User reviews

For the most part, I enjoyed this film. I was engaged throughout and that's what you want from a film. However, I found myself frustrated with some of the nonsensical choices of the characters. Hopkins was as brilliant as ever. This Hannibal was a lot more ruthless but just as cunning, perceptive and observant. I really like Julian Moore as an actress but I'm just not sure she was right for this role as a shoe-in for the character of Clarice. I don't know if it was because I was comparing her to Jodie Foster's Clarice, but it just felt like two completely different characters. She wasn't as intellectual, sharp or astute as the original Clarice. She felt a lot more vulnerable than the original Clarice. And she made some questionable decisions throughout the film to say the least. Lastly, WHAT happened to the southern twang in her accent, yes your accent can change over the ten years that passed but there wasn't even a trace of it!

This film overall was an interesting, further insight into Hannibal's character and also the relationship between Hannibal and Clarice, and his matured fondness for her. Overall, this film is definitely worth watching with some memorable scenes, but just don't go into it expecting it to be Silence of the lambs part 2.

Years after his escape in 'Silence of the Lambs' a wealthy surviving victim continues to hunt for Hannibal Lecter. Stars Anthony Hopkins and Julianne Moore as Clarice Starling.

The plot builds slowly. Hopkins is excellent in this role but Moore seems a poor substitute for Jodie Foster.

The film is very gruesome. The final scene is memorable in it's uber gruesomeness.

The location in Florence, Italy is a great bonus but this fun ultimately disappoints after the great original film.

While not fully up to par with "Silence of the Lambs", "Hannibal" still was more interesting and more fulfilling then "Hannibal Rising". And if you enjoyed "Silence of the Lambs", then you really should do take the time to sit down and watch this movie as well.

There is a nice cat-and-mouse feel to the movie, and director Ridley Scott have accomplished to put together an entertaining movie that does bring into the picture some disturbing mindsets and images from time to time.

The characters are right on the money and there is some good character development and growth throughout the movie. And the cast that were in the movie were doing good jobs with their given roles. And while Julianne Moore is no Jodie Foster, she still managed to portray Clarice in a fulfilling way. Needless to say that Anthony Hopkins is, of course, fantastic once again in the role of Hannibal 'the cannibal' Lecter. I was surprised to find out that it was Gary Oldman who was playing Verger; I literally had no idea and just found out in 2014.

There is a nice speed to the movie, in the sense that you are never left bored, and the movie does take you on a roller-coaster; sometimes it is fast and brutal, other times slow and seemingly safe (lulling the audience into a false sense of security). There were some nice enough twists and turns along the way, making the movie not overly predictable.

"Hannibal" is an entertaining movie and a well-worthy addition to the Lecter legacy. And it is definitely worth a watch.

Anthony Hopkins gave an impeccable performance. However, the material he was given to work with was not as good as Silence of the Lambs. In fairness, perhaps there was no way it could be. In SOTL, he was somehow more foreboding, more of a sort of superhuman monster; in Hannibal, he's more accessible, a guy you meet on the street. Maybe it was impossible to maintain the mystery of Lecter that we saw in SOTL because of the risk of doing a rehash. I'd give the overall Dr Lecter character a 9 of 10 in this film, vs. a 10 of 10 in the last one. Not quite as good, but still very good.

Starling's character, on the other hand, fell flat in this film. In SOTL, Foster perfectly portrayed Starling's flat surface with a turbulent depth; in Hannibal, there was nothing under her surface. Foster's Clarice evoked feelings of sympathetic grief, Moore's Clarice evoked nothing. I do not necessarily blame Moore, this could be due to writing and/or directing. Obviously, though SOTL focused mainly on Starling's character, Hannibal focuses on, well, Hannibal. Still, that's no excuse for what was done to Starling. Her character gets a 3 of 10.

The story was much weaker in Hannibal than in SOTL. It almost seemed like an excuse to present us with the characters, rather than a story in and of itself. Still, it had no other major flaws, so it gets a 6 of 10.

Now, there's another category I'll call the shock factor. It's different than ordinary gore, it's... creative gore. The sick, disgusting depravity we expect to see and like to see in this type of film. I can't go into detail without spoiling it, but I'll have to say it goes even beyond what I expected. Do not watch this film if you are squeamish or dislike gore. There isn't a lot of gore in the film, but what there was, was... concentrated. Shock Factor, 10 of 10.

Overall I give the film an 8 of 10. Very well done with a few weaknesses, well worth watching.

HANNIBAL / (2001) *** (out of four)

By Blake French:

Some movies are born to inspire sequels but "The Silence of The Lambs" is a movie that does not need a sequel. The Academy Award winning thriller earned ubiquitous critical acclaim, therefore a continuation is nearly incapable of living up to its standards. To make things worse for the highly anticipated sequel "Hannibal," the original film's director and main star bailed out, leaving Ridley Scott ("Gladiator") and Julianne Moore ("Magnolia") filling their places in the credits. It is hard to imagine how this movie could possibly succeed. But the exceptionally beautiful filmmaking, strong performances, intriguing story, and moody atmosphere provoke more nail-biting moments than most thrillers these days.

The story of "Hannibal" does not compare with "The Silence of the Lambs." It replaces tension-filled sequences of psychological terror with scenes featuring some of the most grotesque images and realistic gore to ever make its mark on the big screen. This film relies heavily on the shock factor of such extreme graphic violence, although such content is never excessive or relentless. It has perfect timing. The sheer presence of Anthony Hopkins, in another horrific and career defining performance, often creates enough terror for several movies. "Hannibal" knows that and frequently gives the character more freedom than he had in he first film. But I am not so sure that is a good thing; is it more terrifying listening to Hannibal Lecter discuss his disgusting actions or to actually see him perform such disturbing behaviors?

The film takes place ten years after FBI agent Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster then, Julianne Moore now) interviewed convicted mass murdering cannibal Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) while searching for another disturbed killer. Present day: Clarice is involved with a drug bust shoot-out that leaves many dead. Justice Dept. Official Paul Krendler (Ray Liotta), is about to punish her when she gets a call from a the unrecognizably deformed surviving victim of an attack by Lecter. His name is Mason Verge (Gary Oldman), a wealthy recluse who asks that Starling be placed back on the case of the Cannibal, who has been on the loose for ten years.

The movie investigates a lot more than Clarice's experiences with Hannibal Lecter. The script actually consists of two separate stories, one detailing the revenge scheme of Mason, whom is still angry with Lecter after he caused the removal of his face and partial paralysis. The other takes place in Italy, where an inspector named Rinaldo Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini) is out to claim a multimillion dollar reward for providing authorities with proper evidence leading to the arrest of a local, who turns out to be none other than Lecter himself. Obviously this man does not know what he is in for, and ends up losing his cuts for the money…literally.

Parallel stories are always interesting, but are easily sidetracked with certain characters and or events. What keeps this movie intriguing is the consistent focus on Lector; everything in the story seems to revolve around him. Then again, "Hannibal" is also quite pointless because it solves nothing. Without giving away the ending, I will say that we are once again left pondering about Lecter. Most any movie that provokes thoughts is worth seeing, but "Hannibal" forgets the first film, takes a stand on its own, and once again sets us up for another unnecessary follow-up.

The most apparent conflict many audiences with have with "Hannibal" is the absence of Jodie Foster. Julianne Moore is most definitely a capable and challenging actress, and plays the role of Starling with exuberance and clarity. But Foster is simply better in the role and we miss her dearly. Anthony Hopkins saves the movie; the actor is so intense and grisly in his subtle and classy manner, he once again qualifies as an award nominee. Thank goodness he returned for the role; without Hopkins, "Hannibal" would be nothing but underdone carnage.

I first saw this in the early 2k on a dvd which I own.

Revisited it recently with my kids.

In this sequel to the 1991 film The Silence of the Lambs, Hopkins reprises his role as Hannibal Lecter which was a blessing as the movie wud have been incomplete without Hopkins.

The movie is set ten years after the events of the previous one and it is very gory and at times a bit unpleasant.

The fate of Ray Liotta's character will give Saw movies a tough competition.

Gary Oldman is totally unrecognizable with the make up effects and his name is completely removed from the billing.

Julianne Moore looked hot in the final dress but her character's cheap shoes will be missed.

I like this film a lot, but of course it suffers - as all sequels do - by comparison to its predecessor, in this case 'Silence of the Lambs' The main reason for having a sequel at all was to showcase again the character of Hannibal Lecter, a monstrous creation everyone wanted to see more of after the first film. It could have bombed badly therefore if writer and actor had let us down by failing to catch the magic again. It was after all a decade after the original was made. But they don't, and Anthony Hopkins turns in another delicious performance as the man with the evil intent cloaked in inestimable, menacing charm.

Julianne Moore drew the short straw in having to re-create the Clarice Starling role that had been so memorably played by another actress. She does well in my opinion, but inevitably we keep thinking 'where is Jodie Foster?', and this lends her portrayal a lack of credibility which is entirely unfair. Gary Oldman's Mason Verger is suitably loathsome and manages to make Lecter seem almost like the hero in their battle of wits. If there is a weak link, Ray Liotta's Krendler seems a bit misplaced.

The direction deserves special mention. The lush, beautiful settings are mocked by the horror of what is happening in them and the perfectly-selected atmospheric music stayed in my mind long after the film had ended.

Once again, the film lacks realism, but as with the original, it doesn't matter. Of course things like this don't really happen - but so what? It's a film. Get over it! I was prompted after seeing it to read the books, and the right decision was made in changing the ending of this story from that written by Thomas Harris.

We were subsequently treated to another look at Lecter in a decent prequel movie, 'Red Dragon,' but I will not be alone in hoping that some day we will see yet more of him in a further instalment. Unlikely I suspect - but not impossible.

It's alarming and viscerally gross in ways that the first never even reaches for (mainly because it didn't need to). Yes, Foster is sorely missed, particularly earlier in the film. On the flip side, Liotta, who was consistently and criminally underrated in almost everything he did, just kills it - his performance at the dinner table is unnerving, hilarious, kitschy, powerful, and completely compelling.

I'm a big fan of Thomas Harris,I read all his novels at least 5 times and Hannibal's the book I really love the most.Therefore the movie was my biggest disappointment and I really don't get it why some folks here give it a nine or even a ten.Either their demands are very low or they haven't read the book or both.Even if I hadn't read the book I'd still consider the movie as absolute average and I'd give it a five. The creepy,mysterious atmosphere from the novel doesn't appear one single time in the movie,when I saw it first in the cinema I even fell asleep.Why was Margot Verger, a very important character, totally omitted? Why was Barney shown as a dumb ignorant whose only ambition is to earn money? And most of all, why was the psychological process Starling went through in the end,caused by the drugs Lecter applied to her,descended? Not to speak about the fact that the ending was omitted,too,and totally changed? Well, the reasons why Jodie Foster refused to play Starling again are well known and I accepted it,although like surely many others I'm very disappointed 'cause I identified Starling with her.For stories like Red Dragon,The silence of the lambs or Hannibal that possess such psychological depth, it is very important to identify with a character when they're adapted for the screen,but as the Germans say, that's "snow of yesterday". Ridley Scott did some incredibly good movies but with this one he doesn't live up to his name. Jonathan Demme had exactly the right feeling for the plot, the characters and their relationships towards each other in The silence of the lambs, he should have done Hannibal,too.My only comfort is that I've seen the movie only two times,it's long ago and thank god for that reason I'm able not to see the scenes from the movie when I read the novel. I'm so sorry but I really can't recommend it to anyone.

I was pleasantly surprised by Ridley Scott's "Hannibal" given that the movie is based on the horrible book which I more than dislike. I see a writer as a God - he creates by the power of his imagination the new worlds and populates them with his creatures. Once, he created the world, he should give his characters free will; they should act by the logic of their personalities not by their creator's sheer caprice. What Harris did in "Hannibal" is unspeakable - he just showed his fans how much he despised them. Actually, he did two things wrong - the ending and his attempt to explain Hannibal, to look behind the mask. The film comparing to the book has several redeeming values: visually, it is a stunning work of a great director. I am yet to see Florence, the celebrated City of Flowers as dark, dangerous, and anti-tourist as in "Hannibal". Second, the movie did not try to "explain" Hannibal, to get inside his head and understand him. Harris attempted in the book to give us the reasons why Hannibal was what he was - it was weak and laughable. If he chose to present Hannibal as some sort of supernatural creature with almost animals' instincts, he should've left him as an eternal mystery. The best description of Hannibal belongs to Clarice. When asked, "Is it true what they're sayin', he's some kinda vampire?" - she replied, "They don't have a name for what he is". And finally, the film avoided the literally vomit-inducing, absurd, irrational, obnoxious slap in face book's ending - for this alone I think "Hannibal" is a very decent movie and a lot of fun.

7.5/10

Many people were disappointed or flat-out disgusted by Ridley Scott's follow-up to "The Silence of the Lambs." I can certainly understand their disgust, but I preferred this to its Oscar winning predecessor. It had been a long, long time since a movie made me turn from the screen in genuine horror, and I didn't believe it was even possible. "Hannibal"'s deservedly controversial climax took me by surprise. It may have been revolting (okay, it was very definitely revolting) but so few movies these days have any lasting impact and I appreciate that this one did. And it is, after all, about a cannibal, is it not? At some point in a series of films about a man of Lector's inclinations, we should see him at work.

Of course, the horror of the climax is effective because the rest of the film is so good. Hopkins, a little chunkier than the last time we saw him in this role, positively exudes menace especially in his final confrontation with Pazzi (an excellent Giancarlo Giannini whose sad eyes make him the most sympathetic character in the film). Then there's Gary Oldman's Mason Verger who is so contemptible that he never elicits sympathy no matter how he suffered at the hands of Lector. And Julianne Moore is an improvement over Jodie Foster who I have always believed was overrated.

But the best thing about "Hannibal" is the atmosphere in which Scott and his team envelop the story. A cloud of dread hangs over this film, and beautiful Florence, Italy, though still beautiful, appears haunted by Lector's very presence in the city.

From the last chronological film of the Hannibal saga there is one certainty: The Silence of the Lambs and Red Dragon should be the only cinematographic pieces in the story of Dr. Lecter.

This film doesn't achieve the unsettling and constant suspense that one might expect. It's a flat film, almost boring, with ridiculous situations. It's well executed, many technical details are correct and decent, but none of that matters if the entire product fails to interest. The last two great situations do not save a work already condemned from the beginning, with confirmed prejudices about the need for a sequel. Hopkins is not up to his great performance that earned him the Oscar and Moore is not convincing either.

It sticks around like an average movie, to put in the background of a regularly busy afternoon.

Hannibal picks up 10 years after the events of The Silence of the Lambs. Hannibal escaped, and he is now hiding out in Italy, continuing his cannibalistic crime spree there. A former victim of Hannibal, Mason Verger, has hired a police detective to track him down and capture him, so he can have his revenge. Meanwhile, FBI Agent Clarice Starling has been disgraced due to a botched operation. When she receives a note from Hannibal, she begins trying to track him down. This movie is nowhere near as good as Silence of the Lambs, but it has its moments.

The first thing wrong with this movie is that the style of film making and storytelling is vastly different. Whereas the first film managed to be disturbing, yet not excessively gory at the same time, this movie is more about the gore. It was a bold psychological thriller meant to make you think. Ridley Scott made this movie as a slasher movie, with scenes of gratuitous gore where it isn't necessary. He turned Hannibal from a highly intelligent sociopath to a highly intelligent serial slasher. It is nice to finally see Hannibal Lecter as the main antagonist, since the first two films had him confined to a cell helping the FBI with the capture of other serial killers. However, those stories were much more interesting than this one. This movie comes off as far more boring than the previous films.

The acting isn't as good either. Julianne Moore comes nowhere close to portraying Clarice in the way Jodie Foster did. Foster made it her own character, whereas Julianne Moore desperately tries to copy Foster, and fails miserably. Ray Liotta is terrible in his role. Gary Oldman is mildly entertaining as Mason Verger. As for Anthony Hopkins, he's still a great actor, and he does good in this movie. However, he seems to have lost that creepy voice that made Hannibal memorable. Now he just speaks with his normal accent.

Overall, this movie certainly has its moments, and I'd recommend it to people who liked Manhunter and The Silence of the Lambs, but be warned...It's nowhere near as good.

6/10

Hannibal is a pure pleasure! While a little unevenly paced (the beginning was a bit slow), David Mamet and Steve Zallian have done a good job of telling the basic story Thomas Harris gave to us - and, incidently, the book was incredibly underrated by critics whose thought processes seem to have been damaged by too little quality literature. People have complained that it took ten years for Harris to write it - well, read it! It is chock-a-block full of mythology, astronomical and religious themes that weave their way throughout. The threads never break. The movie would have had to be eight hours long to even begin to explore the depths plumbed by Harris in the book.

Anthony Hopkins is, as usual, brilliant! Julianne Moore was sexy and strong. Giancarlo Giannini was outstanding and Gary Oldman creditable. My only complaint with casting was Ray Liotta, who just didn't have "it".

Having seen this movie three times thus far, I will say that watching it is like peeling layers off an onion. You see more and more with each viewing - little treasures and nuggets that you find almost by accident. The first time I saw it, I left the theatre not really knowing what I thought of it. Then I found myself smiling. I did like it. When I went back again (and again!) I liked it more and more.

Gory? Not really - and I consider myself pretty sensitive to gore. I have seen far worse. The story does have violence in it, and I think Ridley Scott, while depicting an integral part of the story, handled the violence tastefully (if you'll pardon the expression).

Is it as good as Silence of the Lambs? No. It's DIFFERENT from SotL. In Silence we had a caged monster whose intensity was extremely focussed. Here, we have a monster who is on the loose in a great big world, free to indulge in his passions. Hannibal Lecter's essence has not changed. He's merely in a different situation.

My only disappointments were: The changed ending. This was the major one. I realize the critics lambasted Thomas Harris for the ending in the book, saying "Clarice would never have done that", but Clarice was the child of Harris' imagination. The author is god, and if god says a character will do something, who are we to second-guess?

The length of the movie. It could have been a little longer and more focus could have been put on the relationship between Hannibal and Clarice - specifically, his obsession with her, and the time they spent together after the fiasco at the Verger Estate.

It was also too bad that Mason Verger's sister, Margot, was written out of the script.

All in all, though, I thoroughly enjoyed the dark humor and the adventure. Hans Zimmer's score is magnificent! This is a really good film - not a great film, but a really good one. Don't go into it expecting to see another Silence of the Lambs. It's not - and I don't think anyone has ever tried to claim that it is. Expect to see a weird and wonderful love story and an adventure! (It's just too bad about that ending!)

This film was poor by Ridley Scott's standards. In essence, this is a dumbed-down script adapted from a strange book that, on screen gives the audience an impression that a fantastic director has been rushed in to direct a film adapted from a book that has been based on a script written to encourage young people to make films. It's a sloppy screenplay, the film looks like it's been cut together from a 5-10 hour movie to fill approximately 2 hours of screen-time. It also looks like Scott has had to cut down scenes dramatically to give the film a sharper, more audience friendly look (like Gladiator- also directed by Scott). However, where Gladiator suited Scott's talents, Hannibal does not. Scott is better at visuals than he is at directing actors, Hopkins looks bored this time round, as does Oldman (barely noticeable after his make-up), as does Liotta - in a very Liotta role, and Moore is not really given any opportunity to act, she just merely looks dull, upset, and acts like a betrayed tough FBI agent as the screenplay prompts her to. The violence that appears randomly in this film gives the audience the impression that the film-makers want the audience to feel like they are watching violence in a manga cartoon rather than a film, it's pointless to take this film seriously.

I haven`t been affected this much by a movie in years, so that must be considered good value for money. The controversial gore scene towards the end made myself, and the majority of the audience, flinch, scream and nervously giggle simultaneously (a feel good/feel bad movie rolled into one!).

Having never read the original book I took the film at face value. It is beautifully filmed by a talented director and crew, and features lovely Italian location scenes which contrast with the grim plot. The acting is mainly excellent. Hopkins character appears creepier due to him beginning to resemble a kindly grandad, who suddenly turns and eats your brain. Julianne Moore`s excellent Clarice vaguely reminded me of Ripley, the star of Ridley Scotts masterpiece Alien. At worst, the rest of the cast were well above average.

The film had me captivated with its style, twisty plot, acting and gore. I found myself slightly rooting for the baddie Hannibal at some points, something I haven`t experienced since my empathy for evil Alex in A Clockwork Orange. If people find the deaths of some characters predictable, then maybe Scott has directed well in projecting Hannibal`s approach and morality.

This is the sort of big budget horror film movie-goers have been waiting for, so go see it on the large screen before its too late! Okay, it is not the same as Silence, so what? Ten years have passed and things have changed. I`ve heard the book is better. Well, I may now read it, but in the meantime I have enjoyed an excellent, thought provoking Film Of The Year!

I have seen all four Hannibal Lecter movies and I have to say that they are all watchable. Unfortunately this one the least of all because the only good reason to see 'Hannibal' is for Anthony Hopkins, but even he is less interesting than in 'The Silence of the Lambs' or 'Red Dragon'. The first movie made, 'Manhunter' (the remake was 'Red Dragon'), was a good thriller and had the advantage that there were no real expectations.

But back to 'Hannibal', a movie where Lecter is not imprisoned once and may be that is why some of the fun is missing, the fun that came back with 'Red Dragon'.

Or may be it is the fact that there is no real villain. The movie is called 'Hannibal' and he kind of is the real hero, of course together with special agent Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore). We have Mason Verger (Gary Oldman) who survived Lecter but not without its price. He is searching for Lecter and since he only wants revenge you can't call him a real villain. We have no Buffalo Bill or Tooth Fairy here.

Or is it Jullianne Moore who is not as good as Jodie Foster as Clarice? I don't think so. You get used to her in the first act of the movie and she plays how Foster could have done it. May be it is simply the plot that is not as good as 'The Silence of the Lambs'.

The movie tries to hide its weak points by putting more gore in it and it gives some scenes that will make this movie definitely not for everyone. That is too bad, and in my opinion not very necessary. because for the fun of Hopkins this movie could be a nice evening for a lot more. I had fun, but not as much as I had with the other Hannibal movies.

The sequel to SILENCE OF THE LAMBS with Julianne Moore taking over Jodie Foster's part... Initially I thought 'I wish they put a couple millions more in the budget just to secure Jodie returning' because even though I REALLY like Julianne Moore this is probably her worst performance ever.

I think the problem is that she has to talk with the same thick Texan accent that Jodie did in the original that she gets so focused on getting that right that she lose her eye on making it sound convincingly as well, a lot of actors/actresses have that problem though.

She's fine when she's just reacting, looking around etc but that doesn't help much.

BUT the worst part of it is that it's horribly written with awful characters (not awful as in bad people just awfully written, even though yes most of them are awful as wel).

A big part of the movie takes place in Italy and the Italian actors are terrible, perhaps because they have to speak a language that they seem to barely know and make that seem natural.

And they are trying to do too much with the script taking far too much focus away from Hannibal Lecter and Clairice (Juliane Moore) a lot of the times, especially since she's still in the US in the many Italy scenes.

And there's no real suspense either, the little there is is just cheap gross out scenes which granted are a bit disturbing at times but more in a I'm getting a queasy stomach feeling than a I'm peeing my pants scared kinda way.

Anthony Hopkins is still decent and the black dress Julianne Moore wears is smoking but that is not enough to save this movie, and I understand why Jodie Foster didn't want to do it... If only Hopkins said no as well, perhaps it wouldn't have been made at all.

3.5/10

Some years have passed since the events of The Silence of the Lambs and Dr. Hannibal Lecter has been laying low, hiding from the long arms of the FBI and those that he has hurt in the past. Likewise Clarice Starling, played this time by Julianne Moore, has moved on, but now she has been disgraced by a drug bust gone wrong and thus it is time for these two old enemies to meet once more.

Hannibal is a serviceable sequel in the Hannibal Lecter trilogy. They got Anthony Hopkins to reprise his role, which automatically makes the film worth checking out, and it is very interesting to see him on the loose, mixing with the high society, in his natural element so to speak. Lecter is still easily the best thing about these films, and Hopkins's suave menace has not gone down in the slightest.

It's a shame they couldn't get Jodie Foster to reprise her role as well, but Julianne Moore is an okay substitute as a leaner and meaner Clarice. Plus, as a compensation gift, we get Gary Oldman as Mason Verger, the only one of Lecter's victims who lived through his ordeals. Very good role for him and he absolutely delivers.

What doesn't work so well, unfortunately, is the story. Especially the fact that this time there is no battle of wits, like there was in the original or in the upcoming Red Dragon. Clarice and Hannibal don't face each other nearly as much as they did in The Silence of the Lambs and anyone else in the film is nowhere near their equal. Plus the whole tone of the film is more of an action thriller, which is an ill fit for these characters. It doesn't ruin the film, per se, but it is a problem, at least for me.

Still, it's worth checking out if you liked the original, but don't expect it to be as good.

No, I can not approve this film with such a good actor as Anthony Hopkins and the rest of the cast including the good Italian ones: Francesca Neri and Giancarlo Giannini.

Unfortunately the film is light years far away from the first excellent one: The Silence of Lambs. The thrilling effect has been substituted by a disgusting and vomiting brain eater scene and some other pigs "corrida" which brings the whole film to a very low level.

It looks like this serial was mainly a commercial experiment without any real interest in trying to match the level of the previous one.

Rating. 3/10