Customer Reviews

The Silence of the Lambs (Full Screen Special Edition)

5 star:		(181)
4 star:		(23)
3 star:		(9)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(13)

 

 

It's rare for a film to win Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Picture, Best Director and Best Screenplay Oscars, but The Silence of the Lambs did just that. Hannibal Lecter (Hopkins) is often regarded at the top villain in cinema history and he's probably the first character that springs to mind when you think about the movie. It's hard to believe that Hopkins was only on the screen for about 16 minutes.

The story begins with Agent Clarice Starling (Foster). We see her tackling an obstacle course at the FBI's Quantico training center. Her boss, Jack Crawford, (Glenn), calls her in and asks her to visit Lecter. He's in a secure cell and the warnings she receives appear excessive, but they seem justified by the end of the movie.

Lecter is intelligent, polite and eloquent. Although he's a monster capable of eating people, he has a twisted sense of honor. It's clear that he likes Starling and he rewards some of her honest revelations with help and insight into how she might track down serial killer, Buffalo Bill (Ted Levine).

It's curious that the movie is often placed in the horror genre. I watched David Fincher's version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo recently, and compared the two films. Both are essentially investigations into murders as the protagonists attempt to track a serial killer. Each includes a colorful character, although one is a hero and the other a villain. If Lisbeth Salander and Hannibal Lecter were more conventional characters, the two movies would lose a lot of their power. I think it's wrong to label The Silence of the Lambs as a horror movie, but I understand why that's often the case.

The movie works because we love how monstrous Lecter is and how human Starling can be. Foster's performance made Starling seem incredibly vulnerable. She's a young cadet finding her way in the FBI and this is her first big break. Then we see that she has to contend with Lecter, who is ruthlessly insightful and able to read her easily. Much of the story is seen from Starling's point of view and it's easy to identify with her fears as she tries to catch the killer.

The final showdown is extremely effective. You can sense the evil in Buffalo Bill and Starling's fear is audible and visible. The song playing during this sequence (Hip Priest, by The Fall) holds special meaning for me as it was played at the first concert I ever attended.

Scott Glenn can be very likable and I enjoyed his performance as Crawford. The movie drew considerable praise from the FBI for it's realism and it was easy to imagine Glenn as a member of the organization.

Hopkins is a versatile actor capable of playing just about any role. I would rank him among the top tier of my favorite actors. Maybe it's because of the characters he plays, but he strikes me as a very intelligent man.

The Silence of the Lambs is constructed simply, but the acting and the ominous mood elevate it to the level of greatness.

i remember watching this movie a long time ago and not being all that
impressed.but i watched it again last night,and i have a higher opinion
of it now than i did before.it's a good film,there's no question.it's
very moody and atmospheric,yet i still think Red Dragon is a superior
film.however,did like a lot about "Silence...".i thought Scott Glenn
was excellent as Jack Crawford,Starling's(Jodi Foster)superior.i am not
a Jodi Foster fan at all,however,she did well in this movie.i still
think, though,that Julianne Moore's portrayal of Clarice Starling in
Hannibal is superior.Hopkins is brilliant of course as Hannibal
Lector.but Ted Levine is equally brilliant in his portrayal of "Buffalo
Bill". yes,"Silence..."is a very good movie,but what puzzle me is how
people revere it as much as they do.it isn't that good.it will
definitely give you chills and draw you in.the story is very
compelling.having said all that,i give SOTL 3.5/5

I did not read the book so I don't know if the writer and director were trying to follow a flawed path with their script. However, the movie lost me early on with the premise that an FBI academy student would be chosen for an important assignment. Thus I found myself following the rest of the movie wondering what the heck Jodie Foster was doing in the center of all the action. Then there was the casting for Hannibal Lector. This character is going to have to convince the audience that he possesses not only a brilliant mind but also a powerful physique. Enter Anthony Hopkins and exit my interest in this character. By now I'm hoping that Scott Glenn will show up more often so I can have someone whose role I can accept.

There are several confusing sequences in the movie that detract further from its' quality. Maybe it's just me but I was totally confused by a scene with Jodie Foster and a group of local lawmen gathered when one of their own was found. Ms. Foster gave a little speech that made absolutely no sense to me. Then there was the incredible scene in which Hannibal Lector was transfered to Memphis or some such place at the request of some influencial politician (like that made any sense). We have a hotel with two divisions of policemen in it to guard Lector (and two cops actually doing the job). We are expected to accept that Lector is able to overpower the two cops, create a gruesome disguise and escape (presumeably by overpowering even more inept individuals). It was quite a series of events but I didn't buy the concept that it could have happened in the first place.

Well, enough of my complaints. My point is that I felt the movie lacked credibility. I think viewers were fascinated with the concept of Hannibal Lector and tended to accept whatever they were asked to. There was some interesting psychological dialogue and some scenes that were very well done. I just was never able to buy into it.

This award-winning 1991 film was adapted by Ted Tally from the 1988 novel by Thomas Harris. The film is a faithful adaptation of the novel, except for some minor changes. Personally, I prefer the film because of its dramatic scenes as well the characters, especially the infamous Dr. Hannibal Lecter.

I agree with the reviewers here. This film is one of the best thrillers of the 20th century.

I've seen this film a number of times at different stages in life. Time has not been kind to it, nor my opinion. At the time I was blown away by the suspense and the editing - and of course there can be no doubting it has a number of 'classic' moments.

Foster is excellent and the production values are too. Hopkins' performance is, when separated from the hype and undue adulation, hysterically melodramatic. I suppose he gets some credit for single-handedly creating a method of acting psychotic. ["Helloooo, Clarice"] He is on screen for a grand total of 16 minutes, yet was somehow considered a lead actor worthy of the highest praise.

But there is something cruel and rotten in this film. It demands that you somehow admire Hopkins' Lecter, a monotonous, psychobabbling freak who apparently has a glint of redemption based on his eloquence and artistic tastes; indeed we're invited to laugh along happily as this amoral cannibal escapes to stalk and kill his prison supervisor in the final scene.

You can probably find the classic moments on YouTube. No need to watch the whole film - which is actually filled with a bunch of oversimplified freaks mascarading as characters we should care about. Even Foster's Starling.

A well made film, a classic in the eyes of most. But empty and unchallenging. Late night cable TV offers more than this.

This is a great movie to watch in the dark. "The Silence of the Lambs." Jonathan Demme's tense thriller combines excellent actors and a wonderfully adapted screenplay to make, what seems to be one of the best, if not the best, thrillers of all time.

This film has three accounts and everyone knows the story. FBI trainee Starling is assigned to glean information from incarcerated serial killer, Dr Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) concerning the whereabouts of another serial killer on the loose, Buffalo Bill. A former patient of Lecters, he's killed and skinned several women. Starling and Lecter's interrogation sessions become a slowly spreading invasion within the background of Starling's emotionally fragile psyche. All the while Buffalo Bill has himself a new victim, and Lecter is already planning his escape.

First I will praise the film's merits. Yes it does have excellent performances. The scenes between Starling and Lecter are electrifying. They're the high-point of the whole film. And Demme does superb things with his camera. I like the way he shoots many of Clarice's scenes from her POV, like when she descends several staircases and goes through several doors at the asylum until she finally meets Dr Lecter. This movie is like no other. It combines tenses scenes with a cast like no other. Anthony Hopkins was born to be Hannibal, and why Michelle Pfeiffer was originally suggested for the role of Clarice over Jodie Foster is bizarre, but because Jodie Foster got the role, it doesn't really matter. When it comes to violence this film is very intense. There are some graphically violent scenes; however the worst violence in the film is the mental violence. Hannibal's ability to destroy someone mentally is incredibly disturbing, and the films motives are pretty full on. However this contributes to the films overall feel of horror, which is why "The Silence of the Lambs" is one of the most mentally frightening films of all time.

The first one of the trilogy of Hannibal Lecter. Anthony Hopkins at his very best. A fantastic movie, don't miss any of the three.

Roger Ebert said, "I t has been a good long while since I have felt the presence of Evil so manifestly demonstrated as in the first appearance of Anthony Hopkins in "The Silence of the Lambs", and it is exactly that manifestation of evil caused The Silence of Lambs to leave such an indelible mark on moviegoers. Hopkins performance surely rates as one of the best performances, male or female, in Hollywood history.

Credit also goes, in enormous quantities, to Jonathan Demme and Jodie Foster. To Demme because he realized that the horror of this film was psychological, and to Foster because her perfectly played naiveté to Lecter's arrogant worldliness created the canvas on which the film resonates.

Too many thrillers and wanna-be thrillers fall into the least common denominator - trite scare tactics. Here, there was nothing trite. The images were clear, original, and gripping.

I've seen this film half a dozen times (there are very few films that I've watched more than twice), and every time my mind brings up the scene that Ebert is referring to - in Chilton's psychiatric ward - my mind's eye sees Lecter wearing orange. This is Demme's brilliance. He has done such a terrific job of creating Lecter as a devil, that when I think of him, I clothe him in colors of fire. In reality, he wears blue in that scene.

In a later scene, the scene that names the book and film, Lecter is imprisoned in a tall cage in the center of a wide open room, and Foster sneaks in to visit him, hoping to garner more clues to the murder she's investigating (it's easy to forget while watching this film that there is something going on other than the relationship between Lecter and Starling, like the other serial murderer in the film, the one that is actively killing people). This is where Demme (and Hopkins and Foster, for that matter) shines. Lecter, seated, asks Starling, "What does he do, this man you seek?" Starling answers, "He kills women." "No, that is incidental," Lecter replies. When Lecter speaks - and his diction is flawless, perfect, and amazing, capturing his contemptful personality - the camera is completely focused on his face, and the lighting and shadows that Demme employs evokes images of every devil or demon our imagination, or literature, has ever conjured.

This scene, and everything that follows (the second meal of raw meat, the killing of the guards), is a breathtaking piece of artistry.

This is, quite simply, the very best thriller Hollywood has ever produced.

With excellent directing, writing, and acting...Jodie Foster plays a great role and should have won the academy award.

Jonathan Demme's "Silence of the Lambs" starring Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster is by far one of the best directed horror films since the Hitchcock ones. Based on the novel by Thomas Harris, this tells the story of a FBI trainee, Clarice Starling who works with Dr. Hannibal Lector to understand the mind of the serial killer Buffalo Bill, who has been killing a series of people in the midwest. Dr. Lector, a reknowned psychiatrist is in prison for killing and eating his patients. The movie swept the top five oscars in 1991 and rightly so. The quality of the acting, direction, screenplay, music and photography are unmatched by any movie of this kind.

Jonathan Demme is a director who knows his genres and if ones looks at the movie carefully, he takes us through a large part of US history. Right from the time when Starling goes to the "Yourself" storage facility, she sees the old keyboard, a dressmaker's dummy and an eagle to remind us of the old south during the civil war to the part where she goes to the killer's home and sees the butterfly reminding us of Vietnam, he shows that the killer is connected with all aspects of the US history. Every place one goes, one sees a flag tucked away and a helmet to remind us of the killer's past.

The interaction between Starling and Lector are among the best, right from the beginning they hit off a relationship of uneasy trust. This helps her track the killer down. Though Lector is incarcerated in a high security prison, he is a man of class and spends his time painting pictures of Florence. He does his best to get away from Dr. Chilton, the administrator of the facility. When the whole thing fails, he manages to escape. The scariest parts of the movie are those where Clarice is hunting for the killer in the dark of his home and the end when Dr. Lector calls her and ends it with one of the best endings of the movie, "I am sorry to end our conversation, but I am having an old friend for dinner". Though how he tracks her down to call her is difficult to understand, this part sends a shiver up one's spine. The screenplay is superb, where Dr. Lector and Clarice exchange notes, "Quid Pro Quo". When Dr. Lector finds that she has lied to him about getting him out of prison, he says,

"Pity about poor Catherine though, tick tock, tick tock, tick tock".

This movie is not for all people. While even a layperson can appreciate the movie, there are a number of subtleties that one understands if one knows the context. Special among these are the place about why the killer kills the women, the place where she finds the moth in the palate of the victim, and when she goes to the museum of natural history to find out what kind of moth it is. Small things have significance in this movie. This movie is a classic and is unforgettable. The new DVD transfer is superb, both audio and video are outstanding. I would advice any person not having blood circulation problems to go for this movie, this is an outstanding masterpiece.