Ten years ago 'Silence of the Lambs' - surely a contender for the most overrated movie of all time - wowed audiences and critics alike. Now 'Hannibal' has done it again. Although the response has been more muted, its obvious that most film critics actually take 'Hannibal' seriously. But how seriously can you take a film that asks us to believe in an art-loving, literate psychiatrist who just happens to be a serial-killer and cannibal? What sort of genre does this mess of a movie fall into - a horror film that is not frightening, or a thriller devoid of any suspense? Perhaps we should see Hannibal more in keeping with Indiana Jones (remember those monkey skull meals!). After all he is able to murder people in full public gaze, escape detection despite being surrounded by police, fly all over the world and get a job in an art gallery without ever being recognised - despite being on the FBI's 'Top Ten Wanted' list. Ridley Scott, Anthony Hopkins & Co. must be laughing all the way to the bank. I vote this film the biggest con-trick since 'Blair Witch Project'.
