After Titanic, the most worthless Best Picture winner of the 1990s

Rating: 7/10 (21 August 2000)

What is so special about this film? I've watched it once, about a year ago, and could never figure it out myself. What I saw was a pretty good thriller which bombed out at the very end. I never thought the acting was all that great either. I think Anthony Hopkins was overacting, and I thought it was one of Jodie Foster's slightest performances. She had a more complex character in Freaky Friday.
Oh, and the end that I mentioned above (I guess SPOILERS):

Jodie Foster just stumbles on Buffalo Bob while following her clues. It seemed believable to me that she might come upon him before she actually new exactly who she was confronting. But it also made the film seem rushed to actually have the final showdown as soon as she accidentally runs into Buffalo Bob. It almost seemed to me as if they decided that the movie was too long at that point, and that they should just let this coincidence develop into a finale, even if it was premature. If you don't understand what I am talking about, that is, if you thought the film ended at the correct time, read Roger Ebert's review of the film. I did not develop my opinion from his review either, he just confirmed my suspicions. I don't think Silence of the Lambs was particularly fascinating elsewhere, but it was often entertaining. I would have given it a 7/10, but the sloppy ending knocks it down to a 6/10. Jesus, how did the Academy remember this at awards time. 1992 must have been a slow year.