"The Silence Of The Lambs" (1991) - Psychological Thriller Directed by Jonathan Demme, Starring Jodie Foster, Anthony Hopkins, and Scott Glenn

[DonRocks]

I rewatched "The Silence Of The Lambs" this week for the first time in many years, and was struck by just how few minutes of screen time Anthony Hopkins had, compared to what I remember (and I've seen the film 3-4 times now, though some of it was, if you'll excuse the pun, in small bites).

I feel almost guilty for not absolutely loving this great thriller more than I did, especially because it's probably a matter of it simply not living up to the considerable hype that I'd built up in my mind.

And while I picked up nuances that I'd missed before, "Silence Of The Lambs" is, to me, largely an Anthony Hopkins showpiece, and when Hopkins wasn't on screen, everything seemed to drag a bit. Ted Levine didn't do much for me as Buffalo Bill - despite the entire film revolving around him, his character was, paradoxically, poorly developed. Yes, Jodie Foster was outstanding in her role of Agent Starling, and the much ballyhooed Pas De Deux between her and Lecter lives up to its billing.

The strongest feeling I have about this movie is that I cannot imagine any other actor in the world playing the role of Hannibal Lecter. In all of cinematic history, this must surely be one of the all-time great actor-to-character fits. Hopkins stole the show, even when he wasn't there: The fascinating story of him talking his neighbor into committing suicide took place entirely off-screen, and yet the viewer can spend quite a bit of time imagining what must have transpired. The basic plot of using one serial killer to catch another is extremely interesting, and the human pathos of this man just wanting to be able to see a tree evokes a great deal of sympathy (see? I'm feeling sorry for a brutal serial killer - the ability to successfully manipulate the viewer is one of several remarkable achievements in this film).

There's no doubt "Silence Of The Lambs" is a good movie, and there's very little doubt it's a great movie; but there are just too many things lacking, and it's just not complete enough, for it to be one of my all-time favorites, although I suppose it's one of my all-time favorites within the underachieving horror genre. The very end, for example - amusing as it may be - is poorly executed, and an extreme letdown. The phone call should have been breathtaking; instead, it was presented as a lily-livered (sorry) afterthought. Foster was much stronger than Hopkins in that scene - viewers should have walked out of the theater with echoes of a fortissimo chord clanging around in their heads, and instead exited with a bemused chuckle (although a case can be made that viewers are again being manipulated into cheering on the implied upcoming death of an unlikable character).

This is a film that just about everyone has seen, and I would love to read what others think, even if it's just a few lines of writing.

[PappyVanWise]

Have you ever seen Michael Mann's Manhunter?  Brian Cox was on screen for about 6 minutes, but played a great Hannibal Lecter as well.

I feel the Hopkins' role was bit diminished by the sequels, not Hannibal as much as Red Dragon.  The character took the Freddy Krueger route, going from horrific killer to guy you kinda sided with and made you laugh.  And there's always Mads Mikkelsen's take on NBC's Hannibal, which isn't as horrifying yet since it's on network TV, but it is a really good performance.  As far as any other actors filling the role, it was such a perfect fit, but I'd love to see what Robert Shaw could've done with it.

All that being said, Silence of the Lambs is one of those films that I can jump into at any second if I catch it on TV, and will sit and watch until the end.  I've always felt that Scott Glenn has been a serially underrated actor.

[DonRocks]

Have you ever seen Michael Mann's Manhunter?  Brian Cox was on screen for about 6 minutes, but played a great Hannibal Lecter as well.

I feel the Hopkins' role was bit diminished by the sequels, not Hannibal as much as Red Dragon.

I haven't seen any of the sequels, so it remains untainted for me.

I also didn't realize that it had become such a Product, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised, either.

[PappyVanWise]

Manhunter predates Silence by 6 years, so Brian Cox originated the role.  The character of Hannibal Lecter had a small scene in the first book, Red Dragon which is the story for Manhunter.

Hannibal is a decent sequel made by Ridley Scott.  It was filmed partly in Richmond, so it has a soft spot for me.  Red Dragon is a garbage remake of Manhunter, that is a prequel to Silence of the Lambs.  It was made by a cheesy pop director with no touch for the camera and loses all nuance.  They actually use makeup and CGI to make Hopkins appear younger.

[DonRocks]

I rewatched "The Silence Of The Lambs" this week for the first time in many years, and was struck by just how few minutes of screen time Anthony Hopkins had, compared to what I remember (and I've seen the film 3-4 times now, though some of it was, if you'll excuse the pun, in small bites).

I feel almost guilty for not absolutely loving this great thriller more than I did, especially because it's probably a matter of it simply not living up to the considerable hype that I'd built up in my mind.

And while I picked up nuances that I'd missed before, "Silence Of The Lambs" is, to me, largely an Anthony Hopkins showpiece, and when Hopkins wasn't on screen, everything seemed to drag a bit. Ted Levine didn't do much for me as Buffalo Bill - despite the entire film revolving around him, his character was, paradoxically, poorly developed. Yes, Jodie Foster was outstanding in her role of Agent Starling, and the much ballyhooed Pas De Deux between her and Lecter lives up to its billing.

The strongest feeling I have about this movie is that I cannot imagine any other actor in the world playing the role of Hannibal Lecter. In all of cinematic history, this must surely be one of the all-time great actor-to-character fits. Hopkins stole the show, even when he wasn't there: The fascinating story of him talking his neighbor into committing suicide took place entirely off-screen, and yet the viewer can spend quite a bit of time imagining what must have transpired. The basic plot of using one serial killer to catch another is extremely interesting, and the human pathos of this man just wanting to be able to see a tree evokes a great deal of sympathy (see? I'm feeling sorry for a brutal serial killer - the ability to successfully manipulate the viewer is one of several remarkable achievements in this film).

There's no doubt "Silence Of The Lambs" is a good movie, and there's very little doubt it's a great movie; but there are just too many things lacking, and it's just not complete enough, for it to be one of my all-time favorites, although I suppose it's one of my all-time favorites within the underachieving horror genre. The very end, for example - amusing as it may be - is poorly executed, and an extreme letdown. The phone call should have been breathtaking; instead, it was presented as a lily-livered (sorry) afterthought. Foster was much stronger than Hopkins in that scene - viewers should have walked out of the theater with echoes of a fortissimo chord clanging around in their heads, and instead exited with a bemused chuckle (although a case can be made that viewers are again being manipulated into cheering on the implied upcoming death of an unlikeable character).

This is a film that just about everyone has seen, and I would love to read what others think, even if it's just a few lines of writing.

You know what? I'm not alone - I just saw this for the first time: Roger Ebert seemed to like it, I guess about as much as I did; Gene Siskel didn't like it at all: