I think I am. I found it to be extremely disappointing when I watched it back in the 90's. I couldn't care about the characters, and I think it's probably the least interesting role Jodie Foster has played. The only exception was Jame Gumm's prisoner Catherine Martin, played by the excellent Brooke Smith.
Of course, compared to Hannibal it's a masterpiece! The only part of Hannibal I liked (because it was hilariously funny) was when Ray Liotta was eating his own brain!
Posted by pettyfan (Member # 2260) on :
I agree...Hannibal was awful. Silence of the Lambs was okay, not one of my favorites. I'm not a big Jodie Foster or Anthony Hopkins fan, so that could have something to do with it. I've seen much better, and I've seen much worse.
Posted by ISIS (Member # 1780) on :
I thought it was very scary when I first saw it...it did things that I had never seen in a movie before, and were over the top graphic.
But, I never liked it ever, and I never ever liked Jodie Foster's character either.
I remember it came out around the time Sleeping with the Enemy did, and there were still movies that were good to go see at the movie theater and I still held out hope that good movies would be made in the beginning part of the 90's.
Now...when I see movies previewed like Queen Latifa's "Last Holiday"...I know things will never be the same again.
Posted by Kash (Member # 297) on :
Being an Anthony Hopkins fan, I quite liked all three, and in spite of popular opinion, still rate Bret Ratner’s ‘Manhunter’ remake; ‘Red Dragon’ as the best of the series. The dynamic between Lector and Ralph Fiennes Dollarhyde was truly sinister, especially that scene where the good doctor manages to get Ed Norton’s home address from his cell and get the info to Dollarhyde.
Never a big Jodie Foster fan, but she was all right in ‘Silence Of The Lambs’, I always thought Sigourney Weaver would’ve been an excellent Clarice. ‘Hannibal’ is perhaps the most misunderstood of the saga, Scott was trying to do some kind of baroque satire with allusions to Jacobin era tragedies like ‘Titus Andronicas’ (the hand cutting is a direct reference to said play) a lot of it didn’t work that well, but at least it wasn’t the standard serial killer fare or a re-run of the original.
btw there's yet another Hannibal movie in the works about the young Lector, Hopkins will only provide a voiceover this time around.
[ 01. January 2006, 11:01: Message edited by: Kash ]
Posted by Valley (Member # 1322) on :
Stitch, "Silence Of The Lambs" is a terrifying film that toys with human emotions. The most compelling part of the film is in the developing dynamics of intelligent psychiatrist turned psychopath Hannibal Lecter participation in a cat-and-mouse battle of nerves with FBI agent-trainee Clarice Starling, and the many chilling discussions between them. Pro-quo Dr. Lector.
Kash, I thought "Hannibal" was horrible, but Hopkins saved Lector's legend with the underrated "Red Dragon".
A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti. Also, I'll pass on that "having a old friend for dinner" invitation as well.
Posted by StevenHW (Member # 509) on :
I can't say that I hated it, but there was something about that movie that really rubbed me the wrong way.
For me, this movie is definitely one of the more overrated films of the 90's.
And I just can't figure out how this movie was named Best Picture at the Academy Awards, instead of "Beauty & The Beast", "JFK", or even "The Prince of Tides". But then, 1991 was not a good year for movies.
I have not seen the sequels, and have no desire to.
Posted by rocksteadyflamethrower (Member # 1065) on :
quote:Originally posted by StevenHW: But then, 1991 was not a good year for movies.
GASP! One of our resident 90s fanatics saying that 1991 was a bad year for movies? WOW.
Just kidding!
Sincerely,
John Kilduff
Posted by MotleyRulz (Member # 3598) on :
I thought "Red Dragon" was the best of the series. "Hannibal" was awful and Silence of the Lambs" was pretty good...
Posted by Spooka Lupa (Member # 2700) on :
The movie was disturbing, and it wasn't one of my types of movies--I didn't like it, but I think it was well-made for the genre.
Posted by Devolution (Member # 1731) on :
Devolution here,
Try being 16 and watching Silence of the Lambs in the movies. I thought it was one of the greatest movies that I ever saw in the theater. One of the best thrillers that was ever released. The sequels pale in comparison.
WE are DEVO
Posted by MotleyRulz (Member # 3598) on :
I hear ya Devo. I was 16 and serving as a Governor's page the week we went and saw it. Scared the bejesus out of us...
Posted by mamamiasweetpeaches (Member # 1715) on :
I don't really dislike it but I do agree it is highly over-rated. I also dont think Jodie Foster (who I am a fan of) gave an Oscar worthy performance. Theres something about the way she plays her charactor (the accent maybe?) that I didn't go for. I am a fan of Anthony Hopkins too...and he was very good and made for a memorable villain in this. The whole scenario of the Buffalo Bill murders is kind of hard to watch because THAT **** COULD REALLY HAPPEN!!!!!!! How many times have we seen on the news that some sicko had a secret "dungeon" in their basement that they kept little girls or sex slaves in??? That's scary....and disturbing. And sometimes those more disturbing movies are the hardest to watch. I would not sit through HANNIBAL and hated, hated, hated RED DRAGON. They should have stopped after the first one.
Posted by Nice Guy Sammy Hain (Member # 3150) on :
I liked it. Not so much for Jodie Foster as she's never really done it for me; maybe it's her voice I never liked, but yeah never a fan of hers. What made Silence of the Lambs so great was Anthony Hopkins a top-notch and very believable performance.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Also, I'll pass on that "having a old friend for dinner" invitation as well.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)