There is an unwritten rule that films adapted from books are never as good as the source material. Manhunter (based on Thomas Harris' Red Dragon) and The Silence of the Lambs (based on Harris' book of the same name) broke that rule. Both films remained uncannily faithful to their respective books, while changing only the details necessary for the different medium.

The immense success of The Silence of the Lambs virtually guaranteed that any follow-up novel by Harris would have a film version. Anticipation levels were high. Then Harris did an odd thing -- he crafted a novel very different from his previous efforts and seemingly totally impractical to film.

Never let the odds deter Hollywood, however.

After Jonathan Demme passed on the project, Ridley Scott took the helm. Jodie Foster also passed on reprising her role of Clarice Starling, to be replaced by Julianne Moore. That didn't matter, though, because Anthony Hopkins agreed to return as the title character of Hannibal the Cannibal.

I read the book when it first came out and the feeling I had was that it somehow didn't quite fit into the world Harris had created in the two previous novels. Or, more accurately, it seemed almost like a hyper-real vision of that world, almost like a dream. This is the world as Hannibal Lecter would have it be. This wasn't just a sequel; it's a tale told from Lecter's point of view. In that sense, the story worked. It didn't matter if events were wholly implausible since everything seemed to be filtered through the distorted reality of Hannibal Lecter.

The story essentially follows three paths. First is Hannibal Lecter's efforts to evade authorities and, contradictory to those efforts, his increased infatuation with Clarice Starling. Starling, meanwhile, hasn't faired well in her career. She seems to be on a downward spiral, battling both herself and her superiors in the FBI. Catching Lecter might just reverse things for her. Finally, one of Lecter's few surviving victims, the wealthy and disfigured (thanks to Lecter) Mason Verger, is pouring most of his resources into finding Lecter so he can exact his own revenge against the doctor.

While most of the specifics of these three interconnected story arcs work well within the confines of the written word, they unfortunately don't translate as effectively to film. For instance, Mason Verger's plans for Lecter include feeding him to boars trained to eat human flesh. Enough detail is given in the book to make this choice chilling. The luxury of explanation isn't as thorough in the film, however, making the use of boars seem almost ridiculous. One is left to ask, couldn't less odd animals (sorry for any offense fans of boars might take), such as dogs, do the same job?

An effort is made, to be sure, to make this film as faithful to Harris' written works as the previous two films. The effort, however, only manages to take scenes that were creepy and suspenseful in the book and turn them into near farce. The trained boars are an example of this, as is the eventual fate of agent Paul Krendler (played by Ray Liotta). Some things just work better on paper.

Also, the ending doesn't quite fit with the tone and direction of the film (don't worry, I won't spoil it with details). There has been a lot of backlash about the ending of the novel, but all events in the story fairly lead up to that ending. The film also leads us in that direction, and then fails to deliver, instead going for an ending that fits better into Hollywood conventions. If anything, this is the weakest part of Hannibal.

The film is also hindered by the lack of development in most of the main characters. Lecter is clearly the focus of this movie and all other characters are treated as bit players. Still, Julianne Moore, Ray Liotta and Gary Oldman (uncredited as Mason Verger) do as well as they can with the material they are given to work with.

Anthony Hopkins turns in a great performance, as usual, and yet he doesn't seem to be playing the same Lecter that was in The Silence of the Lambs. The Lecter in Hannibal is more a caricature. This isn't a slight against Hopkins' performance, however, since as I said, Hannibal is a story told from Lecter's viewpoint. That the already surreal character is now nearly over-the-top is acceptable in that context.

I don't want to give the impression that this is a bad film. True to form, Ridley Scott visualizes a world that is exciting to watch. The story is, for the most part, engaging and the acting works as it should. It simply doesn't clear the bar set by the previous two films or live up to the intensity of the book. And perhaps that's too much to ask. The flaws don't kill the film, they only emphasize how much better it could have been.