(February 28, 2001) — In 1981, Thomas Harris wrote a book that introduced one of the most sinister, maniacal, deadly, yet charming and sophisticated men of all time. Just over ten years ago, a movie was released that showed viewers this monster, first hand. Now another film is out, continuing this twenty year long legacy of evil. And it definitely lives up to the hype. “Hannibal” is an extremely entertaining and at the same time gut-wrenchingly disturbing movie. Picking up with Hannibal Lecter living in Florence, Italy, this film is quite an experience. With a beautifully diverse cast, marvelous locales and stunning visuals, it makes for the ideal movie going experience. That is, if you have the stomach for it. “Hannibal” is immensely violent and graphic and most surely not for the weak of heart. If you are at all upset by blood and gore, avoid “Hannibal” as you would the man himself. But for those who can handle it, it will be a movie you won’t soon forget. While the film has many plot points, the main one involves the only one of Hannibal Lecter’s first victims who survived. He is a rich and cunning man named Mason Verger (Gary Oldman), who is confined to a wheelchair after being brutally maimed by the good doctor and a couple of guard dogs. Not to mention having most his face torn off. The back-flash sequence which displays this personifies “ick” to a tee. Mason has just received word of Lecter’s current whereabouts. He dispatches some goons to kidnap Hannibal and bring him to Verger’s Estate in Virginia where he will torture and finally kill Lecter in one of the most cleverly gruesome ways ever written. Anthony Hopkins reprises his role as “The Cannibal,” and does so with great emotion and depth. His cool demeanor and frightening mannerisms will scare you much more than witnessing any of the murders he commits. Julianne Moore continues to amaze us, taking over the role from Jodie Foster of FBI agent Clarice Starling. While Foster would have done well, Moore is much better suited for handling “Hannibal”’s storyline, since it is more action-oriented than “The Silence of the Lambs.” Ridley Scott does an outstanding job helming this film. The shots and scenes are astoundingly well crafted. Scott’s attention to detail really makes “Hannibal” a film you can truly immerse yourself in. Harris’ complex novel is marvelously adapted, except for one mistake to be addressed later, to the screen by David Mamet (“State and Main, “ The Untouchables”) and Steven Zaillion. They have edited out just the right material so as not to bore the audience with details. It’s safe to say that “Hannibal” will be compared to “The Silence of the Lambs.” However, this should not be done because the two films are quite different. While “Silence” was more of a psychological thriller, “Hannibal” focuses more on action, tension and shock value to entertain the viewers. The film’s most redeeming quality is that the novel’s apallingly horrible ending has been completely thrown out. The book’s ending feels as if Harris just threw it together at the last minute in order to meet a deadline, whereas the movie’s conclusion is much more believable. “Hannibal”’s only downfall is how Lecter is portrayed throughout the second half of the movie. He is made out to be the film’s hero. You’ll practically be cheering for him by the end. It’s almost as if the writers want you to forget all the grisly murders he’s committed and accept him as the main protagonist. But aside from that, “Hannibal” is a flawless film and the year’s first real blockbuster. So if you aren’t squeamish and haven’t had a big meal beforehand, go see “Hannibal” now; you will not regret it. And after witnessing the final scene, you will never look at leftovers the same again. “Hannibal” is currently playing at theaters everywhere. Rated R for language and extreme gruesome violence.