Gary Oldman went uncredited on purpose, since he's playing someone without a face. Ebert was probably informed before he wrote his review.

Richard is so right, "Silence of the Lambs" was the BEST!!! The chemistry between Foster and Hopkins was immortal and just so beautiful

I like that even though they didn't like it, they didn't hate it. To them, the movie whether or not you compare it to the other film is just either not in the same class or doesn't stand as a movie that is mentally stimulating enough-even though they both seemed to think it was a fascinating visual experience despite those things. Sad that they couldn't pay lip service to Gary Oldman by name due to the legal issues at the time because as Mason Verger, he kills it in every scene he's in.

this film is very very underrated.

This wasn't the film's only issue, but the movie was doomed to fail when Jodie didn't reprise her role. She was the definitive Clarice just like Hopkins was the definitive Hannibal. It would be like recasting Iron Man, the Joker (for the Dark Knight series), or 90% of the characters in Lord of the Rings. All perfect castings and performances that could never be duplicated. Jodie was Clarice, and nobody else was going to be able to live up to the character and help do the movie justice.

R.I.P. Roger Ebert

Yeah. Hannibal was a fun movie, but there was no way it was going to compare to Silence with the script based on Thomas Harris’s book. As great as Julianne Moore is, there’s no way she could have matched the archetypal Clarice Jodie Foster performance. Also, because Starling is dealing with the PTSD fallout of Silence, she simply doesn’t have the same impact as in the original. I think the prequel, Red Dragon, was better than Hannibal.

I don't understand how people can read books with extremely detailed, nauseating descriptions of horrific gore and think that's fine but then they think it's tasteless and unnecessary when the movie version portrays less than half the gore that was in the book. They want a cleaned up comfortable version for the movie where everything is implied and left to the imagination, when the book is vivid and unrelenting in it's gory detail? Doesn't make sense to me.

Hannibal is not a sequel to Silence of the Lambs. It is a continuation of the characters. Clarice Starling is a different character in the novel so I bought into Julianne Moore's interpretation. Hannibal the novel/film is dark yet has moments of romance.

No Foster? No Demme? No thanks!!!

This is one of the rare times I don't agree with Ebert. This was an exceptional movie and sequel.

Those who read the book will understand the issue with this film; The novel is Dante and this film is a Grimm Fairy Tale. Unfortunately, most who complained about Hannibal had no respect for the original source material. They just wanted another thriller.

The book explains how Hannibal escapes, although, I agree: Too much gore!

You haven't been on in a while, but I'm going to try anyways. Since you uploaded this clip (and assuming you have this ep), is there any chance you can upload Michaela Perrirea's segment regarding the Oscar websites. A friend of mine is featured on there, and I'd love to surprise her by digging this up lol. Thanks!

Roeper ragging on Julianne Moore not being Jodie Foster is just absurd. I found Julianne just as fascinating, sexy, and wondrous as I did Foster in the original. They're both terrific in their own unique way. Anyway if I were to prepare evidence that Ebert had some very serious deficits and blind spots, this review would be exhibit B, right after his bone-headed reaction to Gladiator, also by Ridley Scott.

Gary Oldman was the reason to watch this.

Hannibal is no Silence of the Lambs, but for me I thought it was very romantic. The idea of lecter defending Clarice's honor, feeding that asshole his brains for thought lol! Then ultimately cutting off his own hand to escape awwww so beautiful to me!

Man I still can’t believe they did a scene in a movie where they eat and cut a human brain🤮 Also Ray liotta was really wasted in this movie and Julian Moore was REALLY miscast, she is a great actress, but not as a Clarice, 2:21 exaclty. And also Gary oldman character death in this movie was really disturbing, violent and disgusting

Not the same without siskel.

They are being too harsh. Hannibal is a good film. It's no silence of the lambs but it is still worth seeing

This is hardly as gory as they're making it seem.

I saw this movie before SOTL, and I thought SOTL would be just as terrible. Then I finally saw Silence Of The Lambs and loved it, and hated this movie even more.

It's clear that both of them did not read the book Hannibal, which is very different from the book Silence of the Lambs. Hannibal the film is close to the book but the book is more graphic.

the book was mind blowing. the movie was good

The novel Hannibal wasn't very good either, so the filmmakers really didn't have much to work with.

Wonder if Julianne Moore ever had any reaction to hearing "While being a good actress, she's no Jodie Foster."(paraphrasing)

to me Julianne Moore is the EXTREMELY poor man's Jodie Foster

I haven't seen this movie complete yet, but even though I've witnessed that infamous scene, I still can't believe such a respected crew, cast, writer and director would actually concieve the idea of someone eating his own brain on a high profile, major studio film. It's just too stupid.

Ebert hated said he hated Silence of the Lambs when he reviewed it! Now he's saying that Hannibal is not as good as movie as SOTL. Ridiculous.

You can just tell from the thumbnail what’s on Roeper’s mind 😳😳

One of my favorite movies. And EVERYONE I showed this movie to really liked it as well.

he passed away in 1999, Jeff

I remember after I first saw that movie, I thought "Man! That is so Effing cool!" Now I don't know how I could have thought that. Wait, yes I do; I thought that because I was very immature. Yes, the people Hannibal cut apart in this movie were very bad people themselves, but to cut his face off and paralyze him or to take his brain out is just horrific. It was beyond tasteless. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I agree with Ebert. Lecter's power as a character diminishes once he's out of his cell. IMO, the best part of Hannibal is Pazzi's storyline, mostly b/c of Giancarlo Giannini.

Where Can I Find The Review Of Saving Silverman

I always thought the point of the movie was to show Hannibal Lecter doing his work "in action" and to see how he ultimately felt about Clarice. The only reason i laughed sometimes was because of how over the top Lecter mocked and played with people's lives.

It pisses me off when critics talk down about movies because they're not exactly identical to the fantastic movie that preceded them....if I wanted to watch Silence of the Lambs, I'd watch Silence of the Lambs. I loved Hannibal for all the reasons they hated it, because it's completely different from Lambs in every way. These guys, who not only do a fantastic job of talking down about the movie and filmmaker, but the audience of Hannibal as well, just want a 'Silence of the Lambs 2.'

*starts laughing* With the thing and the brain....*still laughing*

Wow, an Ebert & Roeper Review that I actually (mostly) agree with! I did like the brain-eating scene though, only part of the whole film that I liked.

Ridley Scott amazing

@Kubrick101Fan Siskel hated Silence of the Lambs not Ebert...

The ending of the book was fine..why'd they have to change it for the film?

I haven't seen Pirates 4 yet, but from what I've read, it sounds like it had a similar problem that Hannibal had. Red Dragon and Silence weren't about catching Hannibal. They were about catching some other creepy psychopath. Hannibal was this interesting, scary, and darkly funny side character that made up the predominant relationship that drove the story. Pull him out of that, and he's off screen most of the time away from the protagonist, making lame jokes, and being not as scary.

How much times have changed , scenes like that are on regular TV like Walking Dead or/ and the Hannibal . I liked the book an the film , though I didn't buy Hopkins at His age could do the stuff He did . Mads Mikkelson is a very different Hannibal in the TV series an do enjoy His portrayal .

I honestly think Julianne Moore did a good job in this movie, the script just wasn't up to par with Silence Of The Lambs. If they'd gotten Ted Tally to write again, I don't think people would've been as harsh on her.

even though i do agree with ebert i have to say i still enjoyed the movie and there is a video explaining the plot holes

@martin43427 Actually I wouldn't consider that a valid reason. However there is a mistake from my part in accusing Ebert, as pointed out by another comment. It was Siskel who hated Silence of the Lambs in 1991, Ebert actually liked it.

@Kubrick101Fan You do realize that Silence of the Lambs was reviewed back in 1991, and now here's Ebert reviewing Hannibal in 2001. That's a lot of time where someone can change their mind on a film.

@Ashloomis I like Gary Oldman, but the character of Mason Verger was so much better in the book...my feeling about the whole movie actually...

@Bonkskey Gary Oldman's character

I actually quite liked Hannibal. I'd put it in third place after Silence of the lambs (I haven't seen Manhunter yet).

There are two reasons that Jodi Foster has confirmed, th one reason is that the character of Clarice went down a negative path in the novel and in the script and felt it was a portrayal to the character, the main reason though was that she got an opportunity to be in another film. Julianne Moore was brought in because Anthony Hopkins enjoyed working with her before and felt she'd due the part justice(I liked her in the role and felt she didn't try to force a Foster performance, but her own

I was very disappointed in this movie. I love Julianne Moore but she wasn’t Clarice for me. I remember an article about Jody Foster and why she chose not to reprise the character.....it was due to the way Clarice was portrayed at the end in the book. She said Clarice would never be with Lector.

Great review!

..........I've concluded- Hannibal is Not a sequel to Silence of the Lambs. Its best to forget about the style of Silence of the Lambs when watching Hannibal. It is its own story in itself. About Hannibal Lecter and his lifestyle & his own outlook on things including his violence. Hannibal is mainly a Romantic Drama / Thriller. It can be appreciated & understood that way. It is perfectly directed, and one of the most under-rated big movies of this century so far.

Gene Siskel gave Silence of the Lambs a thumbs down and said there was no chemistry between Hopkins and Jodie Foster. Wow

@seblasian I didn't . I dont find Lecter that scary in the movies. He would be scary in real life though.

This is such a howler, massive clunker of a movie. Ridley scott - the most wildly uneven director of all time??

That's not true. She was actually signed on to do Hannibal, but ended up pulling out due to repeated script changes that she was unhappy with. In fact, Anthony Hopkins almost pulled out for the same reason. I haven't even heard of this nightmare business you speak of.

liked hannibel but i admit slilence of the lambs is way better

funny how Ebert doesn't mention he panned Silence of the Lambs.

Its a lot to stomach just flipping thru the channels that's for sure lol

So true!Awful sequel to a classic film.

@johanlefourbe Haha, yes, that's who I meant. Don't ask.

@fireflyfan1 no that was siskel (RIP)

I think the movie (as you'd expect from Ridley scott) has alot of style and some great cinematic moments i.e the opera scene one of many.The reviewers mentioned the gore.Excuse me? The main character in the movie is a psycopathic evil psychiatrist who likes to chow down on people ! Bit unavoidable really. However the show stealing performance( mentioned as barely a whisper at the end) is GARY OLDMAN as Mason Verger.Brilliant. The scene where Ray Liottas scull cap is lifted is true shocking horror -just to remind you of who Lector is-lest you forget !

If you have ever asked yourself what the phrase "something parodying itself" then watch this movie. This is a parody of Silence of the Lambs, not a sequel.

to me silence of the lambs comes first ,RED DRAGON second and hannibal third just because of skull scene and boars killing men scene ,too gut wrenching ,but the rest was a brilliant movie .BTW i think tony hopkins did a better job in hannibal than the 2 others ,a top-notch performance .

I have watched & analysed Hannibal several times over the past 5+ years. After being unsure about it at first, it has actually become one of my favorite movies ever....................

Terminator 2 : Judgement day is best sequel ever made

@rad3xl That’s a good way of saying it.

@spas16 Not scary in the movies, but he would be in real life? Thats a weird notion. Obviously, no movie villian ever 'scares' you as they would in real life, the whole point is to imagine yourself in the position of whoever is dealing with them..

i don't get the hate! i really don't! this movie is sharp, it's entertaining, Anthony Hopkins kills it like he did before! i think Manhunter and Silence of the Lambs are better movies, but this is still pretty thrilling as it is! this leaves Lecter's story feeling incomplete is really my only true complaint! it's not perfect for that reason and because Julianne Moore does not hold a candle to Jodie Foster in any way! even like this movie better than i liked Red Dragon, which was still good too.

@KaijuKingGojira ah well even the greats get it wrong from time to time :)

@mrweyron123 I found it amusing. what of it?

@fireflyfan1 yeah i guess but i could only imagine his face when it won movie of the year

@knownpleasures Hands UP!

i like this film, it's not as good as silence of the lambs but it has it's own charm.

It’s sad. I think this film cost Ridley Scott the Oscar for Gladiator. Voters were turned off by this movie.

I liked this movie a lot.

wait where the hell is Siskil

I tried watching this movie but didn't get very far, not because it was too gory......it was too cheesy. The original was such a classic, I think it should've been left alone.

First time I've seen a Thumbs Down!

@Biscuitchris7again Guaranteed if they made Hannibal like silence of the lambs they would criticize it for being too much like the first. I respect their decision, but don't let it piss you off man.

I hated this movie, I wonder what Gene Siskel would think about Hannibal

obviously this is no Silence of the Lambs but it's not bad at all, I think this gets a bad rep cause people just compare it SotL, its a totally different movie not as subtle in many ways but that doesn't make it bad. Yeah its gruesome but its about a sociopathic murderer who eats people . . . American Psycho is just as gruesome if not more (especially the book) and people love that shit.

As for good scary moments.. dont tell me you didnt shit your pants when Lecter gave the Italian detective that look during the opera..

foster was better in lead this a decent filmthough silence is much better

To be fair; it's a big centrepiece in the book - they already scrapped the appalling fanfic ending, so to then scrap even this stupid scene would be "may aswell just not bother, but we have to"

good movie, even better book

Didn't Ebert thumbs down Lambs too?

@mrweyron123 Nostalgia Critic fan?

dont listen to these critics, hannibal is a great film!

I liked Hannibal more than Silence Of The Lambs.

i loved this movie, sure it would had been better to have Foster as Clarice but that was her fault and julianne did a fine job

Silence of the Lambs is better! I missed the Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins chemistry and Jodie Foster herself. :(

This was a spot on review...not a good film...they turned Lector into Jason

very good movie sure not as good as part one in many ways but still good and far from just a gore-fest

The Silence of The Lambs is so much better than Hannibal. I think Hannibal sucked. But just my opinion.

gary oldman should have gotten best supp actor for this. not even nominated. psh