User reviews

I don't put this in the same category as the 3 previous films with Hopkins (counting Manhunter out completely,, even though it is a very good film). This movie is another animal altogether. Not only bc this has a young actor playing a young Lecter,, but bc this is the origin story,, how he became the monster. This movie shows so many new sides to the character. A helpless child,, a traumatized teen,, a deranged young man trying to put his memories together to exact his revenge,,, and also, love. His love for the sister he lost, and also his widowed aunt.

If you are a fan of the Hopkins trilogy,, then you must see this,,,

Like come on, sure it's not silence of the lambs, but nominated for worst sequel/horror movie, that's just dumb. Snobby reviewers who can't judge a movie on its own merits, only a comparison to one of the greatest thrillers ever made. Of course any other Hannibal stories won't compare, doesn't mean they are aweful. This is an interesting tale of revenge that setups the character. Worth the watch if you enjoy the Hannibal movies.

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.

I went to a free screening of this movie tonight, Thursday December 12, 2006 at the mall cause they gave out free passes at my work across the street.

I wont give really much away...but the movie itself was great. Great locations, great acting--especially by Gaspard Ulliel as Hannibal. I swear his acting was so good that it was scary and near perfect as the demented Hannibal Lechter.

The story about how he came to be was great also starting with his youth during WW2 in 1944. And 8 years later, the main plot line unfolds showing him becoming a medical school student in France where he begins to learn of the many body parts that make a human work.

All in All this movie is a delectable revenge type movie with scary, dark bad guys and many gruesome deaths.

*two thumbs up*

Designed as a prequel to SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (and MANHUNTER before it), this is a film that aims to show how Hannibal Lecter ended up as the human cannibal that we all know and fear. Many people criticised this film, arguing that familiarity breeds contempt and the more we learn about a killer's background and origin, the less frightening he becomes. They have a point, but they're also missing something: HANNIBAL RISING is a very well made and entertaining movie in its own right. My advice is to forget all about the connections with the later films and just enjoy this film on its own merits.

It's a distinctly European film with a European sensibility and a young, French, unknown lead actor. It has a level of classiness that's not present in many an American film; a sheen of quality that sets it apart from the rest. The opening sequence, set in the latter days of World War 2 and detailing horrific events in Lithuania, is very well handled, full of foreboding, great effects, and sinister actions. It ably sets up the rest of the film, which turns out to be a revenge flick with the added intrigue of having the main character becoming more and more sick and twisted as the movie progresses.

One thing that stands out is the quality of the cast. The unknown Gaspard Ulliel is weird and brilliant as the young killer, and you quite believe he's a sociopath. There's a romantic sub-plot that goes nowhere involving the lovely Gong Li (CURSE OF THE GOLDEN FLOWER) but it does serve to humanise the monster a bit. The ever-reliable Dominic West is also very good as the policeman investigating Hannibal's crimes, although his role is completely extraneous to the thrust of the film. The bad guys, too, are very well cast and all of them thoroughly despicable chaps: Kevin McKidd, Richard Brake, and in particular a cast-against-type Rhys Ifans all make an impact here.

The violence that plays out is entertaining because the villains all deserve it: from the butcher slashed apart with a samurai sword to the guy strangled and eaten, these men are repulsive and their deaths well earned. Another highlight is that the film doesn't focus on the gore, either, not in a repulsive way like HANNIBAL; there's nothing stomach churning here. The cannibalism ends up as a sub-plot, really, not involved with the main film, but that didn't bother me too much. I enjoyed the pacing, the acting and the direction, and found all three of those elements assured and designed to entertain.

I've heard a lot of reviews saying this was a bad movie. I disagree! I don't know if any of these people have read any of the books, let alone Hannibal Rising, but I loved the movie. Given, it seemed like Thomas Harris wrote the book strictly for the movie, but I felt this movie was made to have people understand how Lecter, "the monster" was created.

Yes, Lecter is irrational and that's the point. Hannibal Lecter is suppose to be distant because he's a psychopath. He's suppose to be apathetic. Some people mistook that for bad acting.

Comparing the movie to the book...they were about 85% compatible. Minor changes were made, but nothing too critical.

I think some people are quick to make this movie out to be horrible because they really are milking the Hannibal Lecter story, but I felt it to be a decent movie.

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!

Hannibal Rising is a dark and thrilling grand guignol excursion into the formative (but still plenty brutal) years of the infamous Hannibal Lecter. Considering the amount of psychological material the film would appear to have to get through, I think it definitely errs on the side of briskness. In a broad sense, many important sequences are played out and edited very quickly, and this saps them of some of their resonance, but the mood does gradually coalesce into something followers of the prior films and novels will recognise, and will be rewarded in revisiting.

The teen-adult Hannibal as played by Gaspard Ulliel is pale and handsome, and his red slash of a mouth is always very much in evidence, signalling violence and malice, and reminding us of the flesh that we know will come to pass through it. After surviving some murky carnage on the Eastern Front during World War II, he eventually seeks out remaining family in the form of his widowed aunt in France (Gong Li). He begins to open to a more regular life under her curious guidance, but the post-war environment is conducive to grudges and violence, and these are the sparks that are quickest to ignite in Lecter. Direction in this all-too-brief part of the film is some of its best, as it visually and thematically stitches together Hannibal's fascinations so that we can feel them wrap around each other - blood, violence, his own incestual leanings towards his aunt, and his childhood bond with his late sister, Mischa.

After the first murder, though, (which definitely doesn't disappoint) it's a straighter ride through many more on the path of vengeance. It all makes for a fine thriller, but development in Lecter's character beyond this point is harder to read, and Ulliel's performance offers much relish but not-so-much variation. Of the other films in the series, this one has the most in common, stylistically and in subject matter, with Hannibal. As my friend also suggested when we left the cinema, I still feel there could easily be another film out there to deal with Hannibal practising as a psychiatrist and murdering folks on the side, pre-Silence Of The Lambs. This one offers the concrete details of his origins within a thrilling story, but somehow doesn't feel as deep or profound as I'd hoped it would - and I wish it would just relax and offer some longer scenes and more ambiguous moments at times. Nevertheless, Hannibal Rising is a strong film.

Strange opus with a rather complex feedback: I really like certain aspects of the film while others bother me. First of all, I think it's a critical mistake to explain the origins of an imaginary evil character. Indeed, it's always better to confine a reader or a spectator to the darkness so that he's always able to imagine the worst. Moreover, in doing so, we find ourselves in a rather embarrassing situation of being in empathy with Hannibal Lecter: failing to be forgivable, a revenge is always understandable. Despite this rather negative introduction, the actors are excellent including the enigmatic Gaspard Ulliel and the gorgeous Gong Li, and the film enjoys a particularly neat photography.

It's not perfect and the script is a little cheesy but all in all entertaining andca decent origin movie

I just saw the film at prepremiere in Bern Switzerland.First of all i read the book and my expectations was huge.I prayed to god not to be disappointed.And i can say no i am not.Although Thomas Harris did a screenplay for this film as well as he wrote the book , some things are not the same in the film like in the book ,and some are missing.Hope missing things are left for the DVD extended edition.Those things can offend some Lecter huge fans as i am too.But this were just several not sooo important things for understanding the film.All in all the film is true to book in all important things and events.I understand too that filmmakers can not integrate all events from book in film cause it would be too long.Gaspard Ulliel plays Hannibal Lecter mostly wery well.What i found slightly negative is ,just maybe,a little bit over the top.That means in some important scenes like murders his face and his art to play Hannibal is very wild.But clear is : after those traumas he had to live with no one can guarantee to stay normal or calm.Man can really see how he enjoy the act of revenge.You can really see it on his face.Those savage deserters that killed his sister really deserve same savage deaths like they did in their past.There are a lot gruesome deaths and images in this movie , what was to expect from a Lecter movie.A lot more than in any Lecter movie before.Some would say :now is a Lecter Mystery over.He is no longer a mystery to us like he was.But no.I would say: this film had to be made as book had to be written.No we understand why he is like he is.Although in this part of life he is still very young , can not always keep his feelings hidden.He is a Young Wild that becomes a Madman cause of his trauma from his childhood that never leave him in peace.For him all of his later victims remaining him of those Deserteurs .One more book and one more film has to be made where he would be explained a little further.His genius , his loving for art , fine things , his life as young doctor in Baltimore , America.He told once to Clarice that lambs are now still and silent but they will not always remain still , they will scream again.So his trauma will always stay with him , his whole life. Go and see the movie , you will not be disappointed.

I first watched Hannibal Rising at the cinemas when it was released and found it refreshing.

I would have seen it about three times now, and it still manages to grasp some very unsettling moments and distinctive on-screen deaths that hadn't been seen before.

The story itself is about the upbringing of Hannibal Lector. And how he subtly changes into the monster we all know too well. His story Is cruel and brutal so you feel compassion for the antihero, and can accept most of the horrible things he does for revenge.

There isn't much in the way of twists and turns but the film does deliver some nice easter eggs to fans of the previous titles such as Silence of the Lambs.

Gaspard Ulliel was brilliant. A young actor who delivered a very unnerving but calculated character. There were moments when the young man spoke that gave me the chills. I would love to see him in similar roles.

Overall a very honest and respectable prequel to the other Hannibal films. I found the scenery easy on the eye, and that the story moved forward at a good pace. Even if you haven't seen any of the other Hannibal movies this could pass as a stand-alone film.

7/10.

In the sole Oscar-grabbing horror epic "The Silence of the Lambs" Hannibal Lector was presented to us intelligently and sparsely in fleeting glimpses – covered in masks, behind bars and in the shadow. In "Hannibal Rising", he inhabits every single scene. This is his warped, twisted bildungsroman, his revenge story, and his background history. In short, the only things "Hannibal" shares with "Lambs" is its name.

It is one cash-cow of a name, too. Every frame in the film is milked its worth of Hannibal's evil nature, without much subtlety. Sure, there have clearly been half-hearted attempts to establish the kind of high-brow horror that Lambs achieved, but the film reeks of b-quality and unimaginative grotesqueness. There are only faint, dimmed traces of horror or genuine suspense, often washed away by pedestrian set-ups that make fans of the genre nod with tired recognition. For example, the dialogue feels unforgivably staged. In fact, there is no real exchange between the characters, only plot-propelling lines or rehearsed wisdom that slip through in between the torture games. But what is probably worse is that "Hannibal" never tips over nearly far enough or often enough into enjoyably hammy territory. It has absolutely no self-distance, the kind of spark in the eye of Anthony Hopkins, or any form of a sense of humour.

Onto casting, Gaspard Ulliel is clearly not a bad performer, nor is anyone's acting truly the root of the film's problems. However, Ulliel's gaze isn't the piercing, wise, twisted trademark look of Hopkins as Lector, but rather the sleazy eye of a teenage boy ogling a girl on the street. To add insult to injury, he is confident in a way that is much too cocky for Lector, who should rely on a sort of inherent calm and confidence that is only displayed subtly through his eyes. I will concede that a couple of scenes aptly showcases his acting skills though, such as the mental breakdown scene toward the end of the film. Rhys Ifans, a charming Welshman usually relegated to good-guy characters, gets his freak on in unnecessarily sinister ways. He has "the eyes of an arctic wolf" and throughout the film he shouts, murders, loots, rapes and generally acts badass to instill the 'baddie' image in his character. Which is clearly preaching to the choir given his opening crime – what prompts Lector's revenge. Nevertheless, nothing Ifans does is all bad, and again, acting is never the problem.

The fundamental problem is my titular assessment. It can stand repeating: the more we know about the monster, the less scary he becomes. I would not go as far as to say the story victimizes Hannibal, but here he inhabits the protagonist slot and elicits sympathy of sorts accordingly. Do we root for him? Not exactly. Do we wish he'd get caught? Not really. There are plenty of gray zones in the film -- perhaps intentional, perhaps not -- that have the cumulative effect of not really achieving anything tangible. Toward the end you almost feel a bit 'meh' about the whole story, and the not-hero-but-not-villain slot inhabited by Hannibal causes a stance of indifference toward his action, however outlandish they are.

5.5 out of 10

Truly disturbing and succeeds in making you understand why Hannibal Lecter turned out to be the person he became. Not justified, but understandable. Don't leave this out when revisiting the other movies.

This film left me conflicted. I'll say no more than that. I refuse to provide spoilers. I thought it was a quite good origin story. The acting ebbed and flowed along with the script. I didn't feel the crescendos peaked enough. The story was fascinating. Thomas Harris wrote the screenplay and I haven't read the novel. Perhaps unlike Hannibal where, in my opinion, one of the most interesting and pivotal characters from the novel never made it to the screen, this is what the novel is. At any rate, I was drawn in and committed to the movie from the first 20 minutes and not disappointed.

Contrary to a lot of other comments on this board I thought this was a great film. And having just finished the book beforehand it met all my expectations no problem. Ulliel looked very menacing as the anti-hero Lecter but charming at times as well, just as Hannibal should be and he is backed up by a strong supporting cast (Rhys Ifans in particular).

There are nice references to The Silence of the Lambs the Samurai's face mask that Hannibal tries on resembling the mask worn in SOTL and the music that he listens to in his room at the medical school which is the same as he has playing in his cell in Baltimore.

I was hooked from start to finish and would recommend this film to anyone.

I've just seen this film ... Well, good things first. This film is well made, with attention to details, no stupid goofs, actors performance didn't make me uneasy for the most part. I'm from Lithuania myself, and Lithuania was displayed quite truthfully - thanks, Hollywood.

Now bad things ... I think that they bother me because I've seen the original Hannibal movie, and was expecting something else. But anyway:

1) First, I didn't like the idea of making a pervert serial killer a kind of positive hero, or martyr. Hey, Hollywood, you want youngsters to admire serial killers and try to be like them? You'll get it. The love story of Hannibal also fits here.

2) Second, the idea of making Hannibal a kind of samurai sword fighter is, IMHO, absolutely out of place here. I understand that sword fighting looks cool by itself, but we are making a good old western serial killer movie here, or don't we?

3) And, finally, the performance of the main hero. The Hannibal is very evil person, but he had personality, charisma. And conversion from normal person to a maniac seems a good place to demonstrate passions, emotions, TO ACT. This Hannibal spent all the film with the same blank face - he's the real killer ... of the movie.

To sum it up - a well done movie for teenagers, who want to see some cool action, some maniacs, some blood and killin' and don't pay attention to the actors performance (unless it is really bad) and the ideas of the film. And, of course, who never saw the original.

However, if You expect from this movie something similar to the original, just don't waste your time. Imagine a mix of samurai movie, teenage maniac thriller and love story, all with a good budget - You'll get the idea.