28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[StuSmallz]

Great review - time for a rewatch!

Thanks, Yxklyx! Also, another thing I noticed during my rewatch, but didn't have the space to mention in my review, is the way that Demme used his technique of having the actors looking directly into the camera to sort of turn the "male gaze" back on the men, so that, instead of having the camera adopting a male/heterosexual perspective in order to leer at the women in the film (and provide some gratuitous eye candy to the straight men in the audience in the process), he instead uses it to adopt the perspecive of the woman being leered at, so that when the creepy cross-eyed guy at the Smithsonian stares at Clarice/the camera like this...



...he's also looking at us in the process, making us empathize with Clarice's relatively low position in society, because we have no choice but to feel the same discomfort she does in this situation, even if we're male, straight, or otherwise.

[StanleyK]

I must be one of the only people in the world that doesn't care for The Silence of the Lambs.

[

Show Spoiler

For starters, Hopkins is a hammy overactor in just about every role I've seen him in and this is no exception. He chews so much scenery that Lecter isn't scary at all; for reference check out Brian Cox's performance in Manhunter, a much better movie. Then, the film contains ridiculous scenes like Lecter chewing a guard's face off and putting his face on his face to escape a ludicrous makeshift prison, or Clarice shooting the bad guy at the end even though he had night goggles on and was pointing a gun at her back with the element of surprise. On top of all that add the silly psychological explanations and you have a trashy slasher that operates like an arthouse movie. I just can't take it seriously at all.

]

[Irish]

I must be one of the only people in the world that doesn't care for The Silence of the Lambs.

Booooooooy, Stanley, do I have a movie review for you

[

Show Spoiler

]

[Dukefrukem]

I'm kinda on Stanley's side here. For years everyone kept clamoring about The Silence of the Lambs, The Silence of the Lambs, The Silence of the Lambs... and frankly I waited too long to see it so when I finally did see it, I had the same reaction a Stanley did. None of it was really compelling to me, or scary. I suppose Foster's relationship with Hopkins is the most interesting parts and I do like Hopkins, but I can't be bothered with it.

[megladon8]

I think it's really good. But it was bested by Se7en just a few years later, and basically rendered obsolete.

And on top of that, Hannibal (the show) is better in every single way.

[Ezee E]

Never thought it was scary, but a very good murder-detective story.

[Wryan]

I found it more intense than scary.

[Skitch]

I was always sold as it being a horror film as well. After first watch I wasn't blown away, but upon repeat viewings when I realized all the people telling me it was horror can be horrified by PG13 movies, I adjusted my expectations and its a damn good thriller. Definitely not a horror film, imo.

[megladon8]

I would never call it a horror, don't really know why it would be.

[Skitch]

I would never call it a horror, don't really know why it would be.

Because I live in Amish country, and we're discussing pre-internet word-of-mouth reviews by people horrified by most PG13 movies, who avoid anything rated R.

[megladon8]

Because I live in Amish country, and we're discussing pre-internet word-of-mouth reviews by people horrified by most PG13 movies, who avoid anything rated R.

No I get that.

But I've actually seen it classified as horror more than once and that never made much sense to me.

[quido8_5]

Now, this is based off two viewings approximately two decades ago, but I found Silence of the Lambs to be a really good, but not great, film. Although I don’t think its reputation has dimmed since the late ‘90s, early ‘00s, it was widely heralded as a bastion of how sophisticated the suspense/horror/thriller “genre” could be. Moreover, it was viewed as one of the greatest films of all time, one of the relatively few 90s films ranked in the AFI’s Top 100 Films of All Time, putting it at a surprising 65. In a not-uncommon phenomenon, a really good movie became one of minor gripes for me. Probably not fair and why it merits another viewing.

At the time of its release, Demme’s film was also described to me as a horror film and I wonder if this is somehow related to our discussion about modern serial killer films. Part of me wonders if the distinction lies not only with the visual depiction of the violence itself, but also the weight of the act on both killer and victim. Though it harkens back to M and Frenzy, particularly, “modern” serial killer films might be defined by their emphasis on this personified experience from both perspectives. For instance, the centripetal force of Se7en revolves around the murders themselves, with the implications on the characters fleshed out almost ancillary. Much of the film’s impact, for me at least, is the way in which the murders insinuate themselves into my own psyche. We investigate the murders at length, wonder what is the root cause, and, most importantly, reflect on the subjectively horrifying experience of the victim during the act of murder.

This is perhaps why I think Se7en might be a better demarcation of this incredibly random category, because it actually includes scenes that would induce horror (fear, shock, disgust) in a way that Silence doesn’t. While the subject matter of the latter is certainly horrifying, nothing in the content of the film remotely connects to “horror” in my mind. Part of me wonders if people made up for lost time in the horror area with Hannibal the movie (which I think sucks) and Hannibal the TV show (which I think kind of rocks), both of which have very explicit depictions of death from both Hannibal and the victim’s perspectives.

[Skitch]

No I get that.

But I've actually seen it classified as horror more than once and that never made much sense to me.

Yeah thats weird and dumb. Its not horror. Hell, Hannibal (movie) is closer to a slasher horror than SotL, imo.

[megladon8]

IMO Mads is the best version of Hannibal ever. He perfectly melded the creepy predator aspect, with being an incredibly charming and disarming man.

Hopkins always just felt like a creeper and made me wonder how he was ever able to get so close to people. Everything about him was a red flag.

Mads made you fall in love with him before killing and eating you.

[Yxklyx]

I think it's really good. But it was bested by Se7en just a few years later, and basically rendered obsolete.

And on top of that, Hannibal (the show) is better in every single way.

I loved the first two seasons of Hannibal - did not like and even finish the third.

[Skitch]

I finished the third. It was not good.

[StuSmallz]

I think it's really good. But it was bested by Se7en just a few years later, and basically rendered obsolete.

And on top of that, Hannibal (the show) is better in every single way.

I don't dislike Se7en (though I do dislike how it popularized that awful trend of movie titles replacing letters with numbers, haha), but for me, it's still a film that took its influence from Silence and went in the wrong direction with it, with the inherent gimmickry of John Doe's "master" plan making it feel almost like watching a two hour version of this at times:



As for Hannibal, I liked it a lot, but I still wouldn't rank it as highly as Silence on the whole, since I felt the first season relied too much on standalone "killer of the week" episodes, while the third followed the material of the novels too closely, which had obviously all been adapted before (twice, in the case of Red Dragon), which made it feel staler than it should've. I did like every season, but the second one was the only one I'd say was more or less equal with Lambs.

IMO Mads is the best version of Hannibal ever. He perfectly melded the creepy predator aspect, with being an incredibly charming and disarming man.

Hopkins always just felt like a creeper and made me wonder how he was ever able to get so close to people. Everything about him was a red flag.


Mads made you fall in love with him before killing and eating you.

I liked Mads' version of the character a lot too, but nothing beats Hopkins and the way he was able to make Hannibal such a cultural icon, and the complaint about that aspect of his characterization doesn't hold up to scrutiny, IMO; the entirety of time we see him in Silence is obviously after he's already been caught, and the whole world knows what a monster he is, so why would he bother pretending otherwise anymore? There's no reason for him to pretend to be civilized by that point, like he did here before he'd been found out:

[DFA1979]

Silence is great and all but I prefer Manhunter.

[megladon8]

I don't dislike Se7en (though I do dislike how it popularized that awful trend of movie titles replacing letters with numbers, haha), but for me, it's still a film that took its influence from Silence and went in the wrong direction with it, with the inherent gimmickry of John Doe's "master" plan making it feel almost like watching a two hour version of this at times:



As for Hannibal, I liked it a lot, but I still wouldn't rank it as highly as Silence on the whole, since I felt the first season relied too much on standalone "killer of the week" episodes, while the third followed the material of the novels too closely, which had obviously all been adapted before (twice, in the case of Red Dragon), which made it feel staler than it should've. I did like every season, but the second one was the only one I'd say was more or less equal with Lambs.I liked Mads' version of the character a lot too, but nothing beats Hopkins and the way he was able to make Hannibal such a cultural icon, and the complaint about that aspect of his characterization doesn't hold up to scrutiny, IMO; the entirety of time we see him in Silence is obviously after he's already been caught, and the whole world knows what a monster he is, so why would he bother pretending otherwise anymore? There's no reason for him to pretend to be civilized by that point, like he did here before he'd been found out:

I thought Hopkins was an unbelievable ham in Red Dragon (and Hannibal, for that matter). Just awful, over the top, borderline parody.

At least in SotL he is somewhat reserved, and believable as a physician.

By Hannibal / Red Dragon he is already a caricature of Hannibal.

[Irish]

Now, this is based off two viewings approximately two decades ago, but I found Silence of the Lambs to be a really good, but not great, film. Although I don’t think its reputation has dimmed since the late ‘90s, early ‘00s, it was widely heralded as a bastion of how sophisticated the suspense/horror/thriller “genre” could be. Moreover, it was viewed as one of the greatest films of all time, one of the relatively few 90s films ranked in the AFI’s Top 100 Films of All Time, putting it at a surprising 65. In a not-uncommon phenomenon, a really good movie became one of minor gripes for me. Probably not fair and why it merits another viewing.

This may be overstating it. Despite its success, I dunno if anyone seriously described "Silence" as one of the greatest of all time.

The AFI list was first compiled in 1998 and it's a product of its time. When they updated the list in 2007, "Silence" dropped 9 places.

Rankings and lists are a dodgy proposition, but especially with AFI's methodology. They had "Schindler's List" in the top 10 and "Forrest Gump" close behind "Silence." There's also a few other wobbly selections, like "Sound of Music," "Patton," "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," and "E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial." Those are all good movies (well, sorta), but best American ever? No way.

Though it harkens back to M and Frenzy, particularly, “modern” serial killer films might be defined by their emphasis on this personified experience from both perspectives. For instance, the centripetal force of Se7en revolves around the murders themselves, with the implications on the characters fleshed out almost ancillary.

Not sure what you're getting at here, because most popular slasher movies, from "Texas Chain Saw Massacre" to "Halloween" to "Friday the 13th" and its sequels, all contain multiple perspectives on serious violence, eg: we see cause and effect from both the point of view of the killer and the victim.

[Irish]

How are we defining "modern" serial killer thrillers? What historical shift occurred in the early '90s that makes The Silence of the Lambs "modern" and Manhunter a "classic" serial killer movie (along with M, The Leopard Man, Peeping Tom, and Psycho)? After all, a lot of the films being cited here as "modern" are already pretty old (Demme's film is now thirty years old), suggesting that the only reason for making a distinction between classic and modern is to tacitly acknowledge that the films in the latter category aren't as good as those in the former (and for all its genuine virtues, Se7en strikes me as considerably less impressive than the films by Lang, Tourneur, Powell, and Hitchcock), and that it's unfair to even compare them. In other words, the distinction here between modern and classic functions to disguise a type of affirmative action for latter day filmmakers who were unfortunate enough to begin their careers after the collapse of the old studio system that nurtured Lang, Hitchcock, Powell, and Tourneur, and after its genres had been largely exhausted.

Suspect he used modern as a rough synonym for contemporary, and meant it sans value judgement, without cultural and historical baggage.

Meanwhile, Turner Classic Movies has shown Joe Dante's "Inner Space" multiple times in the same month, so I think classic has no meaning anymore outside the very personal, eg: "here's an old thing I like."

[StuSmallz]

Now, this is based off two viewings approximately two decades ago, but I found Silence of the Lambs to be a really good, but not great, film. Although I don’t think its reputation has dimmed since the late ‘90s, early ‘00s, it was widely heralded as a bastion of how sophisticated the suspense/horror/thriller “genre” could be. Moreover, it was viewed as one of the greatest films of all time, one of the relatively few 90s films ranked in the AFI’s Top 100 Films of All Time, putting it at a surprising 65. In a not-uncommon phenomenon, a really good movie became one of minor gripes for me. Probably not fair and why it merits another viewing.

At the time of its release, Demme’s film was also described to me as a horror film and I wonder if this is somehow related to our discussion about modern serial killer films. Part of me wonders if the distinction lies not only with the visual depiction of the violence itself, but also the weight of the act on both killer and victim. Though it harkens back to M and Frenzy, particularly, “modern” serial killer films might be defined by their emphasis on this personified experience from both perspectives. For instance, the centripetal force of Se7en revolves around the murders themselves, with the implications on the characters fleshed out almost ancillary. Much of the film’s impact, for me at least, is the way in which the murders insinuate themselves into my own psyche. We investigate the murders at length, wonder what is the root cause, and, most importantly, reflect on the subjectively horrifying experience of the victim during the act of murder.

This is perhaps why I think Se7en might be a better demarcation of this incredibly random category, because it actually includes scenes that would induce horror (fear, shock, disgust) in a way that Silence doesn’t. While the subject matter of the latter is certainly horrifying, nothing in the content of the film remotely connects to “horror” in my mind. Part of me wonders if people made up for lost time in the horror area with Hannibal the movie (which I think sucks) and Hannibal the TV show (which I think kind of rocks), both of which have very explicit depictions of death from both Hannibal and the victim’s perspectives.

While the nature of the plot means that a lot of the deaths in Silence are portrayed after the fact from a relative distance, I'd say this scene is still a pretty explicit depiction of death from both perspectives:



Not saying that it alone makes the movie 100% a Horror movie, but I still absolutely get why some people feel that it at least somewhat fits into that category, you know?

[quido8_5]

This may be overstating it. Despite its success, I dunno if anyone seriously described "Silence" as one of the greatest of all time.

The AFI list was first compiled in 1998 and it's a product of its time. When they updated the list in 2007, "Silence" dropped 9 places.

Rankings and lists are a dodgy proposition, but especially with AFI's methodology. They had "Schindler's List" in the top 10 and "Forrest Gump" close behind "Silence." There's also a few other wobbly selections, like "Sound of Music," "Patton," "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," and "E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial." Those are all good movies (well, sorta), but best American ever? No way.

AFI's lists are generally trash: hard to understand the logic for rankings and the supported commentary was always lame. Of course, as an adolescent I thought they were somehow objective assessment of film. Given that, I do think that they are indicative of a national (very much American) ground-swell around what makes a film "important". That Silence of the Lambs only dropped 9 places in 9 years is as indicative of its lasting (IMO, inflated) appeal as it is symmetrical.

Not sure what you're getting at here, because most popular slasher movies, from "Texas Chain Saw Massacre" to "Halloween" to "Friday the 13th" and its sequels, all contain multiple perspectives on serious violence, eg: we see cause and effect from both the point of view of the killer and the victim.

To be fair, I'm doing a shit job of explaining my point of view (rereading what I wrote, every "I think" comes off as "you know, it's like..."). In these classic slashers, there is an emphasis on the act of killing, with killer and killed being fairly one-sided, often stereotypically so-- this makes them more fun in my experience. In these films, are we really trying to understand the killer as much as the killed? Are we really trying to understand the killed as much as the killer? To stu's point, barring a repeat viewing, Silence may have this "explicit depiction of death from both perspectives." It may be a reach or even arbitrary, but I think this is a perspective that was relatively rare pre-90s. Less substantially, I feel like there is a "modern" serial killer classification that is worth investigating, even if I have a hard time qualitatively or quantitatively nailing down what that distinction is.

[DFA1979]

Suspect he used modern as a rough synonym for contemporary, and meant it sans value judgement, without cultural and historical baggage.

Meanwhile, Turner Classic Movies has shown Joe Dante's "Inner Space" multiple times in the same month, so I think classic has no meaning anymore outside the very personal, eg: "here's an old thing I like."

I won't stand for any Dante or Innerspace slander around here. If you're gonna bash the movie at least get the title right.

[megladon8]

Ok can some of you please get your butts in gear and watch Archenemy?

I need people to talk about this movie with.

If it helps, both D_Davis and Lawn Wrangler (remember him?) ADORED it. So I'm not alone.