Moviepro (www.moviepro.net)

We have taken some photos of "Hannibal Rising". They represent actual movie quality.

• An intriguing tale of revenge posted on 30 Aug 2009

  I haven't read many reviews on Hannibal: Rising but the few people I spoke with prior to watching the film seemed to have mixed reviews when delving into the specifics, but in general found the film 'enjoyable'. The general sympathy however, was that the book was better; that usually seems to be the case anyway. Having never read the book myself, I think my opinion was somewhat less biased.Firstly, the acting: Gaspar Ulliel was a ~wonderful~ Hannibal! When I first saw him, I found him way too beautiful to play the part of a madman, but that faded quickly. What was once almost angelic became comparable to a black rose; beautiful but ominous and almost frightening, enhanced by Li Gong's performance of Lady Murasaki, who was both in love with and afraid of the young Lecter. Gaspar absolutely mastered the look of a psycho as he brutalized his victims in ways gore-hounds (like myself) would enjoy; slowly. Li Gong, as mentioned above, plays her part and really made me feel the kind of complicated love that would come from such a relationship. On a whole, however, I felt she was somewhat wasted and should have had more on-screen time. The character of Lady Murasaki was complicated and at times, as possible of brutality as Lecter, if only for his sake. I would have liked to see that more.Now that we covered the acting, on to the gore; GOOD STUFF! Seeing as this is a spoiler-free review, I can't delve into the details. Needless to say, however, there is plenty of blood and, in the case of a specific character, implied brutality that rivals Lecter's and shows not only the reason for his psychosis, but may actually have people rooting for him! How many movies actually have you rooting for the psycho serial killer? Not very many, at least that I've seen to-date.There are some pitfalls to the movie, I must admit. On many occasions, both Gaspar and Li's thick accents, though ridiculously sexy, had me rewinding the movie several times before I could understand what they said. A few times I gave up trying to understand at all and just made up words in my own mind to help progress the story along. There were also some scenes that, as typical of Hollywood, would have been much more interesting if the camera didn't turn away at the pivotal moment.On a whole, I found the movie very enjoyable and great eye candy. Definitely worth an hour and a half of your time.

• Read the Book posted on 28 Aug 2009

  After reading what I thought to be a well crafted book I was very excited to see the movie. Imagine my disappointment when I saw the this film and what I can only explain as a feeble attempt to act by Gaspard Ulliel. So much of the story was left out of the film, I assume for the sake of time, but it really created a situation where the audience is left with more questions as to why certain things happen in the film. Thomas Harris wrote an incredible book and unfortunately the screen play did not even come close to doing it justice.My recommendation is read the book. Let the story play out in your head. And then don't see the movie it is a waste of time and money and will only ruin the story for you.

• Good, but not great, and not a fitting tribute to Hannibal Lecter. posted on 28 Aug 2009

  It's not bad, but without reading the book, you really don't know what's going on. There's so much internal monologue that's just completely left out -- it'd have had to be narration or something, but still. There's also a very large section of the plot that's completely cut, and at least two characters that were completely removed. So little of what made the book good was cut from the movie, which is really sad, especially since Harris wrote the screenplay; I have to assume that a LOT of the substance was left on the cutting-room floor.The movie is way more hack-and-slash than the book. The murders are similar, but Hannibal is so much smarter and more elegant in the way he does things in the novel than he is in the film. You also get a great deal more information on his life before the war and his work at the medical school (he was paying his way through by making anatomy sketches, which is very much glossed over, and ties in to parts of the story that were left out).It's not bad, and there are some decent moments (coupled with some really out-of-character ones, which grate on the nerves). Overall, I was disappointed. Not worth the ridiculous price of a ticket -- rent this one.If you liked it... or if you like Hannibal at all... do yourself a favor and read the book.

• Undoubtedly the worst of the series, but still a good movie in its own rights. posted on 26 Aug 2009

  Being a fan of the Hannibal series ever since seeing Silence of the Lambs at a young age, my curiosity led me to view this film. The plot is very well laid out, and carries along very well. It was very easy, for me at least, to follow the progression of the story, and it did a very good job of keeping me interested.***SPOILERS FOLLOW*** While I enjoyed the film, it was very predictable at times. Mischa's death and manner of stuck with the canniballism theme. Also, in the fight scenes, we knew Hannibal was going to live, so there was not really any suspense as to who the winner would be.I found it very interesting to learn about Hannibal's educational background--not only the schooling he had, but his self-defense training by Lady Murisaki Shikibu. The movie does a very good job of explaining why and how Hannibal became the person that he did, and that impressed me most of all.Overall, I saw this more as a story of a child of war that became deranged due to all the events that he had encountered. Of course, that's what the film probably intended it to be, so they succeeded in that department. However, I feel that it lacked the "Hannibalistic" theme that we've all become familiar with. The absence of Anthony Hopkins didn't help matters either.All in all, the movie was very entertaining, but if you're expecting another Red Dragon or Silence of the Lambs, you'll probably be let down.

• Disappointing Film in Hannibal Lecter Series posted on 24 Aug 2009

  I have been a huge fan of the character of Hannibal Lecter for years; I still consider Jonathan Demme's "The Silence of the Lambs" one of my top favorite movies of all time. I've read all of Thomas Harris's books and enjoy the movies (though I'm not a huge fan of Michael Mann's "Manhunter"). Being such a fan, I was truly disappointed by the latest addition to the Hannibal Lecter canon. The film begins in 1944 Lithuania with an eight-year-old Hannibal living with his family in their estate. The fighting of World War II drives them from their home to their hunting lodge, where Hannibal's life is forever changed by the actions of a group of war looters. The story follows Hannibal as he grows and eventually seeks revenge.While all of the previous films were tense thrillers, this film feels more like a generic revenge plot. For some reason, this movie just didn't have the same vibe as any of the previous. Rather than a suspenseful game of cat-n-mouse, this movie chugs along a predictable path from beginning to end. Even the "big revelation" at the end of the film can be seen coming a mile away. Not only does the story feel generic and predictable, but the pacing is depressingly slow. At 130 minutes, it's already a bit long but the movie crawls along at a snail's pace for most of the runtime.Despite some annoying flaws, the film does manage to entertain a bit. It was nice getting a glimpse into what created the monster we've come to love, though I thought the kendo/samurai training felt out of place. The scenes in which Hannibal disposes of those who ruined him were some of the best in the movie. As for performances, they were generally hit-or-miss. Rhys Ifans, while a bit over-the-top, was the most entertaining as the leader of the war profiteers Vladis Grutas. We also get some fine work from Gong Li and Kevin McKidd, but most of the other cast failed to really impress me. I wasn't a huge fan of Gaspard Ulliel in his performance as a young Hannibal Lecter. He didn't come across as believable in the role. Instead of feeling as if I'm watching a young Hannibal, I felt more as if I was watching someone doing a halfway decent Hannibal impression.Seeing as how Thomas Harris released the novel right around the same time the movie was released, this whole deal sounds like it was thrown together for a quick buck. It doesn't feel as if the same heart and time were put into the story as any of the other films. It does NOT feel like a Hannibal Lecter film, but it is a mildly entertaining revenge drama regardless.

• Decent effort! posted on 22 Aug 2009

  We already saw 'Hannibal Lecter', his killings & all gory stuffs, how he did it, who he was, & here, in this Hannibal movie of the series, we get to see the origin of 'Hannibal Lecter', the reason why he started those killings. "Hannibal Rising" is the story of monster Hannibal Lecter's formative years. These experiences as a child and young adult led to his remarkable contribution to the fields of medicine, music, painting and forensics. We begin in World War II at the medieval castle in Lithuania built by Dr. Lecter's forebear, Hannibal the Grim. Mischa and Hannibal, baby brother and sister, are inseparable; it is their love for each other that ties their bond. Their companionship is forever binding, until, with their family, while hiding from the Nazi war machine a twisted set of circumstance sets the pace for a most vicious attack on the future of one Hannibal Lecter for the sworn vengeance for the brutal killing of his baby sister. The child Hannibal survives the horrors of the Eastern Front and escapes the grim Soviet aftermath to find refuge in France with the widow of his uncle, mysterious and beautiful Japanese descended from Lady Murasaki Shikibu (Gong Li), author of the Tale of Genji. Her kind and wise attentions help him understand his unbearable recollections of the war. Remembering, he finds the means to visit the outlaw predators that changed him forever as they battened on helpless during the collapse of the Eastern Front. Hannibal helps these war criminals toward self-knowledge even as we see his own nature become clear to him. It was good to see the origin of Hannibal, although there was nothing much in the story, everything is almost predictable, but the good direction makes the movie worth watching, direction is pretty good. The performances are fine, Ulliel was fine, he was not good at times & very good at times, Gong Li looked gorgeous & also acted okay. The background score was fine. The gory scenes were good & is a major part of the movie. On the whole, a good movie, watch it definitely if you are a Hannibal fan.

• Not a masterpiece but well worth watching posted on 20 Aug 2009

  On the whole I felt that it was easily the second best of the series.Sure, some things aren't explained - Hannibal descends into violence, viciousness and cannibalism because of what happened to his sister, but throughout the film he still seems to have a moral compass, however skewed.So how did he go from being someone killing purely for vengeance and a sense of justice (with the symbolic taking up of cannibalism along the way, of course) to killing and eating someone just because they were a little off in their musical performance, later on in his life? We just don't know.What made it for me though, was the moral ambiguity. I grew up watching films about cowboys and indians, rebels and stormtroopers, etc. You always knew who the 'goodies' were. Not in this movie - monstrous though his acts might have been, the people who he killed were undeniably evil.I often wondered what I would do in Hannibal's place, and I think that I'd probably go after them just as he did, although I'd make an exception in the case of the man with the daughter - maybe he'd genuinely changed, but the rest were just trash and killing them would prevent them from ever hurting anyone else.I wouldn't eat them though (just in case anyone was thinking of tracking down my IP address and notifying Interpol). In the end, I like forgettable action movies as much as anyone, but this wasn't one of them - it was something that genuinely made me think and question myself sometimes.

• Much better than expected posted on 18 Aug 2009

  I imagined that this would be an exploitation movie-short on talent and over-the-top gory. It was none of those things. It was well acted and directed and I thought the period feel was good. How can we root for such a cold-blooded killer and yet we do, given the reasons why he became so. Harris wrote a good back story which gives us an insight into the origins of Hannibal's blood lust. Rhys Ifans (someone whose work I have never liked) was an excellent uber-villain and I for one relished his unpleasant end!! The beautiful Li Gong was a treat for the eyes and Gaspard handled a very difficult part with aplomb-imagine having to follow a definitive Lecter-many would have wilted and perished under the responsibility.The boy done good.

• From awfully boring, to awfully typical, then to just plain awful posted on 18 Aug 2009

  Hannibal Rising truly gets the Hannibal Lecter series to an untouched low. A simple slasher flick supposedly about Hannibal Lecter, with little to no suspense and a common revenge story. And why the heck does every movie pumped out of Hollywood now have to have at least one thing that has to do with martial arts or Asian culture?One can only fail to see how this disturbed young man becomes the enigmatic monster that we all know him as in Silence of the Lambs. There was simply no connection from Ulliel's Lecter to Hopkins's other then the name and cannibalism. *Different MOs *Different Intellectual capacities *Different weapons of choice *Different independence level Did any one see a true connection between these two characters?Regardless of the lack of connection to the Hannibal Lecter that we all fear, the revenge story wasn't that bad.

• Don't Go In With Expectations posted on 14 Aug 2009

  I just saw Hannibal Rising tonight, My girlfriends absolutely loved it but she has not seen any other the other Hannibal movies. I on the other hand was some what disappointed. The movie in general was a good movie, but having seen the other Hannibal movies (Silence, Red Dragon, and Hannibal) i had high hopes and expectations. I thought it would be more creepy and gruesome than it was. I think the acting was pretty good and the little girl who played Mischa was adorable. I vote to go see the movie but erase anything you thought you knew about Hannibal, then go back and watch the other movies. The book Hannibal Rising is also a good read, not as good as Silence of the Lambs, or Red Dragon but a good read.

• Good? Bad? You decide. posted on 12 Aug 2009

  "Hannial Rising" is not, in my humble opinion, a bad movie. When I first saw it, around two months ago, I didn't know what to think. And after re-watching it tonight, I've came to the conclusion that I like it...sorta.The movie is about Hannibal Lecter's--the sociopath from "The Silence of the Lambs"--formative years. It shows what turns him into the mad, demented, cannibalistic-psychopath we know and love. The score is good and the acting (mostly) isn't bad....What I couldn't swallow, however, was the story:During WW2, in Lithuania, Hannibal Lecter's family is brutally murdered. His younger sister, Mischa, is eaten by Russian deserters when their food supply runs short. Ten years later, Hannibal grows up, tracks down the killers, then, of course, savagely kills them. Now I ask you, dear reader, is this reason for Lecter's killing and cannibalism really satisfactory? Shouldn't the life story of an intellectual & complex character be just that, intellectual and complex? Two characters in the movie also lost loved ones in WW2. So why haven't they turned out the same way? Would Hannibal be the same way, even if his family weren't harmed? I don't know. The movie never explains.As a stand-alone flick, "Hannibal Rising" works. But as a prequel, a movie on the same scale as "The Silence of the Lambs" & "Red Dragon" it fails miserably. Fair job, Mr. Webber. The movie wasn't as bad as I thought. But next time, if there's a another movie--and that's a big IF--please bring back Sir Anthony Hopkins. Or don't do it at all.

• extremely disappointing posted on 06 Aug 2009

  I think the main problem with 'Hannibal Rising' is that it doesn't have much to do with Hannibal Lecter, at least the Hannibal we've come to know from the three films with Anthony Hopkins or the books they're based on by Thomas Harris. This is strange as Harris wrote both the book and screenplay. Of course we know this is the story of Lecter as a child on up to young adulthood. But there is very little here that suggests or reminds us of the later Hannibal, the one we've come to love/hate. It seems to me there could be much gruesome fun in anticipating the many aspects of the character's later life, but such references come fleetingly and grudgingly and most times do not feel genuine. Much of the disconnect starts with the actor portraying Lecter as a young adult, Gaspard Ulliel. He doesn't look, talk, or act as we imagine a younger version of Hopkins' Hannibal might. For a comparison, think of Robert DeNiro as the young Vito Corleone in 'The Godfather Pt. 2.' It is very easy to picture his character aging into Marlon Brando's older Don. Here, we feel and sense nothing of the later Hannibal character, and aside from some rather obvious trademark characteristics trotted out reluctantly it seems by the director, we simply do not believe this person is Hannibal Lecter, young or old. The film's premise is simple; during the last days of WW2, a group of Nazis comes across the Lecter family's hiding place in Lithuania. Hannibal's mother and father are killed, leaving him and his younger sister Mischa to fend for themselves. The Nazis have no food; starving, they begin to cast hungry eyes on Mischa. Fast forward eight years, and Hannibal is tormented by the memory of what happened to his sister. So he plots revenge on the squad of Nazis who ate her, methodically seeking them out and killing them, one by one. He goes to live in France with his Japanese aunt, Lady Murasaki. She instructs him in Japanese customs, including the martial arts. (I had to groan at the idea of Ninja Hannibal. Fortunately, it doesn't last too long.) But the film wanders from place to place the rest of the way, punctuated by brief spasms of violence whenever Hannibal finds another Nazi to kill. All of this is quite frankly boring. Even the supposedly gruesome scenes aren't very interesting. Certainly, they pale in comparison to similar scenes in the three Hopkins movies. 'Hannibal Rising' is well-shot, with much beautiful scenery, but that's about the best thing one can say about it. In a larger sense, the whole project reeks of being a package deal- a short novel by Harris with a movie deal already lined up, the movie timed to come out shortly after the book (obviously) hit the best-sellers list, all calculated and pre-sold to an audience hungry for more of the Hannibal character. It is a shame, and a sell-out. I hope Harris takes the big paycheck he must have gotten, retires to some comfortable retreat, and writes another Hannibal Lecter novel, a REAL one. I think after 'Hannibal Rising,' his audience deserves it.

• a typical revenge film starring a famous character posted on 06 Aug 2009

  The one problem with this film is it portrays Hannibal the Cannibal's transformation into a serial killer as being based on revenge instead of just wanting to feel the power of killing, which is how he is portrayed in the Silence of the Lambs. Killing based on revenge makes it much easier to get caught and Hannibal is to brilliant for that.The movie starts with a young Hannibal. He sees his parents killed in the war and his sister is eaten by soldiers for survival. He is saved by the Russian soldiers, but is scarred for life. He escapes an orphanage and tracks down his Japanese Aunt in France. Hannibal is now a young man whom is in medical school, but needs to track down his sister's killers and seek revenge. He finds them one by one and kills them in evil, gruesome ways. His Aunt knows what he's doing when he kills a local that harassed her. But she protects him, perhaps because all her family is dead too.So, the rest of the movie is more or less a revenge film with some extra bits such as Hannibal tearing flesh and eating it. However, it was silly when he writes an M on that guys chest. That was hokee.FINAL VERDICT: It was OK for a revenge film. Just don't expect to see the brilliant Lecter as he is portrayed in Silence of the Lambs.

• Don't blame the cast and crew and director, they did a nice job posted on 31 Jul 2009

  This isn't a terrible movie, just a pointless one. Peter Webber's film is a decent piece of work, but not one I'd want to watch again tomorrow. The fault in this project goes back to Lector as a franchise that Thomas Harris, who created it, has allowed to overrun itself. It's he who could have left well enough alone. But he had to write a prequel, and then he had the temerity to write a screenplay from his book, which he'd never done before. A prequel is always the last gasp of such a series. The critics are falling all over each other in their eagerness to condemn the film – but what they're really condemning is Harris' prequel. The idea that some childhood trauma would somehow enrich our understanding of villainy goes against the nature of real villainy. We don't want to forgive Hannibal Lector or understand him; we want to be horrified and afraid. Better he should have no childhood—or a placid, happy one.Hannibal Rising is a pointless movie but that shouldn't make us overlook the fact that it's also in many ways a beautiful and well made one with a good cast (including the famous-in-Britain Rhys Ifans), and Gaspard Ulliel is astonishingly elegant and invincible as the young Lector. Having never acted before in English, Gaspard manages to chew up his lines with as much deep-throated relish as if they were baby cheeks braised with mushrooms, and his ominous cheek scar and savage facial lines were not poorly chosen. This role does not disgrace him, though it's already seeming he's moving away from subtle dramas like The Last Day toward flashy epics like Jacquou the Peasant as his career takes off maybe a bit too fast.Peter Webber directed the beautiful and atmospheric film about Vermeer, Girl with Pearl Earring, and after the gritty and overbearing war scenes of Hannibal there are many lovely visuals ornamented by flash explosions, darkly glowing interiors, and the face of Gong Li among gleaming samurai swords. Lady Murasaki Shikibu she's called, a very odd name for a Chinese lady, and redundant to boot, since "Shikibu" means "lady" in classical Japanese. It's also the name not of a modern woman but an ancient author first translated into English by Arthur Waley. When I first heard it in the dialogue from the mouth of one of the villains – that is, the men who wronged Hannibal and his little sister in their childhood, and must be avenged – I thought it was a learned joke. Alas, not so; but again it's the author who's at fault, not the cast and crew.As with all work designed to satisfy the taste of cultists, this will delight some and enrage others. One critic has even damned Ulliel for not being as "chinless" as Anthony Hopkins. Well. The recent novel this is based on is as guilty of creating a fantastic, far-fetched youth for this now famous villain that we never heard of before, because there was no basis for it. Hopkins' Hannibal Rising wasn't a young Anthony Hopkins. There is no young Anthony Hopkins. After all, Demme's Silence of the Lambs is a brilliant effort even if it signaled the end of Demme as an original filmmaker. This will only blur that memory. Did I say I didn't want to watch this tomorrow? Make that the day after tomorrow, and the day after that. But I will forgive all who worked on this film – except Thomas Harris – and go to see their future work.

• Very Interesting Prequel posted on 29 Jul 2009

  Hannibal Rising is a pretty good movie. If I was 15 years old today, meaning I had never seen Manhunter, or even Silence Of The Lambs, Hannibal or Red Dragon, I would say that this is a very decent horror movie come character study.If I have a few issues with it, they would be the following.Not enough of Hannibal's personality and his interaction with his sister, which was made the his motivating factor from Hannibal onward, were delved into as deeply as in the book. Hannibal's almost autistic focus on his senses, or his creation of memory palaces was not delved into at all, which is a shame. It needn't have lasted more than a minute, but it would have revealed a lot about the psychology that writer Thomas Harris created.Then, shooting the movie in England, when every low budget action movie heads straight for Eastern Europe, makes no sense. They could have achieved a much greater sense of authenticity if they had shot in the Baltics, and used Eastern European actors. The English accents of the actors immediately transport you back to the Hammer House Of Horror productions.Then, there was the mask, which he wasn't outfitted with until his transport in Silence Of The Lambs.On the plus side, there is the wonderful Gong Li, who has no problem portraying very strong female characters. Lady Murasaki seems as tough and, in her own way, twisted as Hannibal. She has the best line in the movie. When presented with a butcher's head and the police approach, she replies - "Quickly Hannibal, they will call it murder".Overall, if you are relatively unaware of the great movies that were Manhunter and Silence Of The Lambs, this is a pretty good movie when standing on it's own.

• Stunning Visuals, But A Disappointing Story posted on 21 Jul 2009

  As a fan of all the Hannibal Lector films, I was expecting another film I'd enjoy and thinking this would be a terrific character study of man who is one of the most famous fictional killers of all time. What I got instead was more of a simple revenge story than the character study. Oh, yeah, we do learn some background of the famous "Dr. Lector," but not enough of what really made him the weird combination of intellectual and cannibal.Although portraying and having someone in the film label the young adult as "monster," the filmmakers (actually, author Thomas Harris) really made him more of a sympathetic character instead. They took the easiest road, out, too, making an easy target the villains: the Nazis. How often has Hollywood done that, even today 60 years after the conclusion of WWII.What we get is a revenge story of how Lector went from a child captive of the Nazis for a short time, to a medical student in Paris and how he tracked down the Nazis who killed the rest of his family. Of particular incentive to him was the avenging of his sister's death. There is a neat little twist at the ending regarding that but I go into that for spoiler reasons.The best part of the film was the absolutely gorgeous cinematography. This is beautifully filmed, first frame to last. The story is much better in the second half than the first, which has a few parts in which it lags. I'm not quite sure about the credibility of having an Asian aunt raise him, but I also enjoy seeing actress Gong Li. Her relationship with young Hannibal is a strange one.Gaspard Ulliel as Hannibal was okay but certainly not as riveting in the role as the mature Anthony Hopkins was in his three performances. Why a young French actor, who has all the accents that Hopkins doesn't have, would play the role, I don't know. Overall, I'm glad I saw it but, unlike the three other Hopkins' "Lector films," this is one I won't add to my movie collection. However, at least I learned what the most tasty part of the human anatomy is, not that I would ever put that information to use!

• Don't compare Apples to Oranges. posted on 19 Jul 2009

  If you go into this move looking for Anthony Hopkins, you will be disappointed. But, if you go in looking for Hannibal Lechtor, you won't be. You can't compare this movie to any other Hannibal movie. Different time-period, different setting, different actors......My point is, the actor that played Hannibal did beautifully. It was very effective in scaring the ***** out of me! But, no, you can't compare Anthony Hopkins to Hanibal Rising. Totally different. And, yes, it was a total explanation as to why he turned out the way he did. I'm waiting for the next one.

• An unnecessary prequel. posted on 19 Jul 2009

  Ever wanted to know what made Hannibal Lecter into the man he is today? No, me neither.And that's the trouble with Hannibal Rising: it doesn't matter how good it might be (I repeat: MIGHT be), it basically tells a story that doesn't need to be told. Lecter, the sophisticated cannibal with a penchant for Chianti, is a monster who needs no back story in order for him to be frightening. In fact, demystifying the killer makes him a little less scary, which surely can't be a good thing for a horror film.The movie begins in war torn Lithuania, where a young Hannibal is forced to care for his sister Mischa after their parents are killed. However, when a band of unwelcome hungry war criminals decide to sit out the harsh winter in Hannibal's home, Hannibal finds he no longer needs to care for his sibling—because the nasty men use her as the main ingredient in a delicious and warming stew.Eight years later, a grown-up Hannibal (Gaspard Ulliel) is living with his tasty Japanese aunt Murasaki Shikibu (Gong Li) in France, when the opportunity arises for him to get even with the men who ate little Mischa.The first half of the film is awfully dull—a dreary biopic showing how the boy came to be all alone and emotionally damaged. The second half is slightly better, as the revenge plot gets into full swing and we actually feel like we're watching a movie, rather than The Biography Channel. But with little of the disturbing imagery, creepy atmosphere, and nasty gore that made the other Lecter films so enjoyable, and some seriously silly moments (Lecter foreshadowing the wearing of his iconic mask), and fairly large plot holes, Rising still only ends up as a mildly entertaining and instantly forgettable effort.

• so-so posted on 15 Jul 2009

  First off, i just want to say i hated this movie. The word "disappointment" doesn't do my feelings justice. For some reason, the whole first half of the movie reminded me a lot of Batman Begins. Think about it, a kid brutally looses his family, gains a mentor, gets revenge... the difference being people who go through things like that don't usually become a superhero, more likely a Hannibal. I don't feel like it stayed true to any of the other Hannibal movies. The story was weak and it dragged way more than it should have. To me, the best part about the other Hannibal movies(Silence of the lambs, and red dragon especially) was the suspense... the only suspense i had was when I found myself just waiting for the next gruesome murder just so something would happen(It would not have hurt to crank the kill count up a bit as well). The movie itself lacked the right aura... It was just another story of revenge. You end up almost feeling sorry for Hannibal. That being said, Gaspard Ulliel was absolutely amazing. They could not have found a better actor to play young Hannibal. He nailed the whole ruthless yet sophisticated, animal with class characteristic. He is pretty much the only thing that saves the movie.

• Nothing of quality is Rising here posted on 11 Jul 2009

  There are many instances in film history where actors become permanently related to a particular character. Johnny Weismuller was forever Tarzan, George Reeves became Superman, Bela Lugosi could rarely be thought of other than as Dracula. Typecasting, while not gone, is perhaps less prevalent today, but there are still actors who find themselves immediately recognized as a particular character. Anthony Hopkins in the role of Hannibal Lecter is one of those. While he was not the first actor to essay the part on screen (that was Brian Cox in 1986's Manhunter), he made the role inseparable from his visage with 1991's The Silence of the Lambs, and then furthered the connection with follow-ups Hannibal and Red Dragon (which was a remake of Manhunter). So, the thought of a film featuring the character of Hannibal Lecter without Hopkins in the role is immediately suspect, before anything else has been accomplished on the project. In the case of Hannibal Rising, the origin story of Hannibal Lecter, the filmmakers compound the lack of Hopkins' presence with the unfortunate reality of making an absolutely abysmal film in almost every capacity.The film, penned by novelist Thomas Harris who created the Hannibal character and has written all the novels featuring him to date, opens during World War II, as the Nazis are invading Lithuania, home of the Lecter family. They flee into hiding in the woods, but are eventually discovered by the invading forces and Hannibal's parents are killed in a accident near the hunting lodge they have taken refuge in. Shortly thereafter, a group of Lithuanian traitors who believed that the Nazi's would enlist them in the cause but eventually discovered otherwise , led by the brutal, immoral Grutas (Rhys Ifans), arrive at the hunting lodge and take Hannibal and his sister, Mischa, prisoner.Eventually, Hannibal emerges alone from the woods some time later with a chain around his neck and an unwillingness to speak. He is sent back to his family home, which, after the fall of the Nazi regime, has been transformed into a Russian school, where he grows to young manhood (in the guise of Gaspard Ulliel). He eventually escapes the school and arrives at the home of his Uncle's widow, Lady Murasaki (Gong Li), who takes him in and teaches him martial arts and various other exotic skills. Hannibal eventually enlists in Medical School in Paris, and has learned to begin taking his unhappiness and frustration out on others in the form of deadly, typically lethal, violence. Hannibal discovers that those who held him captive as a child are still alive and he plans to take revenge against them for the things that he begins remembering happened.Thomas Harris has never been a particularly prolific author, but most of his novels have been met with critical acclaim. With Hannibal Rising, he proves that his ability to write must be deteriorating quickly, and that he also has little real understanding of the character he created several years ago. Hannibal Rising, by design, is supposed to introduce us to the character and show how he came to be what he is later in life, but fails miserably at this task. The events which occur offer little or no insight into the character of Hannibal Lecter at all and suggest that his experiences during the war made him into a monster. Yet, it is difficult to believe that what occurs in Hannibal Rising would actually shape him into a killer of random individuals, as Hannibal is depicted later in life. This is a revenge tale, but how does taking out revenge on those who wronged you in the past transform you into a multiple murderer later in life against people who have nothing to do with the events that scarred you. Harris seems to be grasping at straws to create a backstory for Lecter where one isn't really necessary.Adding insult to injury, while Harris is busy damaging the character he created, lead Gaspard Ulliel is also turning in a terrible performance in the role of Hannibal. If we are to believe that Ulliel is attempting to mimic Anthony Hopkins' performance to some degree, then apparently Hannibal Lecter speaks slowly, with unnatural pauses inbetween words, draws out almost every syllable to an extraneous degree and sounds like he is reading words off a page in front of him. Ulliel's performance is uniformly bad, sounding like a man who is attempting to imitate what he believes to be sophisticated speech but just ends up looking ridiculous. Gong Li proves to be a little more adept with her English language dialogue than she was in Miami Vice, but hardly manages to impress in the role of Lady Murasaki. She is gorgeous to look at, but the film provides her with nothing to do.Hannibal Rising is competently photographed, including one eerie-looking scene in a room containing a pool filled with green liquid, the music score is present but doesn't really resonate, and that is about all that can be said that is positive about Hannibal Rising. The script is terrible, the lead actor equally so, and so eventually you find yourself just counting the minutes till the film is over, assuming you haven't turned it off yet. Unfortunately, no one's stature will be Rising who was associated with this dud.