Rating: 
Summary: Great Movie, Terrible Video Transfer
Review: Did anyone else notice how awful the picture quality was? There were white and black specks visible here and there throughout the film. Is this the best they could do for the criterion collection? The other version on dvd is supposedly much cleaner. Trust me, the extras on this version are not worth the step down in picture quality that also comes with it(unless you want an extra 30 second scene and about two minutes of extra dialogue from existing scenes). Buy the other version for less money...
Rating: 
Summary: SILENT! The "Lambs" is Overrated.
Review: Having been a longtime admirer of Thomas Harris' first psych-thriller "Red Dragon" and the story based movie "Manhunter", I have always been disappointed with "Silence of the Lambs" for a few reasons. The notion of a brand new FBI agent (while still undergoing her initial academy training) conducting a complex homicide investigation for the Behavioral Sciences Unit is just too far-fetched. This would be tantamount to a first year medical school student performing a triple-bypass or brain surgery. Yet, this is precisely what "Silence of the Lambs" does with Foster's character, Clarice Starling. Unfortunately, this story defect completely taints the whole movie for me. I find equally dubious the rookie Straling performing an autopsy; she is still an academy-probationary employee! Starling was also unconvincing in her interview techniques with Hannibal Lecter...she was "rolled" by Lecter as she lost control of the interview process and disclosed her personal history to a known sociopath. The writers and producers should have better researched the material before putting it to novel and screenplay. The fact is, law enforcement officials (be they your local police or the FBI) spend many years acquiring the experience it takes to become competent homicide investigators, particularly for serial murder cases. This glaring inaccuracy throughout the movie leads me to conclude that the Starling character is nothing but window dressing. Although Hopkins and Foster do provide fine acting performances, the storyline suffers greatly from its defects. I was downright irritated when "Silence of the Lambs" won the Best Picture Oscar, due to its bogus storyline. "Silence of the Lambs" will always be credited with starting the all too numerous clone movies and shows dealing with criminal profiling; i.e., X-Files, Profiler, Millenium, Copy Cat, etc., etc. I have seen this movie in the theater, as well as on laserdisc. Yet, it has always left me wanting more. Attention to details!!! It's a shame that we couldn't substitute the stronger storyline and details from "Manhunter" into "Lambs". Anyways, "Silence of the Lambs" will always be an overrated film, and just "lambchops" within this movie genre.
Rating: 
Summary: THE MOVIE WAS GREAT!!!!!!!!
Review: The Silence of the lambs was an exellent movie!!! It happens to be my favorite! I must admit that the Silence of the Lambs is not the least bit as scary as people say so if you are looking for something to scare you, this would not be a good movie unless your easily scared! The movie the Silence of the lambs is exellent and the storyline is GREAT!!!! I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS MOVIE TO EVERYONE!!!
Rating:
Summary: Quite good, but watch its prequel first.
Review: This is a very good thriller, but you should DEFINITELY watch its prequel first. I am referring to "Manhunter" by Michael Mann, available here, from Amazon, and based on Thomas Harris' novel "Red Dragon" which came before "Silence". "Manhunter" is much better in some respects - it's more stylish, and the actors perform better (particularly Dennis Farrina, much better than Scott Glenn's Crawford - not to mention Brian Cox, whose portrayal of Lecter is infinitely more chilling than the exaggerated overacting done by Hopkins).
Rating: 
Summary: AVERAGE B MOVIE
Review: I have just watched this -about 9 years after the rest of the world.I wish I had not wasted 2 hours.It is so poor that it could only frighten a child.It 's plot is so overdone that you get never get involved in it.Its got all the excesses of a gory comic strip.Anyone who never worked out after 2 seconds that Hannibal was in the ambulance is easily duped. Its a piece of trash for people who like trash but dont expect to be impressed.
Rating:
Summary: Best Thriller Ever
Review: I love thrillers but this is the best. Can't wait for the Hannibal movie but the book will have to do me for now. Anthony Hopkins deserved best Actor because he was freakishly good. Jodie foster was good too and the movie is really good.
Rating:
Summary: One word: frightening.
Review: This movie is my absolute favorite psycho thriller. But I have to side with the guy from Kentucky because he's right. Buffalo Bill is more interesting to read about because all Hannibal does is eat people. Buffalo Bill's need to become a woman is more intriguing and twisted. And another thing: if you look SOTL up on yahoo or whatever, almost all the sites are about Hannibal. Enough said about that, except that I think Kentucky Boy is totally right.
Rating:
Summary: Great movie, but . . .
Review: Honestly, watching Silence of the Lambs nowadays, it's just so freaking obvious how much the X-Files took from it. Of course, much has been said about Foster's Starling being the inspiration for the X-Files's Dana Scully. However, the influence of this movie -- the cinemtography, mood, dialogue, pacing, costumes, and villians -- is just so clear on the X-Files, especially its first season.Unfortunatedly, having watched the X-Files for years, it has dulled the impact of Silence of the Lambs. Its style has been so copied and done that Silence of the Lambs merely now seems like among the best of its type, rather than a groundbreaking thriller. Still, I'd highly recommend its viewing, if nothing else but to see where the X-Files took its basic skeleton from.
Rating: 
Summary: DOES GREAT EXECUTION MAKE EXECUTION GREAT?
Review: While no one can fault THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS on many levels, one must wonder whether the movie's technical excellence is enough to support the heinous nature of the story and the ultimate exploitation in its telling. The good points are, of course, the superb DVD transfer and the always preferrable widescreen formatting; the landmark performances of Hopkins and Foster (and a stunning debut from underappreciated New York actress Brooke Smith as Catherine Martin); and the overall foreboding tone of the film--all of which are hugely successful. But in the end, the film often just devolves into perverse, gory pulp--the same conduct we are presumed to abhor from Buffalo Bill is suddenly palatable (or at least often amusing) when its carried on by Hannibal Lecter. You think not? Take a survey of your friends/peers and see how many people were NOT happy that Lecter escapes at the film's end, with the implication that he will exact revenge on one of his smarmy captors. Why? Because of the charm and intelligence that Hopkins imbues the character with; Lecter is so much more INTERESTING than any of the other characters. On its own, this may not have been such an egregious decision by the filmmakers. The trouble is, as always, the hordes of similarly gross imitations of this film that have arisen in just a few short years. Murders and executions become ever grislier; deviates are less loathsome if they are handsome or charming; police and law enforcement are suitable targets for hideous treatment (ala RESERVOIR DOGS; etc.). Is art responsible for society's actions? I doubt we'll ever solve that one, but it does increasingly taint my viewing of THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS as the years go on.
Rating:
Summary: Wowsers
Review: Wow. There are a lot of unhappy bunnies out there. Silence of the Lambs is, in my view, one of the great thrillers. It is, however, NOT a horror movie. That's not to say it isn't grisly, but there are no monsters about to leap out of the closet (well, apart from Hannibal) and tear you apart. Much of the violence is gruesome rather than scary, and adds to the general feel of the film. I can understand totally people who dislike the film. It was hyped to a great degree when released, and a lot of people expected a chase 'n' slash horror. It was never meant to be that. The comparison to Psycho is purely valid and perhaps one of the most telling. Psycho did use chase 'n' slash horror as well as the more morbid psychological horror (mainly engineered by Hitchcock). SOTL relies far more heavily on the latter, and brings it off far more effectively. The only true chase scene is in the final five minutes: heroine against villain. Even Lecters escape is more of a planned action rather than a bloodfest, which happens to involve murder because it was required in the plan. Even Lecters unseen murders (as were Bill's) were carried out as a necessary means to an end (to eat flesh or to skin them). I'm sure that this review will generate it's own barrage of response to counter my points. But my final thought on this is: Art is intended not only to appeal aesthetically, but to stimulate discussion and thought. If this film has done this, then can it be considered art? If not, then surely it should just be enjoyed as it is; a modern thriller.
|
