--- title: "Hannibal: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/hannibal/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/hannibal" critics_score: 52 critics_reviews: 11 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Hannibal (2001): what the critics said Critics' score 52 from 11 reviews: 2 positive, 6 mixed, 3 negative. The reviews lean towards a mixed response to Hannibal, with praise clustering around its visual polish and performances rather than its storytelling. Anthony Hopkins’s Lecter remains a source of pleasure for several critics, who find his performance compelling or enjoy its playfulness; Julianne Moore also receives credit as Clarice Starling. The more favourable accounts find an engaging, stylish entertainment, even when the grotesque material threatens to become excessive. Reservations centre on weak suspense, sluggish pacing and plotting that fails to sustain interest. The spread is wide: RogerEbert.com finds style and strong performances enough to keep the film engaging, while The Guardian sees a tensionless sequel whose gore and camp overwhelm the drama. Hopkins himself divides opinion, with his playfulness reading as parody to some. Even among the more receptive reviews, enjoyment often comes with the caveat that this is a less compelling sequel to The Silence of the Lambs. ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Rating 3/4. 9 February 2001. Ebert finds the film stylish and engaging, though its grotesque material can be excessive. He singles out the performances as a strength. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/hannibal-2001) ## Variety — Todd McCarthy Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 4 February 2001. McCarthy finds the film engrossing and tantalizing, though less powerful and less consistently compelling than The Silence of the Lambs. He praises Anthony Hopkins’s riveting portrayal of Lecter, while faulting the more mechanical plotting after the story leaves Florence. [Read the review](https://variety.com/2001/film/reviews/hannibal-2-1200466959/) ## Screen Daily — Emanuel Levy Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 12 February 2001. The visible page does not reveal the critic’s verdict. It provides no praise or complaint because the review text is behind a paywall. [Read the review](https://www.screendaily.com/hannibal/404983.article) ## The New York Times — A.O. Scott Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 9 February 2001. The page is identifiable as a review of the film, but its text is inaccessible. The critic’s verdict and specific praise or complaint cannot be verified. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/09/movies/film-review-whetting-that-large-appetite-for-second-helpings.html) ## Time Out — GA Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). The available page identifies this as a review, but provides no accessible critical verdict. Its standfirst introduces Lecter as a sophisticated cannibalistic serial killer, without revealing what the critic praises or faults. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/hannibal) ## Radio Times — Jeremy Aspinall Rating 3/5. The review presents the sequel as a tongue-in-cheek continuation, with Julianne Moore giving a creditable performance as Clarice Starling. It notes the production’s troubled path to the screen and Anthony Hopkins’s playful return as Lecter. [Read the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-eumqsr/hannibal/) ## Total Film — Total Film Rating 3/5. 16 February 2001. The review finds Hannibal disappointing as a sequel but entertaining as an adaptation of the novel. It praises Anthony Hopkins’s performance while faulting the film for lacking suspense and a strong narrative thrust. [Read the review](https://www.gamesradar.com/hannibal-review/) ## The Guardian — Xan Brooks Fi1m's normalised score 15/100 (inferred from the text). 16 February 2001. Brooks finds the film a bloated, tensionless disappointment that turns Lecter into a parody of his former self. He briefly praises the Florence scenes for sparking to life, but says Moore is underused and the film’s gore and camp overwhelm its drama. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_review/0,,438460,00) ## Empire — Ian Nathan Fi1m's normalised score 10/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. Nathan finds the sequel inert, dull and a disappointing use of its central character. He faults its lack of atmosphere and thrills, while noting that Liotta and Oldman have fun in their roles. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/hannibal-review/) ## Den of Geek — Dave Adamson Rating 3/5. 8 September 2009. The critic finds Hannibal interesting but overly self-indulgent, and weaker than Silence or Red Dragon. They praise its attractive visuals and Hopkins’s performance, while faulting the mediocre script and slow pacing. [Read the review](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/hannibal-blu-ray-review/) ## Eye for Film — Angus Wolfe Murray Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 9 March 2001. The critic sees the sequel as a failure, with implausible story details undermining it despite Ridley Scott’s polished style. Julianne Moore’s performance is singled out for praise, while Anthony Hopkins’s Lecter is described as oddly comic. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/hannibal-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/hannibal.md