Movie belongs to photography and actors

Rating: 7/10 (28 March 1999)

The movie is a solid thriller, or I'd rather call it a crime story, but there's not so much that makes it special and I think all in all it's a bit overrated.
A good thing about it is that apparently much effort has been made to shoot it very beautifully, carefully and unobtrusively. I mean, you don't see any really brutal scenes. Basically, I really appreciate this. Nor is it up to shock effects and frightening scenes in any sensational way. I still hope it's possible to take away these features without taking away intensity... they didn't manage.
I wanted to get scared when I watch the movie but I didn't. (Nearly) All the scenes are good, the story isn't too bad, but it all lacks the connection, the fluent, flawless line. Thus we don't get worthy intensity, worthy suspense, worthy fright. After all, the movie is Jodie Foster, a bunch of other actors and beautiful photography.
I mention Jodie Foster because she carries the movie, if simply with her being Jodie Foster. I don't mention Anthony Hopkins because he is less a character and more the scenes he's in. The scenes are good and they are due to him.
The scene at the airport is given a flair of importance by the appearance of Diane Baker, the way she appears - that's for instance what I mean by the movie belongs to the actors - the surroundings - belongs to photography and yes, I guess I connect this to art direction.
It's a good movie. Its problem: 5 Oscars and a flood of highest praise. My vote: 7 out of 10