Defining ‘Hannibal’

“Hannibal” may not be to everyone’s taste (joke intended), but it is first-rate movie-making. I found Kenneth Turan’s criticisms ludicrous (“A Cannibalized Tale,” Feb. 9).

Dr. Lecter isn’t scary enough! What did Turan expect, for him to be lurching around Florence slobbering and jumping out and shouting “Boo!” What made Hannibal Lecter and Anthony Hopkins’ portrayal of him memorable was his sinister stillness. I found the same, albeit older Dr. Lecter present in the latest offering. Likewise, the fine job Julianne Moore does with Clarice Starling. Turan wants the same, naive Jodie Foster Clarice, not the tough, street-smartened, 10-year-older Clarice in this film. I found the change exactly right.

The film is deliciously macabre, ghoulish, creepy and wickedly funny. Mindful of the few films Turan finds appealing, I can’t help but feel the man just doesn’t like good old-fashioned goose-bump movies. He should have left the reviewing to someone who does. After all, even the French had the Grand Guignol.

GEORGE GOODWIN

Anaheim

*

That the film is “creepy and grotesque” is true. But to say that it is not terrifying is a gross misrepresentation. One doesn’t need Lecter to skin his victim in front of us. The knowledge that he can and will when he wants to is even more terrifying. The cover of civility with the hint of brutality is more interesting and scary.

MARGARET GARDINER

Sherman Oaks

*

Richard Natale refers to “Hannibal” several times as a “horror movie” (“ ‘Hannibal’ Eats Up the Competition,” Feb. 12).

Well, for those of us who happen to love the genre and know and respect its boundaries, neither “Hannibal” nor “The Silence of the Lambs” is a horror film. You should refer to either one of these movies as a psychological thriller with horror elements.

RUDOLF SCALESE

Los Angeles