One of the most overrated movies ever

Rating: 5/10 (8 August 2006)

First problem: this could have been quite shocking and groundbreaking movie in the 1970's, not after the decade of splatter, gore, mad slashers and all kinds of overwhelming violence, the 80's. And of course especially not after the first film-version of the Thomas Harris' book "Red Dragon", aka "Manhunter" by Michael Mann, which intensity and credibility is in a whole different level. So there was nothing exceptional happening on the screen to me when I saw this even back in 1991, being of course much more dated now. Sure, the majority of moviegoers bought this whole, at least partly due to being the one serial killer- horror-movie that also women could understand and relate to through the main character.
Second problem: I've had this little rule of my own how one can quickly define a director's talent while watching a film. I'll do it by close-ups, especially of the faces. The more close-ups the worse as they lose their effect. Martin Scorsese, Roman Polanski, Steven Spielberg, Sam Peckinpah, Stanley Kubrick... they all use them only temporarily, on the right occasion as they should be. Then there are these guys who cherish those facial close-ups in almost EVERY scene like Tony Scott or Renny Harlin, which is, annoyingly, Demme's way of depicting major confrontations in "The Lambs" too. When Hopkins' or Foster's face fill the screen, either delivering or receiving, there's nothing frightening or emotional to me. It's manipulative and ridiculous, destined to be followed by all kinds of mockery spoofs and rightly so. It's soap opera. In the last resort, and to make the problem worse, the interplay between characters just isn't that intelligent and challenging as everybody and his sister seems to think.
Third problem: Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster are widely regarded as one of the best actors in (movie) history. I don't agree. While they're no hams either I still find them to be on top only in the category of "mannerism". Which is a little odd because judging by many many interviews I've seen over the years they are clearly quite intelligent persons. Particularly in this movie, they're are SO self-conscious in every scene. They are not talking to each other, they are talking to that scary middle-aged lady in the aisles. And what really is so special in Jodie Foster's performance? She behaves all the time perfectly normally and logically (why in the first place someone even WANTS to see a 'vulnerable' woman as an FBI-agent is beyond me), so how come Lecter-Hopkins has that unusual interest in her? And being a true female police, she almost screws up busting that serial-killer by making wrong decisions in every turn in the climax... Many actions are too unbelievable compared to reaching for realism in many other levels.
I don't mind that much about this movie's success in the box office and not even it's undeserved but ongoing status as sort of phenomenon, but those five main Academy Awards for only the third time in Hollywood history was incomprehensible. Even just considering "serial killer"-depictions, this is somewhere 6th or 7th best in its genre on my list. But so that leaving you all "Lambs"-lovers with more positive feelings I have to admit there is one good, clever and truly exciting scene after all: Lecter's escape. Glimmers among the rest of the garbage like a shiny kitchen knife....