Look who's coming to dinner

Director Ridley Scott has bitten off more than he can chew in this less-than-stellar sequel to the 1991 Oscar-winning thriller, "Silence of the Lambs." \nEven with Anthony Hopkins back in top form as Dr. Hannibal Lecter, "Hannibal" falls well short of any expectations audiences might have. While "Lambs"' plot was driven by the relationship of Lecter and then FBI-trainee Clarice Starling, "Hannibal"'s characters are about as filling as a couple of Twinkies.\nTaking place a decade after "Lambs," "Hannibal" finds Starling an FBI veteran, disgraced after a botched drug raid. And Lecter is alive and well in Florence, Italy, keeping tabs on her through the Internet. \n"Lambs"' biggest strength was the contrast between Lecter's subdued genius and Starling's confident yet vulnerable facade. "Hannibal" relies heavily on inside jokes from "Lambs" as well as enough changes in Starling's character to force Jodie Foster to turn down reprising the role that won her a best actress Oscar. Julianne Moore does a great job imitating Foster's Starling, but without a good script to work with, she flounders helplessly like one of Lecter's victims. \nThe script also gives Hopkins and Moore precious few scenes together, the best of which is a cat-and-mouse carousel sequence, an obvious rip-off of Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train." "Hannibal" also suffers in Scott's direction. \nFresh off his best drama Golden Globe for "Gladiator," Scott's direction constantly gets in the way of the plot as he takes painfully obvious steps to glorify Lecter. \nThe film will also turn stomachs with some particularly gruesome scenes, including one that gives new meaning to the phrase "brain candy." \nPerhaps the film's most unsettling aspect is the introduction of Lecter's only surviving victim, a decaying, faceless cripple (an unrecognizable Gary Oldman) who wants to catch Lecter and feed him alive to a pack of wild boars. \nAlthough he didn't have much script to work with, Scott did little to improve its quality and fell well short of the bar that Jonathan Demme set in 1991. The director's influence is noticeable throughout the entire film, and whether that is good is up to the viewer. \nWith a repulsive autopsy and the murders of Buffalo Bill, "Lambs" certainly shocked its audience. Hannibal succeeds at surpassing its predecessor in blood and guts (literally), but there is little substance to the style. \nThe film builds to a shocking yet illogical conclusion and shows that Scott really had nothing new to say about these characters. If you never saw "Lambs," don't bother seeing "Hannibal." But if you do see it, go on an empty stomach.