User reviews

I still don't understand why so many people think this movie is good. It wasn't scary to me. I didn't feel any suspense. And some of it was gross. What was good about it? In my opinion, the only good part was when it ended.

After hearing how great this film is i had to see it for myself. It isn't "all that". The story-line is boring and stringy, very much NON-VIOLENT and really really drawn out stalking scenes.

I will give credit to the FLAWLESS acting though, Jodie foster and Anthony Hopkins were Outstanding. I really feel that more could have been done with this movie than what they did.

The main reason people like this film is because its a "psychological" thriller, implying that if you dont like this film you are considered dumb.(which is not the case).

This is a very overrated film...very overrated but its worth seeing..so you can say "I have seen silence of the lambs." If that doesnt thrill you...dont see it.

Having read both the Prequel (Manhunter) and Silence of the Lambs, I was looking forward to seeing how the transition to the screen went.

A while back "Manhunter" was released, and although abridged and with a different (but better) ending, I loved it. Particularly Brian Cox as Hannibal Lecter, soft spoken, analytical and very, very calm. However, always an undercurrent of danger and a mere whisper of insanity.

Now on to "Silence of the Lambs" - Hannibal Lecter has gone from being an all too believable real-life monster to a giggling Hollywood psycho - a veritable troll complete with his own dungeon (alas, no smoking torches) and a set of eyes wide enough to make Marty Feldman blink.

Serial murderers such as this, particularly highly intelligent ones, do not prance about revelling in how evil they are, nor do they speak in such ridiculous snidley tones.

They appear quite normal - the reason why they managed to get away with what they did for the length of time they did. Occasionally they speak in monotones and look at nothing in particular. Check out interviews of real-life serial killers - you won't find Anthony Hopkins's fairground pastiche there.

The story itself rambled, the interplay between the two characters did'nt work - Hopkins possibly due to the material, Foster due to the lack of a believable protagonist. They have thankfully both done far better work than this both before and since.

There were some (very few) well designed moments and images but the end was both predictable and dissapointing.

Films are supposed to mirror real life, not the expected perceptions of the mainstream. Otherwise, what happens to creativity?

Oh dear - we're back in Hollywood again.

Dan

I was not impressed with this film, and it's phoney psychiatry. I have some professional experience in working with the criminally insane, in the US and UK. While there are a few staff in the profession who would allow themselves to be manipulated in the way that Clarice Starling does, I cannot conceive any real life situation where so many of her colleagues would allow this situation, known as "team splitting", to continue. It is routine behaviour for psychopaths to attempt to team split, as Lekter does, but it is such a standard ploy that it would be recognised in any institution other than the toyland one in the film and quickly dealt with, and I resent the attitude of the storyline in glorifying this behaviour. Trust me people, if you are in this situation, don't allow patients to split you away from your colleagues, you may think they are interested in you but they will get bored with playing with you in the end. When patients are given this power, which they cannot handle, it makes them more scared, and less likely to learn. In his attempt to make Frederick Chilton, the character that should be the good guy, in to the bad guy, either the actor or the director has gone way over the top, to the point where where pathos becomes bathos, and as for Anthony Hopkins, he lost all credibility for me when he announced in a British tabloid that he was sorry for seeming to condone violence in the role he was playing, and then within a few months proceeded to repeat the role in the sequel, "Hannibal". That's why I never bothered to see the film until just recently.

Totally sickening, no redeeming value to the human condition. Why not study the uplifting people in the world instead of getting a view through the eyes of the most degenerate, disgusting and completely perverted few. The more glimpses they show into the lives of the debase people of the world the more debase our world becomes.

Other than Anthony Hopkin's performance, this movie has no value whatsoever and, in my opinion, is the worse movie to sweep the Oscars. It is completely unpleasant and Jodie's on-again, off-again, accent gets bothersome after awhile. I would rather never see another movie than have to sit through this again.

The most over rated movie I have ever seen in my entire life. I can't believe this type of movies got this much star rating. Very disappointed.

Why this actrees, so lovely, and so good, insists on making such dogs, I'll never know. This is a sick film. What is it about? I don't know. It's just a revolting film. Is it missing a piece? Her movies, both as an actrees and a director, seem to be missing essential pieces. I always feel like there is much interesting ado, but then in the end about nothing.

I really wanted to leave the theater several time during the premiere of this cornball turkey, but I stayed till the bitter end. I was not scared; I was not repulsed; I was annoyed. Grand guignol histrionics, laughable dialogue ("fava beans" indeed), impossible plot holes, and as mismatched a pair of leads as one could imagine, made this a tedious experience. And the idiocy of a main character whose parents named him Hannibal and he just happens to grow up to become a cannibal. Really? Sounds like an idea Chester Gould would have discarded as corny and unbelievable.

While Jodie Foster displays no personality at all, Anthony Hopkins gives an outrageously hammy performance that would make Donald Pleasence wince. In fact, Hannibal Lector eats so much scenery in this film, how could he possibly have any room left for people?

The reaction to this dog after I saw it was truly amazing - and very depressing. As far as I am concerned, the Oscars™ have always been beneath contempt, so when this celluloid Necco wafer won several gilded statuettes, I was not surprised. But I am still depressed that it is considered by many to be a classic. Feh!

I dont know how this movie won so many awards, its very stupid and unrealistic.

The book is completely boring. The movie is more interesting. Jodie Foster is the worst actress I ever seen. Obviously she never had any lessons. She can't act and more worse she doesn't open her mouth while she speaks - a disaster without compare. People like Jodie Foster would fail ANY real test for actors. But in Hollywood even the worst actors can earn millions of dollars with technically extreme bad acting. A real joke to pair the technically worst speaking actress with one of the technically best speaking actors (Anthony Hopkins) in a movie where the book is even more boring than the movie. The plot is just like the book illogical IN ANY SENSE.

I really hate Silence of the Lambs. Because I hate this movie so much I have come here to vent my frustrations. This is the most overrated movie ever made and I am sorry that I wasted 2 hours of my life watching it. I have not and will not see the sequels because the original is so terrible. The only award this movie should have been nominated for is "Stupidest Movie of the Year."

Toxic movies that I hate forever I really believe that films like this harm not only the cinema but also our world

The only strong point that seems to be in this movie is the few silences that Jonathan Demme has managed to capture, but it took too long and it didn't turn out well. Everything in the movie is based on a funny but very serious story.the film does not have script .And it is the only film for which the Academy has become emotional for specific reasons. The set design in the movie is awful. There is neither simplicity nor complexity in it. The story of the movie is full of bugs. The knots of the story are neither real nor fantasy, neither believable nor surreal. A film that is basically a deception. In my opinion, it could have been a more successful movie by switching the roles of Hopkins and Jodie Foster. The pleasure that the story of the movie wants to convey is very confusing and deceptive. Everything suffers from an artificial nostalgia. Not only is it unsuccessful and it never deceives the professional cinema audience, but it is so ridiculous and funny that it is unbelievable at a certain time. A movie that not only the character but also the style is not seen in it. Tasteless and, for example, tasty inserts in the movie do not advance anything. The film remains as interesting as the basic idea.

the film expressed a certain emphasis on the criminal matters now existing in our world. i have read the novel and i though it followed the plot seemingly well. i think anthony hopkins' performance was very sophisticated and i have not yet seen the sequel and i hope his performance was just as good in that.

Story is very bad ....the story has no sense there are very boring and very dull moments in film lack of character development

I expected a lot more.

First I read the book, the book was one of the best book that I have read in my whole life that someone like me that doesn't like reading thinks that this novel is good, almost excellent. But then when I watched the movie, I expected a lot but a LOT MORE.

I can't accept that an impresionante writer that make an really good book, the actor make an movie that had a lot of scene that are too misterious that I don't even know what is happening in that part, what are you doing guys? C'mon this book was one of the mvp book in my life but the movie was make like this? Please don't hate me.