In the book, "Hannibal", they run off together. Ideally, I'd have loved to have seen the movie be true to the book. This ending, though, is so much better than the one in the released film.
I would say Starling looks at him as more of a father figure and that was Harris’s way to bring their relationship to a muddled end. There is a strange romance though in a very twisted dark way so I see why he did that.
I really loved the book ending, and this is the perfect way to keep that hope (at least for me) open. Finally the tension is still there, thankfully for the fans. I need a fan fiction, now!
So, in this one sentence you have fingered E,50, possibly another RU-vidr, Tom, Dr. Haws, AI and a tech. There’s always that obvious person that wants attention so bad that I don’t talk to them unless they talk to me, so I never mention them.
@@rindanefikirleriolan1flano664Джоди никак не подходила под книжное описание Клариссы, а автору-то всяко виднее. Может, Джоди сыграла и неплохо, но она лишена сексуальной притягательности в этом фильме. А для роли Клариссы это очень важно, как для интереса со стороны Ганибала, так и притеснений со стороны коллег.
Julianne Moore is no Jodie Foster. I can understand Jodie Foster not wanting to deal with the subject matter of this particular movie, but the movie is not the same without her.
I love how the super rich people are portrayed in this film. Deviants, weird and sinister in every way, even Hannibal refers to them as truly sick. The parallels with the state of the world at those elite families are so on point, the monsters are real...
This alternate ending makes more sense than the original, even being a doctor it would have been very difficult to escape with an arm bleeding and even more difficult to take a plane when he was to easy to be ID.
The cut to black during that ending leaves it reasonable he either cauterized or bandaged the wound enough in the time that was left. The theatrical ending had finality to it. I'm glad that was the one they went with.
Similar thinking here. Not necessary about him getting away from the house - he probably would have applied a tourniquet, hit himself with some handy drug to prevent going into shock, and then made off to safe distance to heal somewhere before making it to his next hidey-hole. But yes, after that it would have been pretty hard to not be noticable. Once the wound healed Lecter could have bluffed his way through with wearing gloves and a stolen display dummie's hand. As for life of violence? He's kind of close to super-powered as it is: world-class surgeon, psychologist and cook, always manages to move silently enough to sneak up on people so there really isn't much of a fight ... it wouldn't be that much more unrealistic for him to manage to disappear and still have his little murders here and there.
Because he only cut off his thumb. And then found a sergeon whom he forced or paid to sew it back. This is why we see his arm on a sling in the airplane scene. And we never get to see what he chopped off. It is obvious what he did. Although just to cut off the chain would be much more obvious act. But the alternative ending is also more logical, though less dramatic.
Silence of the Lambs was perfect, and truly suspenseful right up to the end. Hannibal had truly intense moments, but I was really pulled in by how artfully the movie was done. You do feel like you're being pulled into Hannibal's world in this movie, but there were moments that felt unfinished. These cut scenes and alternate ending make the movie complete, with a more logical ending. I wish this was how the movie had been released. Thanks for uploading these missing pieces from the movie.
@@MrOmega467 I agree with you as well. I loved the entire book series and was surprised they didn't end the movie in the same way as the book in this instance. I don't want to spoil anything for those who do not know how the book "Hannibal" ends.
@@MarilynRB I've heard that Ridley Scott had in mind to do another sequel after this movie (sadly like 20 years have passed), where he probably would have follow the book's ending. Anyway I've also heard that Ridley did not like the book's ending a lot... we will never know
Apparently the reason Jodie foster refused to return for this was because she was dead set against the ending of the book and then they never even used it. I would have loved to have seen them follow the book all the way to the end to see how they did it but they caved anyway and went with that ending at least this one isn’t quite as bad
funny none of these Serial killers ever goes after the filth that is hellbent on sending mankind to its demise via a digital dystopia. If Serial Killer targeted the corporate psychopaths, it would be fitting for Hannibal and Clarice choose to target these real sickos rather than everyday people.
@@AleBesentini she said that she was busy but would have made the time for it had they changed the ending. Which they refused to do as they wanted to follow the novel however the ending didn’t do well with test audiences and so they ended up changing it anyways
It's was the safe boring choice allowing Clarice to keep her morality in tact. The author did his best to bring us to hannibals way of thinking and by the end Clarice's relationship with him was Reasonable because we changed as she did. To deny their relationship feels stubborn and unreasonable. The book had a much happier ending.
The nbc version did the opposite, will graham in the show was a mix of the character from those movies and Clarice and he decided to run away with Hannibal :)
The alternate ending works best showing which direction he went to escape. The fact that they show the boy taking 2 bites was worse. The movie version leaves the feeling of disappointment that he got away/ran away. This version leaves the feeling he *had* to run away. This is besides the point but listening to the fireworks up close like that has the sound of a flock of birds cawing in reverse before being shot. never noticed that about fireworks in real life.
The film ending, even from the dinner scene totally changes the focus of the book and where Harris goes with his story. It was never about Clarice standing up to Hannibal and proving he is the monster like every other villain. It's like they were afraid to end it the way the book ends and went for a more usual/not disrupting ending. The way the original story ends completes an entirely different story that the one being told in the films.
Minority here: I prefer the theatrical ending for the finality among other things. Starling practically had Lecter by cuffing herself to him and his choosing to slice his own hand off as opposed to either being captured or slicing off her hand was a victory for her in a few ways: it was to him the only way possible to escape-and thus, he faced an otherwise imminent defeat; the loss of his hand means he won't go on the same way-both more humility and less of a physical ability to incite violence and since he took such a hard measure to be able to get away instead of the easy and less graceful cutting of Starling's hand off, it proved he's not a threat to Starling and never ever would be. The theatrical ending also shows Starling doesn't have her gun either when outside and for all we know, means she wasn't about to get him back to face Justice, but to see if he stuck around-and if so, where- or if she could see him leaving too.
Minority maybe, but not entirely alone. I like the theatrical ending because it plays to the strongest points of both characters: to Clarice refusal to be corrupted and drawn into Lecter's games, and to Lecter's respect for her strength, to the point where he'll prefer to mutilate himself rather than her. I don't know if it was intended that way, but I see a sort of victory for Clarice in this: Lecter always tries to manipulate people, and I think those gifts he was sending to her - a really, really high-end skin lotion, among other things - look like either a weird sort of courtship, or a way to mess with her. (Probably a bit of both.) And in the end he fails to pull her into his world and way of thinking, and instead cares too much about her to injure her even when everything is at stake. It looks like he got stuck in his own trap - and had to bite of a paw to get out of it.
@@Julia-lk8jn Even without reading the book, the ending where she agreed being an agent was no longer worth it and agreed to run away with him--as controversial as that decision was--also made sense too.
@@futuremovieactor Yep, and I think even Hopkins agreed with the run away together ending stating that the character arcs progressing naturally went that way.
I must confess the people saying they prefer ending the book interest me. I have no idea what is seen in Clarice’s character to make it seem like something she would even do. To me, the book ending comes off as random, from out of nowhere and then it's just over. Just to be clear, I'm not being critical of people who like that ending, I'm more interested in what they are seeing in the ending that I am missing.
In the book 'Hannibal' I think the person she encounters is one of the previous inmates who she was afraid of, he was released but had nowhere to go and ended up living in the same basement. I think she gave him some money or something to calm him down.
This ending is not as good as the book... BUT is MUCH BETTER than the film... because this ending RESPECT what truly is Hannibal Lecter...Very good ending.
Ironic in The 1984 film The Bounty When set adrift Anthony Hopkins who played Captain Bligh would not retreat into cannibalism stating we are gentlemen.
As violent and murderous as Lecter could get, he had his code of ethics; his morals; his humanity-contrast someone like Mason Verger, a disgusting man, who before being disfigured and crippled, performed horrible moments of sexual assault towards children regularly. So the scenario in which he's cuffed to Starling and hell bent on somehow escaping, he does NOT under any circumstances cut her hand off, but his instead. That to me was perfect.
I wonder why Clarice tears rolling down when she watched Lecter's murder video and when he kiss her (and she handcuff him) at the end of the movie?! Is it because she loves him? Or something else?
She did love him, it was she was denial because she knew Lecter was a killer and she was a cop. She knew that could hurt her image as an agent, but if it was me, I wouldn’t cared, cuz Lecter is so fineeee
The ending should have been different, maybe Clarice would catch just a glimpse of Lecter. But the rest should have been added and the movie theaters would have given an intermission at the half way mark.
I have to write down my opinion after all these years. 1. The movie's ending is more real and logical than the book's ending, highlighting the complex, multilayered paradox these characters share. 2. Hannibal Lecter DID NOT cut off his whole hand... 3. Lecter left the handcuffs upstairs as a TEST and Clarice, rightly so - according to her character, uses it to catch Lecter. 4. The tear is a symbol of their relationship's romantic aspect and her inner struggle with all of it. 5. Thanks for the mirror/window breaking alternative scene, we know that she breaks it due to what Lecter said to her minutes ago about a medal, the FBI and a mirror. Think about it.
OH MY GODDDDDDDD I REMEMEBER READING THIS SCENE IN THE BOOOK IS WAS SO SAD I MISSED SAMMIE I REME,EBER CRYING BECAUSE HE WASNT IN THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS MOVIE
The mention of Botticelli's painting in the second scene here is a reference to the true hypothesis posed by one of the investigators in the real Mostro di Firenze case - he believed that the killer had posed the 1974 victim in a manner resembling the position of a nymph in Botticelli's "Primavera". Another investigator thought that the nymphs represented all the victims. In reality, the painting was almost certainly unrelated to the case in any manner, but its story became a quite notorious aspect of the entire famed (or, more accurately, infamous) case. Those scenes were excised because il Mostro case has really nothing to do with the film's plot, and very little to do with the book's plot, either - it is just a part of Pazzi's background. (Of course, the true victim and the crime scene did not resemble the photograph shown in this scene in any way). The man encountered by Starling in the abandoned hospital in the first scene is, in fact, Sammie, as the words he utters show - he speaks of "going with Jesus", just as he had written in his scratched letter to Lecter in the book ("GO WIV JEEZA"). Sammie was the patient in Lecter's wing, the one who one day had placed his mother's head in his church's collection plate, because, as Lecter explained, "it was the nicest thing he had at home". By the way, it is most likely a coincidence, but Lecter's dark van in the alternate ending does very much resemble Dolarhyde's van, as depicted in both "Red Dragon" and its true adaptation "Manhunter".
@@gracieloufreebush4899 After rescuing Clarice, Lecter attempted to brainwash her via psychoactive drugs and therapy sessions in order to make his long-dead sister Mischa live again through her. He ultimately failed, but they ended up becoming lovers and escaping together. I myself found it awful because I felt it was a total betrayal of Clarice's character, and I'd rather see her relationship with Lecter being left open... like here
@Sparta Reborn Fan Service and making a good realistic ending aren't the same. The ending was just too far fetched, didn't make sense and was also unsatisfying.
I'm confused as that as well, this was the ending when I rented it from Blockbuster in 2002, and this is the ending in the steel book edition I bought. There's a section that says "Alternative endings" and all it plays are trailers for the movie. This is literally the only ending I have ever seen in any edition.
@@TheEvie1995 Didnt he so here? Or do you refer to the next scene in the airplane with the child? The cutting itself is never shown to my best knowledge.
@@TheEvie1995 Heck, you are right, in the above scene he still has both Hands after they departed. I should have watched more closely! In my Version back then, he had only one Hand while eating on the plane. Still, I recall a hard scene-cut just as he lets the knife fall down, so until we see her at the river, it is unclear whose hand he cut off.
@@Volsunga @chelly bean it's a mirror. earlier in the movie he says to Clarice, "Would they have you back, you think? The FBI? Those people you despise almost as much as they despise you. Would they give you a medal, Clarice, do you think? Would you have it professionally framed and hang it on your wall to look at and remind you of your courage and incorruptibility? All you would need for that, Clarice, is a mirror." I've always been so fascinated about why she does that - is she disgusted at her own courage and incorruptibility? Maybe she thinks she failed that night - because Lecter got away - and that she's not as courageous and incorruptible as he thought.
@@wildwildmercuryx8181 my interpretation is she realizes her feelings for lecter and therefore she is no longer incorruptible, she is no longer the person she was
What a pity it's not Jodie Foster. Or someone else. Julianne Moore is a good actress, but she was very boring as Clarice. She's neither Lecter's ally nor enemy. Her Clarice lacks personality. There's greater chemistry between Batman and the Joker than between Clarice and Hannibal here. And it's clearly not Hopkins' fault.
I don’t understand, this was the ending I saw that was on video, it’s the only ending I’ve ever seen, only difference is that he doesn’t cut his own hand off
Yeah a lot of these scenes pertain to the book too that they cut out, and I hate to be one of those guys but the fucking book was awesome like watching a movie and then reading gives you kind of a sense of the scenes taking place so makes the read a lot more details and holy shit is a gruesome, like it's actually had shown the "brain" seen directly depicted from the book it would have had been a director's cut to DVD absolutely very gruesome more gruesome than when they had originally put in the movie and I had heard somewhere from IMDb that the German version of the film actually shows him cutting into Paul crandler's brain and removing it and not just going straight to the frying pan showing clarice's reaction if anyone knows where to see that ending please tell me
I liked the first scene at the asylum. Never really liked this movie much. Its really anticlimactic compared to Silence of the lambs and Red Dragon. It does have its moments though.
Who said he cut off his whole hand? Everyone is attacking this point, but in my opinion, he only cut off his small finger. Plus, using the handcuffs, it really adds to Clarice's character, as Lecter left those handcuffs upstairs as a test. NOONE ever mentions it. Think about it!
Julianne Moore SHOULD have been been the original "Clarice." Better actress and more pleasant to the eyes. She's better suited for the role of Clarice, more believable.
A few good men Mey it be courtship that brings us together or what Mey it is to be as they of David for at first glance.with live of dolman state at all times and at all times granted no matter what.amen
Nope. In normaln ending he cut his own hand, as Clarice hadcuffed them to each other. Unless you haven't seen movie with that ending, this one is alternative
