Silence of the Hams

Rating: 1/10 (25 March 1999)

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