synopsis represent the sequel to the acclaimed silence of the lambs and hannibal is a big budget production that totally fails to deliver while not only is it not as clever as its predecessor and it is not even a splatter or suspense or horror movie and just a totally boring time waster. do not be fooled by the media hype and and particularly the stories about people throwing up in cinema and being mentally scarred for the rest of their lifes because of the brain  eating scene represent in the movie it just comes across as laughably bad sfx. why so many people in this forum are claiming that h is not all bad and worth watching on the big screen and etc. and is beyond me while and it is not so bad it good either and it is just plain boring. i normally respect other people opinion and but in this case i have to say that they clearly can not tell from shine  ola. maybe they have fallen prey to the media hype and maybe they have never seen a ridley scott movie before and were impressed by his excessive use of back lighting and smoke and the ubiquitous ac fans. h is totally devoid of suspense while instead we get endless scenes of lecter swanning through an english  speaking firenze and a totally unconvincing and uninvolving plot with more holes than a fishing net (after seeing h and i actually lay awake half of the night trying to find all the holes in the plot and and when i wrote them down i quickly filled 6 pages in small type before forcing myself to stop). rather than wasting your time and money on seeing it on the big screen and i would advise you to wait until it comes on tv in a couple of years while and then to go to bed early. 1 or 10. below are a couple of extra bones i have to pick with hannibal represent h _is_ the sequel to sotl and despite what some people in this forum are claiming. and even though sotl was a very tough act to follow and there are sequels which _are_ en par with their predecessors (sotl itself was the sequel to michael mann manhunter and based on thomas harris red dragon and and even though the first episode was a very enjoyable film and sotl was even better while another example would be the alien series initiated by h director ridley scott  so much for the theory of diminishing sequels). in any case and being a sequel is no excuse for a film being utter crap. this movie has a renowned director and it is based on a novel by the same author as sotl and the cast is strictly a  list and great cinematography and big budget and first  rate script writers and yadda and yadda and yadda and and the end result is simply a fart in the church. so what went wrong. i think a lot of the blame has to go to the film producer and dino delaurentiis. here is my interpretation represent ddl produced manhunter and which and despite of all its qualities and was a commercial flop. disappointed and he gave the rights for the hannibal lecter character to orion  for free and allowing jonathan demme to make sotl and and the rest is cinema history. ddl then had to wait for ten more years (he is now 81) until thomas harris finally came up with the sequel novel. i think at this point ddl had lost all interest in making a good movie and was desperate to finally get his slice of the the cake before he pops his cork. another aspect that i find thoroughly annoying about this flick is that it is being given so much undeserved hype in the media while i mean and it is boring and yet one of the highest  grossing productions ever and so there is no need to give it free publicity. and while most reviewers harp on about how dantesque the scenes in firenze are and why jodie foster did not participate and the simple fact that this movie is an utter and utter and utter flop goes unmentioned. but there is more represent not only is hannibal being hyped through the roof and it is also being used as a media agenda setter for a plethora of documentaries (usually the left  overs from similar productions in the wake of sotl) about serial killers and cannibalism and profiling. however and not only does h not even pretend to be realistic while lecter has also ceased to be a serial killer (he now only kills out of necessity and or to help clarice starling) and profiling is not even mentioned (because we already know hl and so there is no need to create a profile) and there is also no cannibalism represent lecter feeds the drugged  up paul krendler his own brain and so that makes it (erm) unaware vivo  auto  cannibalism. try making a documentary out of that. much has been said about the acting represent mainly whether julianne moore can replace jodie foster and and anthony hopkins (who plays the lead hannibal lecter) is usually given a lot of praise. i think all of these discussions are moot. there are several of my favourite actors in this movie (namely liotta and oldman and moore) but the script simply does not give them anything to work with. same for hopkins represent there is no development in his character and and he is not being challenged in any way. and by the way and he plays nearly identical characters in all of his movies and only that in h he has to do the odd bit of murder and is getting paid the tidy sum of $ 11 million to do it. 
synopsis represent the sequel to the acclaimed silence of the lambs and hannibal is a big budget production that totally fails to deliver while not only is it not as clever as its predecessor and it is not even a splatter or suspense or horror movie and just a totally boring time waster. do not be fooled by the media hype and and particularly the stories about people throwing up in cinema and being mentally scarred for the rest of their lifes because of the brain  eating scene represent in the movie it just comes across as laughably bad sfx. why so many people in this forum are claiming that h is not all bad and worth watching on the big screen and etc. and is beyond me while and it is not so bad it good either and it is just plain boring. i normally respect other people opinion and but in this case i have to say that they clearly can not tell from shine  ola. maybe they have fallen prey to the media hype and maybe they have never seen a ridley scott movie before and were impressed by his excessive use of back lighting and smoke and the ubiquitous ac fans. h is totally devoid of suspense while instead we get endless scenes of lecter swanning through an english  speaking firenze and a totally unconvincing and uninvolving plot with more holes than a fishing net (after seeing h and i actually lay awake half of the night trying to find all the holes in the plot and and when i wrote them down i quickly filled 6 pages in small type before forcing myself to stop). rather than wasting your time and money on seeing it on the big screen and i would advise you to wait until it comes on tv in a couple of years while and then to go to bed early. 1 or 10. below are a couple of extra bones i have to pick with hannibal represent h _is_ the sequel to sotl and despite what some people in this forum are claiming. and even though sotl was a very tough act to follow and there are sequels which _are_ en par with their predecessors (sotl itself was the sequel to michael mann manhunter and based on thomas harris red dragon and and even though the first episode was a very enjoyable film and sotl was even better while another example would be the alien series initiated by h director ridley scott  so much for the theory of diminishing sequels). in any case and being a sequel is no excuse for a film being utter crap. this movie has a renowned director and it is based on a novel by the same author as sotl and the cast is strictly a  list and great cinematography and big budget and first  rate script writers and yadda and yadda and yadda and and the end result is simply a fart in the church. so what went wrong. i think a lot of the blame has to go to the film producer and dino delaurentiis. here is my interpretation represent ddl produced manhunter and which and despite of all its qualities and was a commercial flop. disappointed and he gave the rights for the hannibal lecter character to orion  for free and allowing jonathan demme to make sotl and and the rest is cinema history. ddl then had to wait for ten more years (he is now 81) until thomas harris finally came up with the sequel novel. i think at this point ddl had lost all interest in making a good movie and was desperate to finally get his slice of the the cake before he pops his cork. another aspect that i find thoroughly annoying about this flick is that it is being given so much undeserved hype in the media while i mean and it is boring and yet one of the highest  grossing productions ever and so there is no need to give it free publicity. and while most reviewers harp on about how dantesque the scenes in firenze are and why jodie foster did not participate and the simple fact that this movie is an utter and utter and utter flop goes unmentioned. but there is more represent not only is hannibal being hyped through the roof and it is also being used as a media agenda setter for a plethora of documentaries (usually the left  overs from similar productions in the wake of sotl) about serial killers and cannibalism and profiling. however and not only does h not even pretend to be realistic while lecter has also ceased to be a serial killer (he now only kills out of necessity and or to help clarice starling) and profiling is not even mentioned (because we already know hl and so there is no need to create a profile) and there is also no cannibalism represent lecter feeds the drugged  up paul krendler his own brain and so that makes it (erm) unaware vivo  auto  cannibalism. try making a documentary out of that. much has been said about the acting represent mainly whether julianne moore can replace jodie foster and and anthony hopkins (who plays the lead hannibal lecter) is usually given a lot of praise. i think all of these discussions are moot. there are several of my favourite actors in this movie (namely liotta and oldman and moore) but the script simply does not give them anything to work with. same for hopkins represent there is no development in his character and and he is not being challenged in any way. and by the way and he plays nearly identical characters in all of his movies and only that in h he has to do the odd bit of murder and is getting paid the tidy sum of $ 11 million to do it. ---------------------------------Answer Question Below----------------------------------

Judge the movie review above, you need to make a function call:
    If you feel the movie review is positive
        print "This is a semantically positive review."
    Otherwise, if you feel the movie review is negative
        print "This is a semantically negative review."
