I've made it clear on several occasions that I don't think The Silence of the Lambs is all it's cracked up to be. That said, I walked into Ridley Scott's (Gladiator) film with certain preconceived notions about what I'd think of it. Now, I don't care what other critics tell you about being able to walk into a movie without any bias one way or the other. The moment you see a preview, or read one review, or even read the cast list, you form an opinion about the movie. It might be an unconscious decision, but it's human nature to form impressions about something before we've experienced it. Alright, enough with the shallow philosophical musings, and on to why I don't think Hannibal was much of a film. What surprised me about halfway through the proceedings was the absence of any real suspense. It became quite obvious what was going to happen to each character who appeared on screen, so when that character found himself in a desperate situation, the tension was killed. Of course, that wasn't the only thing that set the film back, but it's one of the larger problems to be found.

I might not have cared for The Silence of the Lambs, but it was hard to deny that the acting was superb. Anthony Hopkins went a long way in defining creepy in terms of movie serial killers; and Jodie Foster was an outstanding choice for a young, naive FBI agent. Things are a little different this time around. Hopkins is still fun to watch as Lecter, and it's obvious he's having a good time, but the character's menace is gone. In its place we get a few chuckles (pitch black though the humor may be), one or two startles, and a touch of gore. As for Julianne Moore, marvelous in some endeavors (The Big Lebowski), useless in others (Magnolia, not that that's her fault), she falls somewhere in the middle this time around. This isn't exactly her fault for two reasons: one, the character of Clarice Starling is woefully underwritten this time around (strange, since she was somehow overwritten last time); two, Julianne Moore may be a fairly talented actress, but she's no Jodie Foster, and comparisons, unfair or not, are going to be drawn. The only other actors with any screen time are the excellent Giancarlo Giannini (A Walk in the Clouds), who leaves quite an impression with a small role; and the sleepwalking Ray Liotta (Goodfellas), who is given a hideous role, and it's obvious he knows it. Tempted as I am to tell you who the actor playing Mason Verger is, I won't since his name isn't mentioned in the credits. Let's just say this actor does an outstanding job, as always.

What is it that made The Silence of the Lambs work for so many people? Since I'm not a member of that group I can only venture a guess, but I'm willing to bet a lot of the film's appeal is due to the interaction between Lecter and Starling. People would sit there, fascinated at this game of cat and mouse; watching the brilliant Lecter at first toy with Starling from behind his glass prison, and then slowly begin to regard her as an equal. Obviously, I didn't find any of this too fascinating, but I can understand why many people did. These same people will probably be disappointed to find that this interaction between Lecter and Starling is absent from Hannibal. In fact, the two don't speak to each other till about halfway through the film. Otherwise the focus of the film is generally split between the vaguely interesting story of Pazzi's attempts to capture Lecter, and the exceedingly uninteresting story of Starling being hung out to dry by her colleagues. Unfortunately, the film's trailers pretty well give away what will happen in Pazzi's story, and Starling's story contains nothing even resembling tension. I wish I could say things improved once Starling and Lecter meet up, but their game of cat and mouse has been turned into a cutesy (if moderately disturbing) string of flirtations.

With a director like Ridley Scott behind the wheel, some things are bound to work. The shots of Italy and the cinematography in general by John Mathieson (Gladiator) are quite nice. Despite what you may have heard about this being the goriest film of all time, Scott shows remarkable restraint with the gore, and I can only think of three scenes which might really disturb audiences. Otherwise Scott wisely chooses to shoot what could be the goriest scenes in a hazy, obscured way so as not to turn too many stomachs. On the whole, Scott's direction is efficient and suitable to the film. He only gives in to Oliver Stone syndrome once or twice, jumping suddenly to slow motion, fast motion, or something similarly juvenile. He also makes excellent use of yet another brilliant score by Hans Zimmer (Gladiator, noticing a trend here?). Zimmer's score is low and remarkably creepy, perfectly highlighting the film's darkened mood. Hannibal runs a touch too long at 131 minutes. I'd recommend anyone who enjoyed the first film, and doesn't mind some stomach turning gore, see the film. Just don't go in with your expectations too high. I give the movie three out of five stars.