The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

*this post contains spoilers*

So, a few days ago I watched The Silence of the Lambs, a film produced right in the year where I was born, with my brother. Had wanted to write a post about it right after, but didn't. The review I have of this movie is simply based on my personal views; what struck me, what impressed me, what dissatisfied me, since I'm not a critic and all, and all I have to say is according to my own taste and pleasure, therefore this review is merely a subjective idea I have of it, that you don't need to rely on it if you like.

Directed by Jonathan Demme, The Silence of the Lambs stars the great Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster. Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) was sent by her boss to inquire Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) about some facts which can help lead to the capture of a serial killer, one who murders his lady victims and skins them.

First of all, you have to know that I was expecting a lot from this movie at first. I mean, I didn't know that the story was supposed to be this way. I thought the major focus of the story was of that of Hannibal Lecter the cannibal, of his life, of his crimes, etc. Hence, I was hoping a lot more action and drama from his side of the story. I understand that the storyline focuses on him in a way that he appears as a mysterious suspenseful sideline thriller and by this he plays as the 'firecracker' of the film, but honestly, I expected him to be the main object of the whole story..., like, it's the notorious Hannibal Lector we're talking about here, the cannibal. I hated to see them take away that focus and then aim it to Buffalo Bill. The cannibal was supposed to be the star, even if you deem he was already.

I mean, I was expecting to know the whole story of his case, how he started feeding on human flesh, who his victims were, how he got caught, the history of his life, his life as a renowned psychiatrist -weren't you wondering about it too? Anyways, this dissatisfaction came from my wrong expectations so, let's set aside the part where Lecter's case should be the case of the whole movie and see it from a point of view of a viewer who had no expectations at all for the film.

Alright, so Lecter is literally a maneater. He eats humans. He's been caught, and now agent Starling comes to him. And ever since the beginning, Hopkins portrayed Lecter perfectly as to create this calm, creepy, menacing of air that injects interest to the story, inviting curiosity, forcing us in to trail along with Starling's correspondence with him and the steps of discovering Buffalo Bill. It was obvious that everybody saw him as a monster, but a much notoriously famous and prized one, for he ate humans, and was once a well-known psychiatrist himself. Everybody was careful to keep their distance, one slightly wrong move near him and he might literally bite off your face. What intriguing...

Okay, I'm gonna give you a little spoiler too, if you haven't seen the movie. I believe the peak of the movie for me was when Lecter escaped and fed off the two polices. I was like, finally, some Lecter action! It was horrid, creepy, terrifying, nightmarish, the scariest thing ever to see him bite off their faces like that. As I said before, he was after all the firecracker of the movie, the one that made the movie worth watching, and with such calmness and coldness of that attitude, and such civility of manners and tone of speaking... Hopkins succeeded a great deal in creating one of the most feared notorious characters ever alive on screen. According to my brother, Hopkins won an Oscar for his portrayal as Hannibal Lecter, which I couldn't agree more on. But Lecter escaped and that was it, no more of him (if I'm not mistaken?).

The film itself was basically already creepy. A serial killer who kills young ladies and skins them? And all those horrid photos of the victims. And all that blood. And other similar sadistic scenes I was unwilling to see, hehe.

Here's what I don't get though. The title, "The Silence of the Lambs". Okay, so not long after Starling killed the serial killer and rescued the daughter of the senator (oops, sorry), she got a phone call from Lecter right, and he assumed that the cry of the lambs that she'd been hearing had now been silent because she managed to seal the case and save the girl. Yes, she had been talking about the lambs before, before Lecter escaped. Somehow, I just still don't get it. You know, I don't get whether there's still a strong connection of the title with the film hidden somewhere, or it's just simply that. Anyways.

Jodie Foster's role here didn't divert far from her roles later on in the future in Panic Room and Inside Man. Even though they weren't similar, she was the typical clever, tough one. But still, she portrayed her role strongly here.

What's still unclear to me is how in detail they got that address of Buffalo Bill in that town I forgot and which turned out to be fake. Probably wasn't paying attention that much, hehe (?) and the rest flowed on pretty easily, except the part where Lecter appears again and calls Starling.

Overall, I think it is THE MOVIE TO WATCH, and it is a real HORROR, if only I didn't have expectations of an alternate story in the first place.