Rating: 
Summary: Starts out strong, but the ending is just terrible.
Review: I really like Thoman Harris and like many of his dedicated readers, I awaited the release of this book with great anticipation. I actually stalked the local bookstore waiting for it to come in.I read the book with great anticipation, but when I got to the end I was horrified. The ending is a disaster. The actions of the characters are not in keeping with any rational conclusion. I would return it if I could.
Rating: 
Summary: Ending was shocking, disappointing, and totally implausible.
Review: Hollywood take heed!!! "Hannibal" the movie will be a box office bust unless the screenplay deviates from the book's boring middle third (Florence travelogue) and an ending that defies 600 pages of character development.
Rating: 
Summary: Fantastic story, confusing ending!
Review: I carried this book around with me for days reading whenever I had a chance. I was totally addicted up to chapter 102! The ending was really...for lack of a better word, wrong. It was like someone else wrote the ending without having read the book. I feel like I got to the top of a roller coaster then had to take the stairs down. A real let down. I LOVED the Mason and Margot Verger characters. They were very interesting. I also liked the way Harris gave each character equal parts, there was really no main character. He kept the book fast paced. I'm glad I read some of these on-line reviews right before I was finished so that I was prepared for the ending.
Rating:
Summary: It's a BOOK, not a movie script.
Review: I simply can't take any more whining about this book. It is NOT a movie, these are NOT your characters, Mr. Harris created them and can do whatever he likes. He didn't force you to wait around for 11 years. To me, Hannibal is wonderfully written (but in need of some skillful editing) and gripping from beginning to end. Ah yes, the ending: love it or hate it, it is impossible to tear your eyes away from the page. In concocting the closing scenes of Hannibal, Mr. Harris has written some of the most vivid and indelible lines in recent American fiction. The complaining and criticizing of this book amazes and amuses me. Stephen King -- who knows just a little bit more about writing than the rest of us -- gave Hannibal a rave review. That review aptly describes most of what is great about this book but does gloss over the weaknesses such as the uneven writing and the drawn-out Italy scenes. Ignore the grammatically incorrect, misspelling-laden, complaining reviews you see below (including the one from the "Mensa" member -- impressive!). Read Mr. King's review of Hannibal, and then read the book itself. You'll be happy you did.
Rating:
Summary: Very disappointed
Review: I was really looking forward to reading the sequel to "Silence...", but I was very disappointed when I read it. The author seemed to have the thought "Just how perverse and grotesque can I make this?" While that is to be expected in this genre, I felt it was done merely to gross the reader out. I did not feel that it explored the characters nearly as well as "Silence..." did. I do not think that the Starling character in "Silence..." would have wound up with Lecter, as the poor, pitiful, weak Starling in the sequel. Very disappointed.
Rating: 
Summary: A THINLY DISGUISED SCREENPLAY
Review: After being thoroughly intrigued by his two previous novels, I was EXTREMELY disappointed with this one. Harris's writing style resembles a novice: short, choppy sentences, two-sentence paragraphs, and excessive chapters (103 chapters for only 484 pages). The plot development was tedious at times, particularly the numerous pedantic references to Italian art and history, which were not explained to the lay reader. I did enjoy the characterization of Mason Verger (could he more evil than Dr. Lecter?) and the explanation of Lecter's childhood trauma. This novel was not written for readers, it was written for directors, complete with the ending. Let the cameras roll!
Rating:
Summary: il monstro fini de 20th Century
Review: If anyone has taken a tour of Florence, they would appreciate Harris' cultural travelogue. This is a definite dark ride, a descent into Dante's Inferno with no Beatrice or Virgil as a guide. Perhaps the biggest circle of Hell is not lead by Dr. Hannibal Lecter, but Federal Burreaucrats lead by Willima Jefferson Clinton.
Rating:
Summary: T Harris takes a break from the norm with Lecter's swansong.
Review: *This review contains some spoilers* My first impression with this book (after only one reading) echoed many of the other responses below: I was unused to the new, rather cinematic angle which Mr Harris decided to take with this final novel in the "Lecter Trilogy". His villains were more black-and-white stereotypes, his heroes curiously impotent in their social situations, and the killings and violence which made SOTL such a thrilling ride were altered in this book beyond recognition. It wass not at all what I expected, and after one reading I felt disappointed enough to throw the book away. Thankfully, I didn't. A week later, and I decided to try the gauntlet again - this time, with an open mind. Much of my initial distaste stemmed from the fact that I'd been expecting Harris to have remained unchanged and unaffected over the eleven year (or so) gap between this and SOTL. I had been hoping for more of the brilliant and gritty realism that was ubiquitous in Silence, and I had hoped to see Lecter as untouchable, distant, and aloof as he had been in his insane ward cell. All of which, all things considering, were unreasonable. Harris immediately lets you know that many years have passed since Clarice defeated Jame Gumb, and that in the interim, many things have changed. Crawford, Starling, Senator Ruth Martin, and (later) Hannibal Lecter himself have all developed and aged. Where the FBI was once a paragon of operational efficiency in Silence, here Harris details its slide into dogma and bureaucracy after seven years' passage. Where Clarice Starling's career seemed unstoppable, Harris brings you the story of an ambition unfulfilled. Nothing stays the same, and it is neither reasonable nor realistic to assume that Harris' style or his focus will remain likewise unchanged. Granted, he is writing about characters that have been earlier portrayed in certain fashions, but ultimately the characters are his to change, and if he chooses to do so the result should be viewed in as objective a light as possible. Secondly, I believe that his entire tone was different with this novel than with Silence. Where Silence seemed to be based on adrenaline, Hannibal's focus seems to be more one of drama, both negative and positive. Starling's career is in decline, tainted by her zeal and love for her job; Crawford's prediction of forced retirement (in Silence) is fast coming true; Paul Krendler's backbiting and infighting seems set to reign supreme. Senator Ruth Martin, defeated in the last election, is unable to offer the help that, in Silence at least, would have seemed omnipotent. Yet the other, and to me, more positive, major focus of the plot is *hugely* involving: Lecter himself. Where Red Dragon and Silence simply portrayed Lecter as a brilliant and aloof evil genius, here in Hannibal, Thomas Harris takes the potentially dangerous step of humanizing him - tantalizing glimpses are seen of Lecter's past, and reasons for his present psychological state are hinted at. Understandably, those readers who would prefer Lecter to remain forever an untouchable godlike being in their minds, will take umbrage at this change. However, the majority of readers would probably have to agree that a human villain (or even antihero), with his or her own faults and weaknesses, is far more engaging than some faceless, unstoppable, Batman-esque superhuman baddie. With this novel, Hannibal Lecter's genius is not diminished in the slightest, while his character, hitherto an enigma, is slowly made more accessible with the story of his making. Whilst the argument has been voiced of Harris devaluing his villains' characters, I believe that this cannot possibly apply to Lecter himself...and Lecter himself is the only villain worth bothering about. Verger and his cronies may well make for a standard stock of criminals, and their exploits may be standard novel gruesomeness, but the main focus is on Lecter himself (as the title leaves no doubt about). Yes, I initially found Verger's story and his friends' characters somewhat extreme and dramatic, but would I have felt that had I not read Silence beforehand? I think it is important to keep Hannibal and Silence separate - they are two different books with different stories and different styles. True, Hannibal's style may not appeal to the tastes of the longtime fans of Harris, but given time and consideration as a work in its own respect (and out of the shadow of Silence of the Lambs), you might find yourself holding a grudging admiration for it. I certainly did...
Rating:
Summary: Hannibal at his cruelest
Review: I found Hannibal not as sophisticated as The Silence of the Lambs. Lectar plays a very prominent role in this book. However, I found the some parts rather gruesome and unnecessary. Lectar was portrayed as an evil man even though he seemed to have found some comfort in Starling. Nevertheless, it was an interesting read.
Rating:
Summary: Sometimes very good, but nauseatingly pretentious.
Review: More than being the projected future of Hannibal Lecter post-SOTL, this third entry in the trilogy may say more about how the author has applied the profits from his first two novels. European travel and fine wines. I found the Italian travelogue overlong, murky, and tiresome, and was nauseated by the endless descriptions of Hannibal's impeccable, pretentious tastes in literature, language, wine, art, etc., etc. Many of the characters were well-conceived, and the ending, plot and action sequences were fine, but I agree with those who say this novel was written with a film in mind. I won't go see it.
|
