SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Eric Stevenson I am now glad to say that I have seen every Hannibal movie ever made. I guess "Hannibal" is the name of the franchise. This is easily the worst of all these movies and it's so bad even fans of the series hate it. Well, I guess especially fans. This movie starts off by showing Hannibal's origin with how his parents were killed in a crossfire with Nazis. Seems like every origin story involves Nazis nowadays.His sister gets eaten and he goes on to avenge his sister by training with this woman where he learns how to swordfight. Yeah, the movie suddenly turns into "Batman Begins", a weird situation for Hannibal Lecter. The villains in this movie are so pathetic and unentertaining. This series was known for having some really cool villains, even Mason Verger from the supbar "Hannibal". This movie is stretched out over two hours as well. For me, it's just a waste of time. *1/2

Kirpianuscus I saw this film for Gaspard Ulliel. and it is far to be a disappointment. in same measure, it is a reasonable and decent explanation for the beginning of Hannibal Lecter story. and, not the last, it is an interesting challenge for the viewer. I see it as an autonomous part. it gives explanations but it is not in competition with the other parts of series. because it reminds a form of Romanticism , near to the dark horror stories, who gives to it force and special characteristics. story of survive and revenge, using, like the novel, crumbs from the XX century cruel history, it is one of films defined by a form of flavor who resurrect an entire page of the recent past.the sin- maybe the dialogues. and the impression of sketches for the characters. but, it is a decent film. and this could be the only significant thing.

mistoppi I've been wanting to see Silence of the Lambs and all the other movies again, but I decided to start with Hannibal Rising. Not because of chronological order, but mostly because Hannibal Rising feels so separate from them all. Mostly because Hannibal Lecter in this movie doesn't seem like Hannibal Lecter at all. That's mostly because in Silence of the Lambs (if I recall correctly) Starling asked Lecter why he is the way he is, what happened to him. Lecter replies with "Nothing happened to me. I happened." So everything that Hannibal Rising kind of nullifies that answer completely, thus changing Lecter's character far too much in my taste.This is why I wanted to watch this movie separately, to distance it from the others. It's more like a film about someone else named Hannibal Lecter than the same person. You can see Thomas Harris's skillful writing in the way how history is very present in the story. Not just as in "Harris definitely did his research" but like the war is present in everyone's and it comes up a lot, but that feels natural instead of like throwing in tragic backstories for everyone. But also there's less skillful writing present, inconsistencies in Hannibal's nature. Manners and respect are always important to Hannibal, and he murders a man just because he was rude to lady Murasaki, but he still kind of respects lady Murasaki's ancestors by using their sword, even though lady Murasaki explains she can only touch it once a year to clean it. So where's the line?Even if Hannibal in this movie doesn't feel like Hannibal, Gaspard Ulliel still makes an excellent performance. He has clearly watched sir Anthony Hopkins closely to get the same kind of manners, but also he's talented enough to not get too concerned with sir Hopkins' iconic portrayal. There's also something about the pace of the movie I don't like, mostly because of the beginning and Hannibal and Mischa as kids, however I'm not certain how I would fix that. Visually of course this movie is stunning, and they aren't too frugal with the amount of blood and gore. Violence feels more present in the other movies compared to this one. Hannibal Rising is a decent movie, and it could be good, but it feels all too distant compared to all the others. Something is missing, yet there's something new and intriguing. That would be good if it really felt the same.

view_and_review I avoided this movie for years. After seeing "Hannibal" I had no interest in seeing how he became the monster he was. Alas, an Amazon Prime membership and down time at work drove me to "Hannibal Rising." I learned that I have a far greater affinity for young Hannibal than old Hannibal. Young Hannibal grew up in WW2 Europe. He went from affluence to fighting for his life due to the war. One particularly tragic event forever changed him.The actor chosen for Hannibal (Gaspard Ulliel) was excellent. He even had a sinister looking face the way the corners of his mouth curve upward in a Joker-esque manner made him able to sneer with ease. His acting left a little to be desired as his accent (or simply his manner of speaking) seemed forced. Also there was the dialog between him and Lady Murasaki (Li Gong). They constantly spoke in hushed romantic tones as if every word they exchanged was secretive or passionate. It came off as pretentious and grandiose as though they were the two most important or two most passionate people in the world.If we were to boil it all down, "Hannibal Rising" was a revenge story. Some people are fueled by love, some by hate, others by both. Hannibal was definitely fueled by both and it was his inability or unwillingness to not cross the line that made him Hannibal the cannibal.