User reviews

This film has a silly premise, a lousy script, an implausibility factor of about +100 and a dreadful performance by Anthony Hopkins. It's the last point that I'll mention about first: has a more pretentious, breathy performance ever been seen on film before (outside of the Richard Burton oeuvre)? As for plausibility: can you imagine the FBI sending a trainee to interview a serial killer, seeking information about another serial killer on the loose? That was a major flaw in the (also overrated) novel. I guess it's easier to write about, or make a movie with, a younger woman who's still apt to get all scared-ified and emotional and who doesn't have those annoying crows-feet. The script is terrible, too--it tries to present Hannibal Lecter as being some kind of 'psychic vampire'. Witness Hopkins' expression after Jodie Foster tells him her tale of lamb-napping woe--like a famished person who's just been given a good meal. Give me a break! And don't tell me that the FBI couldn't have made a connection between the missing skin pieces on the dead girls' bodies and figured out what the loony-tunes they were chasing was doing. It takes Jodie Foster's character seeing a dress pattern with darts on it to make the connection. What a group of dim bulbs. And they wait until HOW MANY young women are killed before they scratch their heads and say, "Hmmmm, maybe the killer knew one of the victims!" How did this stupid waste of celluloid ever garner any critical praise? I mean, I know the Oscars annually bestow 'Best Motion Picture' awards on undeserving titles, so I don't care that this movie won so many--but what were the nation's film critics thinking when this made so many 'Top 10' lists?

It is certainly the most overrated movie ever.. and it is the first to depict super serial killers as real believable stuff.. let me say something, it is a B movie pretending to be a first class movie.. people must understand a simple thing, super serial killers are B MOVIE STUFF! Movies like Friday 13th or those with Freddy Krüger.. those are typical B movie where there is a super serial killer.

Don't get me wrong, I like B movies.. I like how a B movie director struggle against time and budget to make a piece of entertainment.. I liked the first two Jason movies and that first Freddy movie.. they have the suspense of a B horror movie.. they are true B movies. Those Silence of the Lambs guys got a money to make an A movie and made a B movie, period.

The plot is just absurd, there is a serial killer on the loose.. and a investigator tries find help with another serial killer, the super one, who is in jail.. I don't know exactly what kind of help an investigator would ask for a jailed man.. but it is what the movie is based on. Although the free serial killer could be anywhere.. the super serial killer uses his super powers to help that FBI investigator to find him.. but he likes to play with that female investigator and then he uses his superpowers to read her mind and find out everything about her life. He doesn't tell everything once, he gives her hints about the serial killer whereabout.. so she gotta come over and over again to him to beg some more hints.. it is stupid, I know, but that is one the most praised movies ever.

It is like asking a jailed Freddy Kruger to fight Jason because they can't defeat him.. it is something like that.. if you make a real analysis of that sh*t. And it is not a thriller at all, and has a lot of highly laughable absurd bits.

Unfortunately it created a trend people seems to like too much.. the super serial killer movie pretending to be a serious one, not a B movie which it indeed is.

The movie is often described as a masterpiece, but to me, it feels like a very ordinary serial killer story wrapped in an exaggerated package. The plot follows a formula we've seen many times before-a young agent chasing a disturbed killer, with the added gimmick of another killer offering advice. There's nothing particularly groundbreaking about it once you look past the film's reputation.

What makes it worse are the performances, which feel overacted and artificial. Anthony Hopkins' portrayal of Hannibal Lecter is iconic to many, but his exaggerated style borders on theatrical parody rather than delivering a truly terrifying figure. Jodie Foster's Clarice Starling, meant to be a determined and relatable heroine, often comes across as stiff and unnatural. The emotional connection is missing, and most of the interactions feel scripted rather than real.

Visually, the film is decent but not memorable, and while the score tries to create tension, it often feels forced. Instead of offering a deep psychological exploration, the film leans heavily on clichés and surface-level shocks. For a movie so highly praised, it delivers little more than a standard crime story with performances that never let you forget you are watching actors, not real people.

My ratings for Performances - 2/10, Story/Screenplay: 2/5, Acting: 2/5, Cinematography: 3/5, Music/Score: 1/5, Emotional Impact: 1/5, Originality: 2/5, Rewatch Value: 1/5, Thriller/Suspense: 1/5.

This is another movie that glorifies psychopathic behaviour. The bad guy is portrayed as an intelligent, witty, stylish, calculated guy while the investigators are shown as weak-minded, emotional, imprudent persons. One almost feels sorry(or maybe angry) for the FBI guys for being so incompetent. How can the screenplay for such a movie get 5 Oscars? The acting is not that great either, Anthony Hopkins is overplaying his lines while Jodie Foster is barely acting at all. She doesn't seem to change mimic during the whole movie and the whole story with the lambs is just lame. Some psychopaths are known to be good to animals, so saving some lambs doesn't automatically make you a noble and unique person, someone that can make the world a better place.

Academy Awards are rarely the sign of a great movie. The children of the Academy members, who do the actual voting, have notoriously pedestrian tastes. This movie does add some dramatic scenes and character development to improve on a poorly written novel. This movie's big draws, it would appear, were cannibalism, masogeny, and over-acting. Really great acting is transparent. If you're marvelling at the fantastic acting during the movie, then what you're enjoying is watching someone "ham it up" on the screen, not fine acting. The important thing is that the villain didn't have sex with the women, he just murdered them and skinned them, thus avoiding an x rating. And the females that we were aware of that did have sex were properly tortured for their sins. What I really find offensive is that Hannibal the Cannibal is portrayed as a likable monster, even after cutting off the face of an innocent guard in order facilitate his escape. Hannibal's a winner and American's love a winner, regardless of the atrocities he commits in order to achieve his goals. This movie sends the message that if we are clever and have no moral limits as to what we are willing to do, we'll succeed -which Hannibal does! This movie is truly a bottom feeder in the cesspool of American cinema.

I saw this movie when new, and liked it plenty. That was years ago, and I've grown considerably. My interest in Thomas Harris' "Red Dragon", and the screenplay I'm working on based on it, prodded me into renting SOTL for repeat viewing. I've always held the Oscars in low regard, but have dropped that regard all together after viewing this nonsense. The 1,000 word maximum on these posts prevents me from mentioning all the folly I found in the film. But I'll try....

Acting: In most instances, overwrought. Hopkins was a good psycho, but a bad Lecter. The Lecter of the novels was far more sedate in his demeanor, prefering to "charm" his opposition, allowing himself access to their psyche. Sniffing the air for skin cream is highly dubious. Foster did a good job as a young recruit. The problem I have with her is has more to do with the story. Seems a bit too unrealistic. Will Graham convinced me. Clarice Starling didn't. Dr. Chilton was played as a complete idiot. Typical Hollywood bad good-guy. Made the viewer biased for Lecter. WRITER SHORTCUT! I recognize this as a substitute for compelling writing and acting. Simply bias the audience toward the main character by surrounding him with easy-to-dis-like characters. No childish brat like the Chilton portrayed would ever hold a job of such responsibility. Ted Levine was terrific throughout. Voice, appearance, contortions, crotch, : all wonderful. Most of the supporting players were of TV movie quality. Canned dialog, playing dumb for an assumed dumb audience. Posh on that, Director. As for direction, too many flubs and gimmicks to mention here. I'll mention one: The cat in the window growling as Buffalo Bill drives away with Fat Girl # Whatever. Like any cat is going to react in that fashion. A cat would not bat a whisker if in the presence of such drama. Would only move if the master was going to land on it. Otherwise, no fur ruffled. What a gimmick that was.

The music was typical of Hollywood reality. Never in my life, when confronted with drama of any intensity, have I heard violins out of nowhere. DIRECTOR SHORTCUT!: Adding sappy "music" to enhance mood. In most cases, this is to bolster or cover any weaknesses in writing, acting, direction, or all three. (NOTE: This is certainly not exclusive to this film. Most Hollywood productions employ this tactic.) The ending of the film was almost good about this. No music, just Foster in the dark. ***NO SPOILER*** But the ending could've been better. Easily.

MANHUNTER should have won 15 Oscars, if SOTL could win 5. Sure, it was a bit too 80's in appearance, but far more accurate and convincing. Better book, too.

In summation, too dumbed down. Booooooo.

Unlike Goodfellas, I can see why some people might think this is a good film, but to me its an overlong movie that goes nowhere.

Pretty boring stuff here.

(D)

Unfortunately overrated , in comparison to many films of this genre , nothing have to say !

This film was typical of 1980's to 1990's cinema, with it's talky dialogue and over the top 'action' screenplay.

Wooden and butch are the best words to describe Foster's performance. Hopkins' character was too unbelievable to portray properly. 'Hannibal' the cannibal is laughable, not frightening.

Ted Levine and Buffalo Bill are fantastic, however. When I first saw 'Lambs' years ago I remember being truly scared of Buffalo Bill. Ted Levine is so convincing, I'd be afraid to be in the same room as that guy. The character and performance are at odds with the rest of the movie, which as a whole is far-fetched and overblown. The script itself manages to be boring and offensive at the same time.

Very boring movie we are very bored half of the film closed

I gave this film a 1. It's not quite that bad, but I felt it necessary when I saw the ludicrous fact that it was ranked #20 for all time. That is as astonishing and appalling as the films five wholly undeserved major Academy Awards. To be shocking and unsettling for the purpose of art can be admirable. To be shocking and unsettling for the purpose of creating a lurid freak show is another. This movie never even makes the most cursory attempt to look at what motivates the serial killers it portrays. It just wants to be creepy. Creepy it is, and full of suspense, too. But since when does that earn you a Best Picture Oscar? "Jurassic Park" was creepy and full of suspense, in far skillful and artistic ways, yet the suggestion that it was award worthy would have brought guffaws.

The performances of Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins are good, but definitely not Oscar worthy. In fact, for Hopkins supporting role to be included as Best Actor is abysmally ridiculous. And for all the hype that has surrounded the character of Hannibal Lecter, he is nothing but a by-the-numbers Hollywood pshycopath.

In short, parts of this film are well done (others are not), and unlike most contemporary horror films it's genuinely frightening. But never for one millisecond does it begin to approach a level of depth beyond B-Grade exploitation. Well done schlock is still schlock, and when the Academy gave this film Best Picture, they damaged the dignity of an entire art form.

Well framed and neatly scripted,noway for any leading predictions by viewers. The whole movie kept their harmony and order till the end. Each frame and scenes are closely related. No lagg. I like the story that they really balanced the sense of violence and anxiety. Worth for watch!!!!