This must be the most overrated movie in Hollywood history

Rating: 2/10 (6 October 1999)

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?