hollywood has churned out yet another garbage that wildly overhyped and underwhelming on a first time viewing basis. hannibal is bad and terrible and inept and lame and droll and idiotic and contrived and laughable and utterly atrocious (no pun intended). minor spoilers follow. this movie has huge logic holes  more than any bruckheimer or bay movie  or for that matter  any movie that exemplify the indulgence of hollywood exaggeration. it a slick hollywood production designed to cash in on hannibal lector mania and directed by so somber he takes this way too seriously hack director ridley scott and produced by a hack italian producer with an inflated ego whose credo is doesn not matter whether film is st and money is good. i can not get over the fact that acclaimed screenwriters david mamet and steven zaillian wrote this tripe adapted from a lame and pretentious book by a good novelist turned hack author thomas harris. david and steven  well known and immensely talented screenwriters  wasted their effort on a poor screenplay in exchange for fat paychecks. another factor in the disappointment of this film. there are too many ludicrous scenes to list that are laughable in clunky execution and poor logic e. g. starling or pazzi cell phone in the midst of lecter pursuit that turns up inspector pazzi as the victim. not to mention laughably bad dialogues delivered by tony hopkins with a smirk and julianne moore and ray liotta and others who cannot act with the straight face. hopkins gives the true meaning of scenery chewing along with hammy acting by gary oldman as a deformed psychopath bent on exacting revenge against lecter. the gore effect is good and but only serves to repulse rather than provide suspense which is notably absent from hannibal. the predecessor  silence of the lambs  is more believable with tension and suspense. suspense is what made silence of the lamb work as a spectacular mix of psychological horror and thriller and not to mention superbly written and tensely directed. the brain dinner sequence is so laughably fake it borders on self parody. the ending is kinda blatant and idiotic  are we supposed to believe that lecter is still a menace to society with the last shot establishing his glittering eye glaring at you. ooh and scary. . 
hollywood has churned out yet another garbage that wildly overhyped and underwhelming on a first time viewing basis. hannibal is bad and terrible and inept and lame and droll and idiotic and contrived and laughable and utterly atrocious (no pun intended). minor spoilers follow. this movie has huge logic holes  more than any bruckheimer or bay movie  or for that matter  any movie that exemplify the indulgence of hollywood exaggeration. it a slick hollywood production designed to cash in on hannibal lector mania and directed by so somber he takes this way too seriously hack director ridley scott and produced by a hack italian producer with an inflated ego whose credo is doesn not matter whether film is st and money is good. i can not get over the fact that acclaimed screenwriters david mamet and steven zaillian wrote this tripe adapted from a lame and pretentious book by a good novelist turned hack author thomas harris. david and steven  well known and immensely talented screenwriters  wasted their effort on a poor screenplay in exchange for fat paychecks. another factor in the disappointment of this film. there are too many ludicrous scenes to list that are laughable in clunky execution and poor logic e. g. starling or pazzi cell phone in the midst of lecter pursuit that turns up inspector pazzi as the victim. not to mention laughably bad dialogues delivered by tony hopkins with a smirk and julianne moore and ray liotta and others who cannot act with the straight face. hopkins gives the true meaning of scenery chewing along with hammy acting by gary oldman as a deformed psychopath bent on exacting revenge against lecter. the gore effect is good and but only serves to repulse rather than provide suspense which is notably absent from hannibal. the predecessor  silence of the lambs  is more believable with tension and suspense. suspense is what made silence of the lamb work as a spectacular mix of psychological horror and thriller and not to mention superbly written and tensely directed. the brain dinner sequence is so laughably fake it borders on self parody. the ending is kinda blatant and idiotic  are we supposed to believe that lecter is still a menace to society with the last shot establishing his glittering eye glaring at you. ooh and scary. . ---------------------------------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."
