Best Picture?

Rating: Null/10 (21 June 2002)

This "psychological" horror stuff always makes me gag. I realize that this type of movie is supposed to scare you through your mind, but it doesn't make a very good movie experience. You have to be totally into the movie to really get what it's trying to do, and that means you can't have any distractions and you have to see what the film is saying. Aren't movies supposed to provide you an hour or two of entertainment? Is that not their purpose? Well I don't find it entertaining having to immerse myself so deeply into a movie simply to get a kick out of it. A good movie should be able to do that anyways. Anthony Hopkins is indeed very creepy, however his over-the-top IQ make him seem more of a prodigy than an insane killer. Plus, he's behind bars (well, most of the movie anyways). Buffalo Bill, the serial killer who's still roaming free is not even scary. In fact, to be scared of this movie is to be scared of watching The Lion King. Psychological thrills? It's a concept that I hope dies out soon. It does not make a good movie. Everyone says that what you imagine is scarier than what you see. If you hear a noise in your house, is that scarier than hearing a noise and seeing some guy with a knife in the corner? I don't think so. Good movies allow you to be terrified without requiring you to look too hard. A good film maker should frighten you by what he puts into the movie, not by what you put into it. It seems that those that can't scare you by what they do with a movie have to make it a psychological thriller almost as a cover-up that they couldn't hack it. It gives them an excuse. So when someone says it wasn't scary, they can call them stupid. Yeah, right. If you made a good movie in the first place...Anyways, see this only for great acting and music. It's not scary at all. The actors may be, but that can't save this movie.