Este é bem mais fraco que seu antecessor, mas ainda assim consegue prender. O problema pra mim é que aqui a ação prevalece em vez da tensão do primeiro. Também, a relação entre Lecter e Starling quase fica em segundo plano, privilegiando a entrada de outros personagens na trama que, a meu ver, são pobremente desenvolvidos.
A gentle stroll through an Italian city rather than the haunting thrill ride it could have been. The plot was most likely developed on the back of a napkin. How, with such an iconic and complex character at its centre, could this film end up as such a shallow meandering? ... There was nothing to surprise, nothing at stake for the central characters, and nothing to reflect upon when the credits finally rolled.
Honestly, I kinda confused with this movie. I still don't know whether it's good or not. To me, HANNIBAL lacks of excitements like its predecessor - THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS or even MANHUNTER. I felt like there's something missing. On the other hand, the plot is still interesting and Ridley Scott's direction was solid. Anthony Hopkins was still great as Hannibal Lecter and Julianne Moore was good as Clarice Starling.
Anthony Hopkins is still an effective Hannibal Lecter but the laughable puppet-like face of Gary Oldman (being an inspiration for the "Saw" films?) makes the film look like a black comedy. This is not more apparent than when Hannibal takes the "top" off Ray Liotta. Julianne Moore looks also too gorgeous for the film - and they should have kept the book's ending as the film clearly has no point to exist as it is now.
Nestled between Ridley Scott's methodical direction, Mamet's zingers and Mathieson's supreme images, is the puritan love story of Lecter and Clarice. What was once indicated is now fully realized in the sequel. Comparing Julianne Moore to Jodie Foster is complicated. The new Clarice is more ambiguous. What does she really want? Justice? God? Love? Well, Lecter's pretty darn clear about his priorities. Proves it too.