More in-depth film festival coverage than any other website!
Home Reviews  Articles  Release Dates Coming Soon  DVD  Top 20s Criticwatch  Search
Public Forums  Festival Coverage  Contests About 
Advertisement

Overall Rating
2.86

Awesome: 16.01%
Worth A Look: 17.32%
Average26.14%
Pretty Bad: 17.65%
Total Crap: 22.88%

18 reviews, 198 user ratings


Latest Reviews

Fortress, The (2017) by Jay Seaver

MFA by Jay Seaver

You Only Live Once by Jay Seaver

November (2017) by Jay Seaver

Friendly Beast by Jay Seaver

Foreigner, The (2017) by Jay Seaver

Tom of Finland by Rob Gonsalves

Happy Death Day by Jay Seaver

78/52: Hitchcock's Shower Scene by Jay Seaver

Death Note: Light Up the New World by Jay Seaver

subscribe to this feed


Hannibal
[AllPosters.com] Buy posters from this movie
by Andrew Howe

"A film that should never have seen the light of day"
1 stars

Films are capable of provoking a range of negative reactions – with some I lament the squandered opportunities, with others I rue the wasted hours that will never come again. A very few, however, trigger unbridled contempt, leaving me brimming with enmity toward those responsible for bringing these malformed monstrosities to the screen.

Hannibal is such a film, and I say this without reservation: it is a loathsome, indefensible work, an abhorrent celebration of evil which should have remained buried in the darkest corners of its author’s mind. Penned by creatively bankrupt scribes, championed by actors who should know better, and helmed by a director who, until now, has been worthy of respect, it is an exercise in exploitation that, were it not for the pedigree of its participants, would have been labelled a low-grade slasher flick and dismissed by anyone unfortunate enough to fall within its orbit.

There are many films which, by their very nature, defy any attempt to craft a follow-up. The Shawshank Redemption springs to mind, as does Casablanca – these efforts are self-contained works which say all that needs to be said about the subject at hand, concluding on a satisfying note that could only be sullied by extending the narrative. The Silence of the Lambs falls squarely within this category – it is a powerful, unsettling film that took the relationship between Starling and Lecter as far as it needed to go, and I would suggest that there are few viewers who found themselves hungering for more.

None of this wisdom prevented the author of the source novel, Thomas Harris, from trying to turn a quick buck by giving his audience exactly what they didn’t need. Like Frank Herbert (author of Dune), he traded on the goodwill engendered by his masterpiece, and if he actually thought he had something to add to the original work then it’s not apparent from the finished product.

Since The Silence of the Lambs explored the psyches of its main characters in exquisite detail, the script’s major hurdle is to find a way to fill 135 minutes of screen-time. It starts on a promising note, introducing Mason Verger (Gary Oldman), one of good doctor’s victims who has devoted what’s left of his life to wiping the smile off Lecter’s face through a grotesquely-conceived form of vigilante justice (Snatch utilised a similar concept, but only Harris and Ritchie know who came up with the idea first). It transpires that Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) is living the high-life in Florence, and in short order a couple of posses are on his trail, one of which comprises none other than his erstwhile psychological punching-bag, Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore).

For the majority of its running time the film serves up an acceptable, if hardly inspiring, runaround, pitting the suitably-unreformed Lecter against his dim-witted pursuers. An extended sequence involving an Italian cop’s attempts to garner Verger‘s reward is suitably unsettling: Lecter’s understated menace practically drips from the screen, lending this portion of the film a truly oppressive feel. Unfortunately, the dark psychological overtones of its predecessor are absent, and by the second half it becomes a stock-standard thriller which fails to present us with anything remotely innovative.

Director Ridley Scott appears most comfortable when the lights are dimmed, and he invests many scenes with a noteworthy intensity (a sequence in which Lecter is stalked by a petty criminal is especially memorable). The film is painted on a considerably smaller canvass than the likes of Gladiator and Blade Runner, however, so Scott is forced to put his affinity for majesty on hold, but he still manages to enliven the proceedings with his trademark visual flourishes (next to David Fincher, he was probably the best man for the job).

We are entitled to expect an admirable performance from Hopkins, and he does not disappoint. Unfortunately, we’ve seen it all before, and Hannibal does not afford further insight into Lecter’s character (it does, however, provide a fine line in amateurish, uninspired “humour” – it seems the film’s creators loved Lecter’s final line in TSOTL so much, they felt the need to reprise the underlying sentiment with monotonous regularity). As a result Hopkins is given little room to move, and it’s unlikely that he’ll be garnering any award nominations for what is, for all intents and purposes, a second-string retread of a ground-breaking performance.

If Hopkins is hamstrung by his underwritten role, then Julianne Moore is positively immobilised. Moore is a capable actress (her performances in Magnolia, Boogie Nights and Short Cuts are especially noteworthy) but here she is given precious little to do: Starling spends the first half of the film cooling her heels, and most of the second playing second-fiddle to Verger and his goons. She is also considerably less intriguing this time around – gone is the sensitivity afforded Foster’s Starling, and in her place is an unstable, mildly-unpleasant individual who, with a single irrational attempt to protect the non-existent rights of the accused, loses whatever sympathy she manages to elicit from the viewer (it’s also worth noting that Starling and Lecter share very little screen-time, which was one of the highlights of the first film).

The supporting characters are painted with similarly-broad brushstrokes (Ray Liotta’s pig-headed detective and a bunch of stereotypical thugs are virtual non-entities), with only Giancarlo Giannini‘s Italian inspector and Verger standing out from the crowd (unfortunately, Oldman is denied the use of his expressive features by virtue of his character’s unfortunate similarity to the Elephant Man). Again, this is not the fault of the actors, who are more than capable of setting the screen alight, but rather the script, which lacks the solid central core of its predecessor and ends up going nowhere fast, leaving the beleaguered supporting players to pick up the slack (a task which, in the absence of well-rounded characters, is beyond them).

If this was all that was wrong with the film, I would have pronounced it a not-unexpected failure and left it at that. However, there is something much less palatable at work here, and it can be laid squarely at the door of the film’s underlying philosophy, and its monstrously ill-conceived denouement.

I have never attempted to hide the fact that I despise films which seek to glorify the actions of those who would harm the innocent. It’s certainly a fine line – I loved Goodfellas and Pulp Fiction, but those films featured characters who, by and large, stuck to killing their own kind, and in any event some measure of justice was doled out to the perpetrators.

Lecter, on the other hand, is evil personified, a man who deserves a slow and lingering death several times over. As the film wears on, however, it becomes apparent that we are meant to, if not exactly support Lecter, at least take an interest in his continued existence (the fact that the audience at my screening had a good old chuckle at his most overtly evil statements and acts is a testament to this fact). This detestable philosophy is underscored by Lecter’s victims being portrayed as rather seedy individuals, but this doesn’t absolve him of the crimes he has committed in the past. What we are left with, then, is a film in which a serial killer continuously avoids the justice he so richly deserves, and I am left to question just what it is we are supposed to take away from the proceedings.

It is well-known that one of the greatest gifts bestowed by the cinema is that it enables us to peek into places we’d never dare tread, and walk away unscathed. That being said, I have never understood why anyone would want to critically examine the life and times of a serial killer, for such bestiality should be mourned in private, not splashed across the silver screen. If, however, you choose to craft such a film then you owe it to your audience to allow some measure of justice to prevail, and you certainly should not attempt to make a pseudo-hero out of a man who tortures people who are no better or worse than those the viewer holds close to his heart.

Of course, it’s not impossible to do this kind of thing well – Se7en had more style and insight in its opening credits than Hannibal can muster over its entire duration, and not only did that film refuse to glorify the villain, it left most of the violence to the viewer’s imagination.

Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for Scott’s latest opus. As you might expect from the subject matter, the film features several moments of mid-level violence – suitably arresting, but nothing that will cause you to lose your lunch. However, in the final ten minutes it discards any notion of restraint and serves up one of the most sickening, reprehensible displays of gratuitous savagery I have ever witnessed. I have squirmed my way through a few high-level slasher flicks in my time, but this puts them all to shame, and provides one of the most indefensible climaxes imaginable (it is no coincidence that this very scene is rumoured to be the reason for Foster refusing to take part in the project).

It is conceivable that I’m overreacting to a moment of comic-book violence (my fellow viewers seemed to find it hilarious, which of itself marks the scene as a serious miscalculation on the part of the authors), but I would suggest that this is not an action film or low-grade horror-flick. It is meant to be viewed as a serious psychological thriller (if not, then it damn well should be, since the only alternative is to view it as a joke at our expense), the kind of effort that draws the viewer into its slavering maw, and, in spite of its limitations, to a certain extent it succeeds. To then assault us with this kind of depraved, horrific violence is an act of malice, and marks the film as the product of callous, insensitive individuals who, with one five-minute sequence, reminded me of everything that is wrong with the age in which we live (and that’s not meant to be taken as a compliment – this is not Schindler’s List we’re talking about here).

That an art form which has brought us some of the most sensitive, heart-rending works imaginable can also throw up this kind of misshapen, slouching beast is a cause for sorrow, and everyone who had anything to do with its production should be thinking very carefully about where their priorities lie. It’s a film which, outside of blatant, unforgivable exploitation, had no reason to be made, and had I the power I would see every print shovelled into a rendering factory furnace. See it if you must, but heed my words well, for every dollar it earns will only reinforce its creators’ belief that what they have wrought is acceptable. And that, my friends, would be the greatest crime of all.

link directly to this review at http://www.efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=1978&reviewer=193
originally posted: 02/09/01 08:47:24
[printer] printer-friendly format  

User Comments

3/23/17 Louise (the real one) Unpleasant and left me in a bad mood. 2 stars
10/30/16 morris campbell read the book instead 2 stars
10/04/14 FireWithFire Deliberately camp-nauseating-mean-spirited-nasty-gross-out,and SOUL-KILLING 1 stars
6/29/11 Kerrykerry Excellent film. Requires repeated viewings to appreciate fully. 5 stars
9/20/09 the dork knight Awesome climax. Almost makes up for all the shit before. 3 stars
7/14/09 FrankNFurter So contrived it borders on self-satire.Flesh-eating pigs?I don't think so. 2 stars
9/13/08 Frank Miller BETTER than Silence. Hannibal is BRILLIANT. 5 stars
8/12/08 David Boring, bland, and gory. Gary Oldman's character was a laugh riot. 1 stars
7/20/08 Shaun Wallner This ones ok. 3 stars
5/18/08 PAUL SHORTT UNINVOLVING, HOLLOW AND REPELLENT 1 stars
2/18/08 Pamela White thrilling and gore galore 4 stars
9/04/07 Louise Horrible - put me in a really bad mood! 1 stars
2/13/07 johnnyfog Too many bullshit scenes in Italy. 2 stars
1/10/07 David Pollastrini disturbing 5 stars
12/31/06 del Pretty much crap, the complete antithesis of SILENCE. A total mess. 1 stars
12/14/06 scotty great film very elegant 5 stars
9/12/06 SEkur Wow! 1 stars
3/04/06 omar gary oldman and anthony hopkins rules. julianne moore not so much 5 stars
2/25/06 Eden The book was terrible and so is the film 2 stars
2/24/06 TB A little too much gruesome scene 4 stars
1/16/06 cmf best movie ever!!!! 5 stars
12/29/05 chris f best film ever i loved gary oldmans performance as mason !!!! 5 stars
11/09/05 Agent Sands Riveting and masterfully written. Hannibal is just one amazing character. 5 stars
10/31/05 Wisamane Are you guys fucking kidding me, This movie was amazing, Volcabulary is to strong for you!! 5 stars
8/18/05 ES An ending I wish I could give back, a dud after all that waiting 1 stars
8/10/05 sweetgrrl1972 I can see why Jodie Foster turned it down 1 stars
4/30/05 corq yeh thank gawd i have the book...book rawked, 2nd half of movie reeks. 3 stars
3/25/05 dwarzel Lecter degenerates into self-parody 1 stars
11/18/04 chris junk, but ray liotas brain scene seared on memory 2 stars
11/06/04 Taylor Fladgate Should have spent less on gory effects, more on the plot. 3 stars
9/22/04 elle not bad but worse than silence of the lambs 4 stars
8/03/04 Anthony G boring 4 stars
7/29/04 American Slasher Goddess Besides some gore, it's pretty boring 2 stars
7/09/04 BR Hannible sucks 1 stars
6/20/04 Judy "Lambs" and "Hannibal" = apples & oranges. 2 stars
4/07/04 Sig Not bad but... I've seen worse 4 stars
3/26/04 Sarah Wentz Loved the book, was disappointed in the movie once it diverged from the plot of the book. 3 stars
2/25/04 Dr.Lecter Movie was mediocre, but Andrew Bunney is an elitist horse's ass 3 stars
2/02/04 Samuel one thing remotely cool about this film,hannibal feeds a guy his brains, the rest sucks 1 stars
12/07/03 john tries very hard to shock - and does..otherwise it's rather dull 2 stars
10/31/03 John Bale Hopkins despite aging makes Lecter one of cinemas most sinister and coolest monsters 4 stars
8/28/03 Mr. Hat Scott, Mamet, Hopkins, Liotta, Giannini, Moore's ass, great facts ~ Lecter, gore! Kick-ass! 5 stars
7/24/03 Max The worst "important" movie of the decade 1 stars
4/20/03 Marisa Monroe Not as bad as the original, but a stinker nonetheless. 1 stars
4/10/03 Jack Bourbon Ray-licious! 4 stars
4/09/03 Sugarfoot BORING 1 stars
4/04/03 Jack Sommersby Works better as a black comedy than a thriller. 3 stars
1/12/03 Mitsaso The book was better 3 stars
11/16/02 Big Ted Why? Why? Why? 2 stars
10/09/02 James this was so bad 1 stars
10/08/02 Film Dude So what if it was 'too gory'? It still fucking sucks. 1 stars
10/02/02 Martin Doyle Total waist. Feed: writers,producers,director, actors to wild pigs for making this movie. 1 stars
9/29/02 KELLY GOMEZ AWESOME MOVIE 5 stars
8/16/02 Scott Foster just isnt replaceable, but hopkins pulls through. 4 stars
8/16/02 Shaun not the same without Foster, but Hopkins rules 4 stars
8/14/02 Bryan Brooks SOTL=Tough act to follow 3 stars
7/25/02 Natasha Too gory! 1 stars
7/15/02 Eleanor Franklin Really good film, better than "Silence of the Lamb" must go and see this film 5 stars
7/12/02 snowconehead I saw a guy in the theater blow his load during ray liotta's final scene; funny as hell 4 stars
4/26/02 Charles Tatum Hope "Red Dragon" will be better 3 stars
3/29/02 TheChronic She's no Jody Foster...... 4 stars
3/29/02 Mr. Hat (I'm Back!) Nasty. It has really good credentials and fun gore, though. 4 stars
3/28/02 Jane I loved it! It was interestingly different from anything else I've seen lately! 5 stars
3/06/02 Veronica Foxx aka The Raven-Haired Temptress I like to see more people have their brains eaten in movies. Namely those involved in this. 2 stars
3/02/02 Alan Smithee Besides Anthony's performance (and Ms. Moore's black dress) this movie is pointless. 2 stars
2/28/02 Gracy Lionheart Yeah...Anthony Hopkins is in this movie...so what? It sucked!!! 1 stars
2/26/02 IP Freely The book sucked and the movie does as well, avoid at all costs 1 stars
2/20/02 Xaver The book is better. 3 stars
2/18/02 Hol Excellent 5 stars
2/06/02 Claxner Oxjaw role of title character should've been left in sheeps' clothing 2 stars
1/27/02 Valerie Cameron Doomed, e'en though J. Moore's a good actress; No one could fill Jodie's shoes in role. 1 stars
12/27/01 Matthew Bartley Think of it as a very,VERY black comedy... 4 stars
12/23/01 I love movies enjoyable... Verger is the coolest villain! 4 stars
12/05/01 john linton roberson Cold,overproduced,silly,but a vast improvement on the book. 4 stars
11/30/01 Rutt13 gross, kinda slow, but not too bad 3 stars
11/12/01 Jon C. Ericson Ridley Scott shows Hannibal's love of violence and beauty perfectly! 5 stars
10/08/01 jawsboy More entertaining than SOTL, but not as chilling. It's better than Manhunter though. **1/2 4 stars
10/01/01 Phoenix Compared to Manhunter and Silence of the Lambs, this is subpar. 3 stars
9/03/01 jinx malone garbage 1 stars
9/02/01 Butterbean Moore did a great job. Wasn't as good as the first, just like I expected. 4 stars
8/28/01 The Bomb 69 screenplay could have been better, Moore just annoyed me 3 stars
8/26/01 Christina Different but still very good 4 stars
8/25/01 Fezzie http://www.solwayvsu.co.uk Its got nothing on 'Silence' - Story's a bit weak too! :o( 3 stars
8/24/01 JesseL It made me want to hurl. 3 stars
8/23/01 Baphomet not nearly as good a Silence. Hopefully The Red Dragon will redeem this "franchize". 4 stars
8/17/01 Connoisseur highly entertaining, though completely different than SILENCE 4 stars
8/13/01 Lecterpatient The movie's as great as can be ( considering it's a sequel). I missed Jodie Foster ,though 4 stars
8/06/01 E-Funk Loved it...remember kiddies, this movie is about Hannibal...not Clarice Starling. 5 stars
7/16/01 kris Hopkins is awesome but Moore is crap. 3 stars
7/15/01 officer 412/l An hour and a half of unexciting crap and half an hour of unfunny cheesy crap. bollocks. 1 stars
7/10/01 Jim Renwick only fair but the good doctor gets some good lines 3 stars
7/05/01 Hannibal Lecter 100% better than Silence of the Lambs. 5 stars
5/26/01 I love movies it's a crappy movie, don't deny it 2 stars
5/13/01 Hawkeye Is it considered product placement to feature Gucci as the favorite of cannibals? 1 stars
4/21/01 Michael Kennedy Moore is better.Lecter would NEVER off HIS hand,after all he is a sociopath. 3 stars
4/15/01    God    The quintessential crappy and over-hyped film. 2 stars
4/10/01 Spetters Boring!! The characters are one-dimensional, lousy action, no plot and a damn lot of Gucci! 1 stars
4/08/01 Andrew Deikun Very good followup to Silence of the Lambs. Highly enjoyable. 4 stars
4/03/01 judd anthony hopkins was awesome he made the movie thrilling and funny. I enjoyed every minute 5 stars
4/02/01 Hannibal i really "enjoyed " the company of my company i had for dinner! 5 stars
3/30/01 Penny Minor worth a look for the acting skills of both Hopkins and Moore. 4 stars
3/21/01 bjshrink entirely misunderstood black comedy/love story 4 stars
3/15/01 GrimKitten I love Dr Lector, but Moore really killed the effect. Great Script, poor out come. 4 stars
3/14/01 Clarance mmm mmm good! 5 stars
3/12/01 voyant Demme and Foster bowed out of this with good reason. 3 stars
3/11/01 j j c awesome movie 5 stars
3/10/01 tigerlette better than most movies 4 stars
3/09/01 Juan Gutiérrez Corny editing at the end:shot of rescuing police cars never getting there! 1 stars
3/09/01 gmh Total tripe with a bunch of overrated actors. The American boobs will see it in droves. 1 stars
3/07/01 8 dollar Hype theft waaa,you complain and still pay$, YOU have made these movies trash 1 stars
3/04/01 John Lyons Hopkins is great, Moore is not so great. 5 stars
3/02/01 daisy wow...can a film be worse? 1 stars
3/02/01 Sara Like Hopkins just not this film 2 stars
3/02/01 Roger the Shrubber Just another disappointing sequel. Should've been better, given the talent who signed on. 3 stars
3/02/01 David Maines Extremely Suspenseful 3 stars
3/01/01 Dr K Not a horror film, not a suspense, just a waste of $8 on the sickest film made 1 stars
3/01/01 Mike it was ok 3 stars
2/28/01 whats it to u most excellent 5 stars
2/28/01 Mandy Hopkins was wonderful, as he always is; would have been better with Foster but Moore was OK 5 stars
2/28/01 RolyPoly Cool shots, fun gore - lighten up guys, it's just entertainment. Better than Silence 5 stars
2/28/01 Kiss My Grits Terds anyone? 1 stars
2/28/01 Jamison Moore It sucked ass! Julianne Moore was no good. I feel really bad for Anthony Hopkins. 1 stars
2/28/01 Anne Such a divergence from the first one.....Hannibal has no suspense, no physicological thrill 2 stars
2/28/01 AK47 Hannibal sucked, but FUCK you guys who didn't like Silence of the Lambs 2 stars
2/28/01 Jayson Davies Awsome film 5 stars
2/28/01 gabi Hopkins not engrossing; Moore horrible. Bad storyline, bad acting 2 stars
2/27/01 Steve Not bad. Anthony Hopkins is worth watching in any film. 4 stars
2/27/01 tom george this is a stupid pile of shit 1 stars
2/27/01 Cynergie I would recommend it for those who have the intelligence to understand it's just a movie. 5 stars
2/27/01 Vince DiSanto Where's my winkie! Where! Where! 5 stars
2/27/01 Scott Hopkins is interesting but not engrossing.Moore is no Foster either. 3 stars
2/27/01 Tim At least it isn't as bad as the book 2 stars
2/27/01 Paul Hoerbelt Again call me at 343-9122 and ask if you can join Brian and my current twosome! Butt blast 1 stars
2/27/01 itsme Laughable. Ecpecially the end. Save yourself. 2 stars
2/27/01 puckfreak See it for the climax 3 stars
2/26/01 malcolm better than 'Silence ...' 4 stars
2/26/01 Dave the Knave The only redeeming feature of this film was the poetic justice at the climax. I laughed. 2 stars
2/26/01 michelle disgusting and pointless 1 stars
2/25/01 Arden (Joseph)Avery I'm Lindsey's little bitch! 1 stars
2/25/01 Sumit Agarwal it was aright, but disgusting as hell 4 stars
2/24/01 Debs The best film i've ever seen 5 stars
2/24/01 Lukca ... 5 stars
2/24/01 *~Danielle*Ophelia~* (formerly KyLe*BrOfLoVsKi) Great shots of my hometown (Asheville), but gore is no substitute for good old mind-fucking 3 stars
2/23/01 eugene You STOLE my $8.50! Bastards! 1 stars
2/23/01 Scott "...Lambs" is far superior but Hopkins is showcased, big plus there.Moore is not on par. 3 stars
2/23/01 Matthew Bartley Really enjoyed this. Don't expect to be scared though 5 stars
2/22/01 Fredy Wait till they show it on DVD.Get your money worth, 20 mins of brain eating uncut. 3 stars
2/22/01 Bladelaw An unneccessary movie of an unneccessary book! 2 stars
2/22/01 Paul Hoerbelt Call me at 716-343-9122 5 stars
2/21/01 Hip Hop Ebert YO YO YO I give this mutha TWO F**KIN' THUMBS UP, BIATCH! 5 stars
2/21/01 Golbez Script and story really weak, thrilling effects 3 stars
2/19/01 Maso It really does suck all ass 1 stars
2/19/01 Dr. Fell One of the Greatest love stories ever put to film! 5 stars
2/19/01 the?girl really disappointing. wish i hadn't bothered and bought Red Dragon to read instead. 2 stars
2/18/01 Avenger Girl why o why does hollywood make sequels..havent they learnt yet, that sequels are total SHIT 1 stars
2/18/01 Axe Murderer should have improved the storyline .................brains 3 stars
2/17/01 Marc A worthy follow-up to "The Silence of the Lambs". A twisted thrill ride. 5 stars
2/17/01 Allan Serwa I feel that the critics have totally missed the boat in their harsh judgement of Hannibal. 5 stars
2/17/01 Blubberbot I think it's one of the best gore movies because of the great acting. 5 stars
2/16/01 matthew smith lacks the excitement and suspense of silence of the lambs 3 stars
2/16/01 sarah poor, poor ray liotta.. this man was in goodfellas for chrissake! 2 stars
2/16/01 Mike in Denver If you saw the first movie, you gotta know what Dr. Lector is up to now. Saute away! 3 stars
2/16/01 John The movie was done well, but you need to read the book to understand. 3 stars
2/15/01 kelly average, i was not let down but it was not as good as silence... moore was impressive 4 stars
2/15/01 Jacki The absolutely best and goriest movie I have ever seen. I will definitely see it again!! 5 stars
2/15/01 Criperace Kudos for the make-up man, otherwise a pointless PIECE OF SHIT!!! 1 stars
2/14/01 Dante If you read the book, you'll like the movie 4 stars
2/14/01 Lisa Lambert I liked this movie very much! I was on the edge of my seat thw whole time. 4 stars
2/14/01 Craig-o This movie sucks. Worse than the book and I didn't think that was possible 1 stars
2/13/01 LAZY The ending made me laugh my ass off. 3 stars
2/13/01 FrayLo "eew" at times, but still a movie worth seeing, keeps you on the "edge of your seat"... 4 stars
2/13/01 Laura If you at all liked the first one, you should at least see it. 4 stars
2/13/01 KyLe*BrOfLoVsKi Ewwwwwwww... 4 stars
2/13/01 Serge Hannibal was a very impressive film; visually and emotionally. 5 stars
2/13/01 ObiWan Good acting and direction suffers from a horribly structured screenplay. 3 stars
2/13/01 Terry N. Boom in the shot!!! 1 stars
2/13/01 Chris Movies are suppose to keep you interested untill the end and this certainly does..very orig 4 stars
2/13/01 Deb Weak, Weak, Weak... Try a little subtlety next time... 2 stars
2/12/01 Christina it would have been better if it had left in more elements from the book 4 stars
2/12/01 zeitgeist ...but the guy ate his own BRAIN 4 stars
2/12/01 ntwrage I have no words...wait yes I do, "I want my 6.50 back" 2 stars
2/12/01 Nancy The movie was a huge disappointment 1 stars
2/12/01 Big Gay Al stupid plot, Jody was wise to stay away 2 stars
2/12/01 JW I read the book before, they changed the ending, which i thought was better in the book. 4 stars
2/12/01 Mark I really liked it. Not as suspensful as the 1st and not as gory as critics write. 4 stars
2/12/01 Julie Can't beleive Hopkins, Liotta or Oldman wasted their time.....what crap! 1 stars
2/12/01 Brian Depravity, exploitation and gore masquerading as mainstream cinema? SOTL was so much better 2 stars
2/11/01 Eric I really liked it! 5 stars
2/11/01 Jesus Christ I was really disappointed. I loved the acting from all. But the movie was very dull overall 3 stars
2/11/01 TimmyToday I got up and went and saw Saving Silverman instead. 2 stars
2/11/01 Nic I read the book; thought the movie was just OK. 3 stars
2/11/01 frankko Boooo!! 1 stars
2/11/01 joh What other movie actually shows a man being fed his own brain? 5 stars
2/11/01 Leather jacket my take on the sequal - <Middle finger> 1 stars
2/10/01 John Good Movie. More horror flick than thriller. The gore added the shock of reality. 5 stars
2/10/01 astrotart Not enough thrill to justify the gore...stellar cast should have waited for a rewrite. 3 stars
2/10/01 tinka coco fantastic, scary, awesome thriller that makes you squirm in disgust 5 stars
2/10/01 palmreader This movie was a true horror/thriller, committed to the genre entirely. Elegantly gruesome. 4 stars
IF YOU'VE SEEN THIS FILM, RATE IT!
Note: Duplicate, 'planted,' or other obviously improper comments
will be deleted at our discretion. So don't bother posting 'em. Thanks!
Your Name:
Your Comments:
Your Location: (state/province/country)
Your Rating:


Discuss this movie in our forum

USA
  09-Feb-2001 (R)

UK
  N/A

Australia
  15-Feb-2001 (R)




Home Reviews  Articles  Release Dates Coming Soon  DVD  Top 20s Criticwatch  Search
Public Forums  Festival Coverage  Contests About 
eFilmCritic.com: Australia's Largest Movie Review Database.
Privacy Policy | HBS Inc. | |   

All data and site design copyright 1997-2017, HBS Entertainment, Inc.
Search for
reviews features movie title writer/director/cast