Which is better, the movie or the book?
The book. Definitely the book.
I second that. The book was excellent. By far better than the movie.
Not to spoil it, but the book has an ending I just knew they wouldn’t dare use in a movie. And, just as I expected, they wussed out. 
Re-read or re-watch “Silence of the Lambs,” or even “Red Dragon.” You’ll be a happier person. Steer clear of “Hannibal.”
Just my 2 cents. 
When is the movie ever better than the book?
Are you referring to the original or the remake of “Red Dragon”?
Ugh. Avoid both. And then drive to Thomas Harris’ place and smack him upside the head.
I liked both, but I am apparently the only person in the world who can watch both a movie and read the book version and rate them on their own merits. :rolleyes:
Though you can put me down as someone who liked Godfather as a book and thought the movie sucks donky cock. And I like the book and both versions of the Shining…
Thanks for the replies.
When the music is better than the story, as in A Clockwork Orange.
Forrest Gump - Trust me.
Much of the book is unfilmable, such as the scenes from Hannibal’s childhood and the concept of his ‘Memory Palace’. (I think both of those are sufficiently vague as to not need spoilers.)
Do see the movie after you read the book, though, because the scenes filmed in Florence are beautiful and the acting all around is good. Gary Oldman is just a tad over the top but it would be hard not to be with that make-up job. (You won’t believe some of the characters they cut out, and then again the ending is 180 degrees different.)
They are both so different- if you enjoyed the books & films in the series, go ahead & give them both a try. I liked them both on their own standards- I knew the movie ending would be different, but I was disappointed that Mason Verger’s (Gary Oldman) sister was cut from the movie.
Btw, sometime this year, Harris is publishing BEHIND THE MASK, a novel supposedly about Hannibal as a young man.
Haven’t read the book, and haven’t seen the DVD version of the movie. Don’t know if they fixed this, but when I saw it in the cinema, I laughed…a lot…at what was supposed to be one of the most intense scenes.
It had been filmed in such a way that the boom mike was visible throughout.
It really does mute the gasp of terror/revulsion when you see the man behind the curtain working the controls. That kinda blew the movie for me big time, and I expected a hell of a lot better work from Ridley Scott (or whoever botched it in editing).
I’m hoping the book is better, because I felt the film was handled pretty clumsily…even minus the technical gaffe, I couldn’t quite buy into it. Could be that I really never completely accepted Julianne Moore in her role (and I like her work, FWIW).
Another vote for ‘read the novel, skip the movie’.
I get the feeling that Harris had planned for the series to end with SOTL, but it was so successful that he couldn’t say no when they drove a dump truck full of money up in front of his house.
Still, Hannibal is inspired, and as well-executed as possible. I remember when it came out, Harris said on his website that he took around 3000 days to write it – it ain’t no potboiler.
The ending is indeed very thought-provoking, too much so for any big Hollywood rendition. (But, IMO, the movie really wimped out, more so than they needed to).
Maybe Hannibal would have been better filmed as a small-budget indie?
Then kick him in the butt.
90% of the time when that happens it’s the projectionist’s fault, not the director, editor, or cinematographer’s. The top and bottom of a movie is cut off by the projector. The director knows this, so those portions will often contain boom mikes, light cords, the top of the set, etc., when shooting around them would be difficult, or the performance was so good that reshooting or using another take wouldn’t be preferable.
Then some minimum-wage mulitplex employee sets up the film wrong and makes everyone creatively involved in the thing look stupid.
I look forward to it.
Well, when I saw it the whole theater kept laughing even though we DIDN’T see the boom, because it was so over the top ridiculous.
And how the heck did the Gary Oldman character manage to import those huge threatening looking man-eating hogs into the country? “Oh, yes, Mr. Customs Officer, those are REALLY FRIENDLY swine. No, really, they just want to play. Coochie-coo.”
I must admit that I didn’t like the book any better. Then again, I read it after seeing the movie, so maybe I was biased.
Einmon,
W/o revealing your spoiler, the answer is that Verger was wealthy and had any number of government employees in his pocket. That was well established in both book and movie.