Human cuisine could be more delicious

Rating: 6/10 (29 July 2008)

I'm not downgrading "Silence of the Lambs" for failing to live up to its hype, for no movie could deliver on the amount of praise this one has received. I think it is an entertaining film, but it is hardly realistic and breaks down in several clumsy scenes, ones which were excessively convenient moments to advance the plot.
The movie functions as a capable FBI thriller (yet is still not quite as engrossing as something like "L.A. Confidential"). What is engrossing about this film is kind of cheap: the fact that it is about a couple of very disgusting serial killers. These kinds of characters are absolute tabloid gold-mines. No wonder people are so mesmerized by this movie: it's a decent thriller that revolves around gruesome murders.
I give Hopkins credit for doing a good acting performance, but the character of Hannibal Lecter, PhD, is too over-the-top to be convincing. I get it -- he's a genius and a sociopath. He's a classier version of Maguyver (so classy he even appreciates piano sonatas!) who has no empathy but loves riddles and tooling people around. Entertaining but not entirely convincing. Really brilliant killers don't wear their gifts on their sleeve.
As I said, there were a few moments with supporting characters doing stupid, clumsy, unrealistic things to advance the plot. For one thing, nobody does their job clumsily when guarding super-brilliant cannibal serial killers. Sorry. And methodical serial killers (as deranged as they may be) are not clumsy when it comes to tracking someone in their own lair.
The movie is entertaining and paces well. It is certainly engrossing, but the violence does seem over-the-top and unnecessary. Without the obscene gore factor, this movie would not be nearly as famous as it is, so it strikes me as a gimmick. The gore never carried any emotional resonance or impact on the storyline. It was at times almost comical for the way it suddenly shifted the tempo of the movie.
I will say I did like the Appalachian, rust-belt, mining-town motif that was prevalent throughout the movie and tied Jodie Foster's character, Clarice, to the story. The contrast between Clarice, the victims of the killer Buffalo Bill, and the seasoned murderer, Lecter, was pretty decent. And Jodie Foster was pretty good, she's always been a capable actress.
But let's face it: the kind of cinematic thrills the mainstream movie-going public desires cannot deliver realistic portrayals of sociopathic killers. I mean, "No Country For Old Men" is a little closer to the mark here, and at the center I'm thinking along the lines of "Henry" or the more humane and psychologically driven Fritz Lang classic, "M". Unfortunately, most movies about serial killers are all glossed up with shiny production and sensationalized fictitious qualities to the extent that they make these characters look glorious. (Even "No Country" did that a little bit)
The whole movie felt kinda like a Tom Clancy thriller, but with a couple of twisted serial killers as the focal point. But it was an archetype for both '90s films and serial killer films. So many movies copied this one in the '90s in pacing, aesthetic and so on. Pretty much every movie about some genius murderer is a take on this one.
It's mainly worth watching for Anthony Hopkins. There are (unfortunately?) some laugh-out-loud moments but he's not on-screen for most of the film. Still, I didn't find the gore in this to be as convincingly disturbing as most new episodes of South Park. This was just grimier and less funny.