A bit lacking, don't know what the fuss is about

Rating: 7/10 (24 January 2011)

When this movie came out, I was just a kid, so it wasn't till years later that I saw it. I liked it, but didn't understand what the fuss was about. I found it quite lacking in many aspects, especially Jodie Foster's acting, which reminds me of a bad soap opera. I, simply, found that the movie was missing a lot of things.
Then, a few years later, I read the book and saw just how much the movie missed, mostly in character portrayal. The only person who, actually, did the role right, was Scott Glenn, but it was never explained why he was always so sad and melancholic (his wife's illness and death).
Ted Levine was also pretty good, I liked the way he played a psycho, especially since I've seen some of his more uptight and comic roles, eg., in Monk.
As far as Hopkins goes, I think that Lecter suited him better in Hannibal and Red dragon. It seemed that he was so relaxed in the role. In this movie, not so much, but I don't think it was really his fault, being a truly great actor. Like I said, the overall character portrayal was bad.
I, actually, don't like Jodie Foster that much, and her whiny Clarice is not much different from, say, Nell.
Demme did capture the gruesome atmosphere really well and I have to give him that.
Even though it is a good movie, it is not a great one and I certainly hope someone decides to do the book a little more justice some day.