With some film series, you can tell at a certain point where it is only being continued for the money. The good news is that this film isn't that point. The bad news is that that point was reached all the way back when Hannibal was released. Quick recap of the series:
Silence of the Lambs - The epitome of what a thriller should be. Hopkins and Foster were both fantastic, the script was brilliant and the directing was marvellous (5 stars)
Hannibal - Helmed by the still capable Ridley Scott rather than Jonathan Demme. This was the cash-in film of the cash-in book. A wonderful character becomes less like his original incarnation and more like Sideshow Bob. A decent plot, but it just doesn't fit next to the original. (2 stars)
Red Dragon - A welcome return to form. The attempt to make Hopkins look younger are rather transparent, but a good cast and a engaging storyline made this a welcome part of the series. (4 stars)
(Also Manhunter, but I haven't seen it)

The most obvious problem with Hannibal Rising is that
is no

French star Gaspard Ulliel may be talented in his own right, but he just doesn't feel like the character that Hopkins made his own.

The second major criticism is that another prequel was highly unnecessary. Red Dragon explained how Lecter was captured, which was quite a nice touch. But knowing everything about a character doesn't always make them any more three dimensional, and if anything , often takes away some of the mystery. The Empire Strikes Back was a fine film before the full history of Darth Vader was given. The same applies here.

The contradiction is that this doesn't really feel like the childhood of Hannibal Lecter. Without giving any secrets away, this is a story of Lecter seeking vengeance against those who wronged him. There is no causal connection between the revenge seeking killer of Rising and the psychotic Hannibal Lecter who killed a flautist for being untalented. The most worrying thing about this is that it implies that there could be yet another sequel still to come.

Much of the subtlety of Silence and Red Dragon is gone as well. Whereas in Silence, there was a subtle inclination that whilst Hannibal was a monster, he still had more redeeming value than glory-seeking hypocrites like the warder, Dr Chilton; in Rising, you are clearly meant to be rooting for this cold-blooded murderer.

My biggest problem with the film was that, if 3 minutes or so (the cannibalism related footage from the part of Lecter) was selectively cut from this film, the only connection with the series it would have is the character's name. By connection with Silence of the Lambs, this film is inherently compared with one of the best films ever made, and suffers for it. As part of the series, I'd give this about 2.5 stars. But taken on its own, this film has the emotion and intensity that Kill Bill wishes it had. The hatred shown on screen is almost palpable. If you can overlook the identity the protagonist, then this film is at least a 4 starer.

(Plus, Rhys Ifans as a villain has to be worth almost a star in itself)

So it looks like I'm a little late for Satan Day. But I still thought I'd chip in with my fun trip to the cinema this evening.

I'm a big fan of the 'if it's not broke, don't fix it' philosophy but with this film you sometimes had to wonder why they bothered. It wasn't quite on par with Gus Van Sant's Psycho remake, but it was close. There is a new opening scene, but aside from that, there's possibly 2-3 minutes of scenes that weren't in the original in some form.

Throw into this mix, a particularly bad scriptwriter. Most of the lines that weren't in fact direct lifts from the first Omen felt clunky and false. Very much a touch of George Lucas syndrome (where it seems as though a line would have read much better on a page than said aloud).

The acting was variable, Liev Schrieber would have seemed a lot better if the film hadn't been so uncannily faithful to it's predecessor. But, unfortunately for him, he's expected to walk in the footsteps of Gregory Peck; a task he often seems to fall short of. Julia Stiles on the other hand really impressed me. She really fully crafts a character out of Katherine Thorne, something Lee Remick failed to do before her. A stellar supporting cast also help to keep up the quality, (I particularly liked the use of Mia Farrow, Rosemary from Rosemary's Baby, as the Mrs Baylock, the evil nanny). But this was likely to rise or fall on the casting of the character of Damien. And for me, he just didn't cut it. He had the requisite type of appearance, but whenever he tried to look menacing, I just thought his face looked like a frog.

Clearly this was only made to coincide with the date, as there was absolutely no need to remake the original. I'm saying 3 stars anyway, just because I'm a big fan of the story, even though it hadn't changed since the last time I saw it. That, and that they managed to alter the famous death scene without lessening it in any way, and ended up improving it considerably (the only way in which I'd really say this is any better than the original).

Now this is the type of film that I generally loath because it a) is a sappy Christmas film, b) contains Tom Hanks and c) is targeted at kids. This does not a enjoyable film for me equal. But I went anyway, partly because I'd never seen a full film in 3D before, and partly because I had nothing better to do. It was a tough decision though, as 3D glasses always make you look like a pillock, and it is the kind of film that you seem out of place going into without a child accompanying.

What can I say? By all reasonable logic, I should have hated it. But for some reason I loved it. The animation was spectacular, with the 3D techniques being used not for cheap effects, but to give everything a depth that you can't see in normal films. The storyline, though cliched and somewhat predictable was involving and, dare I say it, heartwarming. By the end of the film, I found myself really liking all of the characters, which is a rare feat. There were also some quite entertaining nuances, such as the compass at the north pole that has S painted on all four points, or Steven Tyler (of Aerosmith fame) as a singing elf. Whilst Shrek succeeds as a family film by being funny to all ages, this succeeds by being genuinely likable. Not once did I even feel stupid to be wearing those ridiculous glasses or to be watching what, in theory is just a kid's film. I walked the 45 minute journey home in British December temperatures with a huge stupid grin plastered across my face.

4 stars. I'm just a little too jaded and cynical to give it 5.