The guy who plays young Hannibal looks fucking creepy.

It's the main guy from A Very Long Engagement... lmao!!!

Well whatever...his smile makes my skin crawl.

C+

I'm torn. I think there's a good revenge story at play, but Thomas Harris is an awful screenwriter. The film drags for 45 minutes (how many flashbacks to Mischa's death do we need?) but picks up once Lecter develops his blood lust. Ulliel is better than I expected him to be, and I could by this guy growing into the Hopkins character. There's a scene where he courts the daughter of a Nazi in a restaurant that just sells "Yep, he's Lecter" to me.

But it's still horribly paced and it needs a new ending.

I'm in complete agreement about the flashbacks. About half a dozen too many. The score was awful and destroyed the atmosphere of the film, which was seriously lacking in the first half. Speaking of the first half, the entire youth aspect was realized rather insipidly - it drags and doesn't mold any of the characters into compelling players. A heavy dose of editing would have served the flow of the film and better preserved the patience of the viewer.

One review I read online said that the picture sort of destroys the mystery behind Lecter's character by humanizing him, and I agree to a point. It wasn't until the end of the film that I believed a monster was on screen thanks to sloppy, sloppy writing. The screenplay is riddled with unintentionally funny quips and awfully huge cliches. If the characters aren't lifeless and flat, they are oozing with silly, tired characterizations - the main "baddie" is an abusive, cannibalistic pimp. There existed the chance to create a compelling picture here - something with a focus on the characters, not a detached 90-minute look into a loose collection of events that "molded a monster". The picture briefly dwells on the pasts of Inspector Pope and Lady Shikibu to add some meat to their characters, but misses a great opportunity to link them to Lecter (who experienced similar tragedy as a child) and create a compelling, human drama like Lambs.... Instead of moving the viewer, the screenplay leaves us with missed opportunities and mostly ham-fisted characterizations.

Clearly, Rising stands as the weakest picture in the series. It isn't without some merit- it can be beautiful to watch, Gong Li is always a pleasure (as is most of the cast, actually - I won't praise the acting, but it was adequate), and there are some genuinely intriguing exchanges between Lecter and his victims (the scene in the cafe with the young girl was wonderful). It isn't a complete waste, but Harris' second prequel would have been better off left only in print. If the beginning of the picture would have been cleaned up, it could have been salvaged. As it stands, it's pure mediocrity and a sad example of a studio milking the cash cow...

D+

I think a rewrite by a real screenwriter and some judicious editing could've made this a very good film. Alas. Also, the ending is just awful.

"I'm here to pick up a head."

I think that suave remark was the film's last. So yeah, it was an awful.

I'm hesitant to say there is a very good film here. I feel as if they are so far off the mark with the screenplay, giving them any credit is unfair.

I liked the film as a whole. It does drag at times and the lead takes a little while to really get into character, but once he does it's very easy to see him becoming the Hannibal we all know and love to hate. The film is also fairly gory, which is a plus. Also, my showing was darn near sold out which is good news.

Grade - B

Though I haven't seen it, I thought making the villian a cannibal was a mistake.
Lecter as a monster needs to be the fiercest, but now he's merely a copycat cannibal.
I think the villians should have been troops holding up in the family mansion,
that Lecter and Misha should have been hiding in their own home in the chambermaid passageways with stored food under the nose of the rationed troops,
that Misha should have been discovered after crying aloud in her sleep for her dead parents while Hannibal hasn't told her that they are dead,
and that the villian as a captain and his troops decide that there must be others hiding in the house taking care of this little girl that may also be watching them, so they attempt to draw out the hidden occupants by playing a joke of fake cannibalism with the girl on the kitchen counter with an out-of-view can of ham in the open doorway while laughing and giggling and by actually killing her prior to the staged "feast".

Lecter needs to be the one who does the things that his enemies consider to be unthinkable.

My exact thoughts, plus the fact that it DRAGGED like there was no tomorrow. I did like one or two of the kills, but as I walked out of this film, I just... really could not let myself compare the Hannibal series to this trash. D+

Ouch! When Zing gives a movie a D, you KNOW it's gotta be bottom of the barrel stuff.

I'm really starting to wonder if I should even bother with this tomorrow afternoon.

I'm surprised, there were two explosions in this movie. That usually at least equals a B.

I actually counted three. Where's the A grade, Zingy?

As for my take.... nice looking garbage.

*/****

As I was watching the film, I actually didn't think it was that bad. Then as I was walking out, I remembered it was supposed to be a Hannibal Lecter film. Unless there are a couple of more sequels coming down the pipeline, where was the Lecter we all know and love? Is he bloodthirsty? Yes. Vengeful? Check. Psychotic? Kind of, I guess. That's the problem. With the Hopkins films, all you had to do was look at him and you know he's nuts. Incredibly brilliant, but batshit crazy. Even from a jail cell, he was always scheming and two steps ahead of everyone else. In "Rising" there are brief flashes of it, but it's not consistent. In this, the only time I thought he was insane was the look he gives to the boy right before he stabs him in the palm. That's it though. Maybe it's supposed to be like that if there is another film, but if this is supposed to be the lead into Red Dragon, it doesn't work.

And did they actually set it up so that we are supposed to side with Lecter? Really? He's supposed to be a psychotic cannibal, not someone we can relate to.

All of this aside, the film is not awful. It's just not a Hannibal Lecter film. It's a good drama with a couple of grizzly deaths, and some decent performances. Gaspard Ulliel has Lecter down as provided in the screenplay. He has that stare like Hopkins did - though not much more. As for the grizzly deaths, there are what - two? Now I know this isn't really the point in a Lecter film, but come on.

C - A missed opportunity.

I disagree with the majority. I thought Hannibal Rising was an extremely well-made, suspenseful film. Gaspard Ulliel and Gong Li were both great, and the cinematography was perfectly atmospheric and oft-stunning. I prefer Red Dragon and The Silence of the Lambs, but would say this is superior to Hannibal and Manhunter. A-.

I'd love to see a sequel with Ulliel returning.

The explosions were totally weak. Totally. Not enough worth a C. The only people in the last explosion were already dead. That's no fun.

You really have to write up a Zingy Explosion to Grade chart

Example

A+ = Nuclear device going off in the middle of a carnival near a bed where there is a massive orgy in progress while the President is giving an address close by.
F = A massive bomb turning out to have nothing more then a non-explosive gas which renders its victims slightly giddy while kids play with poppers in the next room.

Hannibal Begins

Boring first hour but at least it did begin to get interesting towards the middle act of the movie. However I cant help but think they borrowed a little too much from Batman Begins because of Gong Li training Hannibal Lecter in the ways of the sword and japanese ancestry. The drama did work pretty well in some parts of the film

C+

Dull, uninteresting and often unintentionally hilarious, Hannibal Rising is a real insult to true fans of the franchise. Gaspard Ulleil gives an atrocious performance and proceeds to ruin a classic movie character. A low D+

What a piece of crap. Ulliel was miscast and really bad. D-

I think that the less of a fan you are of the Lecter series, the more you might enjoy this. Myself, I actually haven't seen Red Dragon or Hannibal, and still have yet to see the last 20 minutes of Silence of the Lambs. So, being able to see the film as an individual being and not being inconsistent with such a memorable villian, I was engaged throughout, although the last 15 minutes weren't great, and the final few scenes... Ugh. B-

I'm sure you would love Hannibal.

HANNIBAL RISING - 7/10 (B-)

It's well-made and doesn't feel like a cheap cash-in like Red Dragon did. I thought this would seem like one from the previews, but it's a worthy enough addition to the series. The only real problem is that it has too much time where it drags. It starts off well, and then gets dull and doesn't get good again until he starts to exact revenge. I actually liked and felt sympathy for the character too. What happened to his little sister was terrible and disturbing and his actions were completely justified.

It's not a movie I'd bother watching again, but it was solid. The cinematography was great and Gaspard Ulliel gave a decent performance. I wasn't crazy about him in it at first because of the way he spoke, which felt fake to me, but as the movie went on he grew on me.

Red Dragon was so superior. There was EFFORT there.

I'm appalled that you'd say that and then grade this higher. Apparently you haven't seen any of the other films in the series....