Why do people hate this movie?

They spoon fed the story of Hannibal Lecter. The film starts out as a war movie, then he turn into a the karate kid with the sword play (which was coming too close to anime). Then he turns into a doctor, then a man bent on revenge for his baby sis.

And the acting altogether, and uber cool well dressed strike-a-pose killer. Sorry, Hannibal as a kid doesn't fit Hannibal the distinguished gentleman a la Lambs.

When he put on that mask over his mouth, that just ruined it. Too cheesy.

I liked this movie. It could have been better but that was more the writers fault.

Because it was very stuupiiid at times. There was no point showing past of Lecter. This was just another unnecessary prequel/followup to the series. For once, Razzies got it right.

"No... I'm in touch with humanity." - Patrick Bateman

This movie has all the small elements which connect it properly to the rest of the movies made on Lecter.
As it's been stated before, the only flaw in the movie is that they didn't have a rejuvenated Hopkins at hand to play the part. Still... look at this guy. He's definitely got the predator's eye. He's smug, has a perfect elocution, is very well mannered with a deep sense of irony and a serious frown at impoliteness. The "japanese episode" does not turn him into an anime character at all. Hannibal Lecter has always been depicted as a very pragmatic killer, who chooses effective killing tools. He has, as an older adult, a fondness for blades and arrows (knifes, stilleto, linoleum cutter, bow, crossbow, all mentionned in the books). Ths doesn't drift too far away from the kind of weaponry available to samurai's...
The Mischa element has been well developped in "Hannibal" (the book). All those who made the effort of reading it know that this event was what made Hannibal the monster we all know.
Hannibal Rising is not a movie made by someone who didn't watch the other movies; it's made by someone who did read the damn books!
Most serial killers do not come to the world as such. The usually turn into what the are because of a deep trauma and personally, living not too far from the location of a martyr village, I must salute the directors for the way they depicted war crimes without falling into the easy trap of voyeurism. We know and see enough to understand right away what happened to Mischa, yet it's not pushed too far for the eye. THAT would have been an unnecessary disgrace.

To all those who complain that "this Hannibal doesn't look like the real Hannibal" or something: even Hopkins does not look like what Hannibal is supposed to be. Hopkins was scary enough to make you s**t bricks, but hey...
In the Red Dragon book, Lecter is depicted as a short, slim man whose eyes catch the light like red gems would. To top it, Lecter has a very special medical condition, polydactylism, which is dicarded in the movies. Yet, it was part of his escape strategy in the Silence of the Lambs book, as well as what got him tracked down to South America and later, suspected by Pazzi in Hannibal.

A tip to all Hopkins worshippers: quit bowing to Sir Anthony Hopkins as the one and only decent Lecter. He did a great job but nobody is irreplaceable.

"a horror movie that featured nazi atrocities and kung fu ninja warrior aunties complete with samurai swords. And it wasn't even a thinking horror movie. It was a buckets 'o' blood spattered walls spectacular." Nazis! Because he was a child during the war! Not his fault! As for the kung fu ninja warrior auntie that's because she is Asian and her ancestors were Samurai. Please forgive her for being born an Asian with heritage.

And the buckets of blood? How many horror movies have you seen if you think this film was a blood spattered walls spectacular?

Oh btw "Byurgen Fyurgen". You came to the Hannibal Rising page to leave a message. Was it that much effort to look 20cms up the page to find out what his name was? And obviously he isn't a substitute for those people because:
1. Anthony Hopkins does not own a time machine and therefore cannot de-age himself in order to make the perfect prequel.
2. Jodie Foster is a woman.
And 3. Ted Levine who is also old played a completely different character to Lecter. Just throwing that out there.

Personally I liked this movie. The problem is, that I'm not a HUGE fan of sotl, red dragon, or hannibal... I like them, but I don't put them on a pedastal any more than any other solid serial killer/horror films.

It doesnt' bother me that Hannibal looks nothing like anthony hopkins, any more than julian moore not looking like jodie foster.

The only part that struck me as poor writing in this film was when the detective says to the asian lady 'is it because you lost your family in the hiroshima bombing?' That was cliche. He could have easily said 'is it because you lost your family as well?' without saying how they died. This would have left more up to the viewers own fearful imagination, and wouldn't have made me think that the writer knows nothing of japanese history except the hiroshima bombing. Seriously, that's probably why he wrote it in there, he probably couldn't think of any other way for a japanese family to have been killed at this time. It was cliche.

Otherwise, Hannibal was a little superhero like, but I can forgive that, as I like superheros. Also, it isn't very different than the other films where Hannibal is capable of tremendous strategy, trickery, and foresight.

I actually felt this was a less gruesome film than the other three. Personally I liked that. I like horror movies, but I did not like the brain eating, face eating, and pig feeding that took place in Hannibal.

If you LOVED the other three movies, I could see how you felt this movie did them a disservice.

[deleted]

Well I read the book and I liked it. It explained a lot. It didn't of course explain why he kept at it though.
Once he got his revenge for his sister & family, why did he keep on killing?