MovieChat Forums > Hannibal (2001) Discussion > Anthony Hopkins portrayal of Lecter in H...

Anthony Hopkins portrayal of Lecter in Hannibal is...

posted 8 years ago by Thoughtz
4 replies | jump to latest

I am a huge Anthony Hopkins fan, and I liked this movie, but one thing that I couldn't shake about 2001's Hannibal is that when I watch Silence of the Lambs. I see Anthony Hokpkins AS Hannibal Lecter, quite literally. The way he acts, talks, carries himself, etc.

But when I watch Hannibal, it seems like I'm just watching Anthony Hopkins at times. He is still great, but he doesn't seem like Hannibal as much to me as in the first film. Hard to describe what I mean, and maybe its because he is older, a little rounder, a little "lighter" in his delivery. Maybe it is the differences in age and weight between the two films.

Now, that isn't to say from time to time he wouldn't shine or have his moments. I would see Lector peering out in a certain look, or when delivering a line. But when I watched Silence of the lambs, Lecter seemed creepy. When I watch Hannibal, it seems like I'm watching likable Anthony Hopkins. Aside from the fleeting moments where he would be just as creepy, if not MORE creepy, they just wouldn't last and he would snap back to Anthony Hopkins as you might see him in an interview ABOUT the movie, where as in Silence of the Lambs...he was a Psychopathic, intelligent, serial killer Doctor named Hannibal Lecter.

Anyone else feel this way?

[–] ginalock 8 years ago

I didn't feel that way at all. But some of the scenes grossed me out. Especially when he slices out the man's brains and fries them while the man is still alive. We knew Lecter was like this from this first movie but we got to see him in action. I almost wish I hadn't.

[–] terrytsilvester 8 years ago

I feel like he was over acting in Red Dragon and Hannibal.

[–] TheMichael 8 years ago

The thing about Hannibal Lecter is that he's a man who shocked the world, (a bit because he traveled the world), when it was discovered he was a psychopath. He has AT LEAST one Ph.D, he was a teacher, a doctor, he had patients under his care, he had befriended those in high-society, hosted dinner parties. What makes Hannibal scary was that he was the psychopath that was not supposed to be a psychopath. He so carefully covered every impulse with charm and intellect, it's scary to imagine that the people we would trust the most would could kill us.

When Hopkins was playing Hannibal in The Silence of the Lambs, he was playing an animal in captivity. A man with nothing better to do than toy with anyone he sees. But notice at the end of the film how calm and sensible he is. He no longer wants something from Clarice, he has no reason to intimidate her any longer. He has his freedom back, his dignity. So in the movie Hannibal that's what we're seeing: we're seeing the free and dignified Dr. Lecter who alludes prison because that's his need: to fit into society, not to scare anyone like he would when he had nothing better to do in prison, but to lure people towards his charm.

[–] TerryRome01 8 years ago

I actually agree with you completely, Thoughtz. As weird as it sounds, Julianne Moore did a better job of being Clarice Starling, ten years later than Hopkins did with his portrayal. Forget about the entirely different actress playing the part in her case. To me, Hopkins' portrayal of Lecter seemed like a completely different person, really. In the end he seemed 'too normal' to me. One of the reasons why his brilliant turn in 'Silence' worked so well is the fact that he was deeply disturbed and completely insane person. In 'Hannibal', Hopkins gave us a perfectly sane and regular man who just happens to do some disturbing things to another people.