Hannibal’s obsessions and crimes. Maybe I can understand, but some of the best films out there are not meant to please the public. "The Silence of the Lambs" was a cultural icon in the early 90's, and it is sad to say that a lot of people will find this movie inherently bad because of the stark bluntness. Maybe in this sense it doesn't begin to supercede the first film, but it certainly deserves to be on the same level.

Recommended: Yes

Suitability For Children: Not suitable for Children of any age