What is the last film you watched?

[A24 4,336]

Both of you are actually arguing the same point!

No, we're not. Yesterday he said Clarice is the icon and not Hannibal. Check it out, if it's not too late. If he meant to say that she's the main character then he should've said that.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

once again Alex you have it wrong, I never said she was the icon.

I've taken you to task for your dismissal of her portrayal, but you won't admit you're wrong, it doesn't matter like I said you keep thinking what you think.

And Stefan we're not arguing the same point, he and I are on opposing sides.

I do not deny Hannibal is an icon, he is an anti-hero, hell he's almost a mockery now.

but once you view the film its still the same compelling, complex and truly satisfying film that uses all of its characters to great effect.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Of course Hannibal Lecter is the cultural icon he is in part thanks to Jodie Foster's performance.

Might it also have happened against another actress? Sure, maybe; with another actress playing Clarice, he might have become the most popular character in movie history, for all I know. He might also have been forgotten after a week. It's impossible to say, and giving the matter much more thought than that would be a grave misuse of my time.

The movie is what it is: a classic. Foster's performance is a (big) part of that success.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

SOTL revolves around Lecter.

but he just acts like a 'mentor' or helper to starling.

even when he escapes, the movie continues with the plot of the weird criminal.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I preferred Brian Cox.

[Morlock 11]

You and what army?!

[JoeinAR 1,949]

SOTL revolves around Lecter.

the movie revoles around a character thats in the film for a little over 15 minutes, I don't think so.

[Red 75]

I thought it was about Clarice? Lecter is a very important supporting role. You could argue that the movie revolves around Buffalo Bill.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It resolves around the fat chick that almost gets skinned actually.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

I thought it was about Clarice? Lecter is a very important supporting role. You could argue that the movie revolves around Buffalo Bill.

The movie also would not have worked so well as it did without Ted Levine, who IS awesome in that movie -- just as awesome as Hopkins, in fact. But he's never gotten anywhere near as much credit. Why?

Could be because he didn't have Foster to play off of in most of his scenes.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

He was indeed brilliant, but his role was very different then that of Hopkins.

Ted Levine did a fantastic job of repulsing you, alienating himself from the audience with his behaviour and crimes.

Hopkins Lecter on the other hand, pulls you in.

Yes he is a serialkiller, but he's intelligent, witty, even gracefull at times. You'd almost forgive him because of his charm, you'd almost let your guard down.

I think most people hate Dr. Chilton a lot more then either Lector of Jame Gumb.

[A24 4,336]

Lecter is a very important supporting role.

The Academy gave him an award for best leading role (Best actor). He's credited right after Foster. He's the key figure. It's not a supporting role in Silence Of The Lambs. It's a lead role and that's how it will go down in the annals of movie history. In fact, it's the shortest lead role ever to receive an Oscar. And he would've gotten it even if Foster displayed fewer of her usual tics.

Alex

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Heartbeeps (*1/2 out of ****)

O.K. So I was channel surfing at 2:40am last night and, to my surprise, came across this. It was just starting, and it was going to end at 4am, so I was like I'll watch it all.

This is one terrible movie. Good lord it was only 80 minutes because it was boring as hell. Terrible story with terrible acting. I gave it 1 star for Williams' fantastic score, and half a star for Stan Winston's make up effects. Back in the 80's, I'm sure the make up was nothing short of brilliant.

[Red 75]

It resolves around the fat chick that almost gets skinned actually.

Oh.

Steef is spot-on about Levine vs. Hopkins. Many of the scenes with Bill are hard to watch, but with Lecter it's almost a trance. Even when he's doing disgusting things you can't take your eyes off of him. I suppose he is the most important character in the film, after all, at least two other movies were made afterward specifically about him.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Lecter is a very important supporting role.

The Academy gave him an award for best leading role (Best actor). His credited right after Foster. He's the key figure. It's not a supporting role in Silence Of The Lambs. It's a lead role and that's how it will go down in the annals of movie history. In fact, it's the shortest lead role ever to receive an Oscar. And he would've gotten it even if Foster displayed fewer of her usual tics.

Alex

stupid comment of the day, but so typical.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Lecter is a very important supporting role.

The Academy gave him an award for best leading role (Best actor). His credited right after Foster. He's the key figure. It's not a supporting role in Silence Of The Lambs. It's a lead role and that's how it will go down in the annals of movie history. In fact, it's the shortest lead role ever to receive an Oscar. And he would've gotten it even if Foster displayed fewer of her usual tics.

Alex

Everything you're talking about in regards to Hopkins/Lecter in that movie has to do with how the movie was (and continues to be) marketed . . . I'm not sure the movie itself bears your argument out.

He was indeed brilliant, but his role was very different then that of Hopkins.

Ted Levine did a fantastic job of repulsing you, alienating himself from the audience with his behaviour and crimes.

Hopkins Lecter on the other hand, pulls you in.

Yes he is a serialkiller, but he's intelligent, witty, even gracefull at times. You'd almost forgive him because of his charm, you'd almost let your guard down.

I think most people hate Dr. Chilton a lot more then either Lector of Jame Gumb.

Agreed on all points.

I think it's worth pointing out, however, that all of what you say about Lecter is helped to be true because Jodie Foster gave such a great performance opposite Hopkins. She is extremely believable, sympathetic, and -- let's face it -- so obviously fascinated by Lecter; all of what she does serves to enhance Lecter's qualities. It was a great performance by Hopkins, made even greater by a great performance by Foster. Great acting rarely occurs in a vaccuum. Look at practically any iconic performance in film history, and you will find one or more great performances orbiting it. A lot of those orbiting performances tend to get overshadowed, but that doesn't make them any less great.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Nice observation, but Alex will not agree with you and ridicule you.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I was actually surprised to read some negative reviews of the film online today. On thing several positive and negative reviews both had problems with was Demme having Jame Gumb portrayed as a homosexual, saying it was a bad stereotype, saying that most serial killers are heterosexual, yet in America where the film takes place the most successful serial killer was homosexual, as were many of the most successful serial killers, it wasn't showing a stereotype, it was showing a reality.

[Morlock 11]

Perhaps he made Philadelphia to try and prove how misguided the accusations were?

[A24 4,336]

I leave the ridiculing to you, Cosman.

Let's talk about Hannibal now! A colorful, entertaining love story/comedy/gore thriller.

"Yes, it is a bad movie, but it's a gloriously bad movie – if every bad movie were as good as Hannibal, life in the movie theater would be a lot more fun." -IGN

I agree with this line.

Alex

[QMM 4]

Ridley never recorded a commentary for Hannibal, right?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Ridley never recorded a commentary for Hannibal, right?

Yes, he did. It's on my DVD.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

I was actually surprised to read some negative reviews of the film online today. On thing several positive and negative reviews both had problems with was Demme having Jame Gumb portrayed as a homosexual, saying it was a bad stereotype, saying that most serial killers are heterosexual, yet in America where the film takes place the most successful serial killer was homosexual, as were many of the most successful serial killers, it wasn't showing a stereotype, it was showing a reality.

I suppose I can see where those reviews are coming from, but I'm always wary of reading any film character as being representative of an entire group of people. I think that if somebody watches The Silence of the Lambs, and what they get out of Jame Gumb is the idea that gay people are psychopaths . . . well, that's saying more about their own views than it is about the movie's views.

Sure, some movies can be racist or homophobic or misogynistic, but I don't think this is one of them. Granted, it's been a few years since I watched it, so maybe my memory is poor on the subject.

An alternative reading would be that Jame Gumb is indicative of what happens to some people when their sexuality -- no matter whether it's hetero-, homo-, or some mix of the two -- is stifled and not allowed to properly develop. That's not my reading -- I figure it's just a movie about a crazy person -- but it'd be at least as valid as the one mentioned above, I think.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I thought it was disgusting when you saw his pubic hair. Yuck.

[QMM 4]

Ridley never recorded a commentary for Hannibal, right?

Yes, he did. It's on my DVD.

Hm, it's not on mine

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

How very odd.

[Morlock 11]

Indeed. It's on mine as well. As usual with Scott, very good, informative, and no-nonsense.

[pixie_twinkle 48]

We just watched Cashback. Very good film! Nice to see Oliver Wood, the Giffindor keeper, in a different role.

[Ollie 1,059]

I thought Ted Levine was brilliant in Silence Of The Lambs.

Foster's performance of Clarice is outstanding as well and her presence is sorely missed in Hannibal. Julianne Moore is totally miscast and there is no chemistry between her and Hopkins.

I did enjoy Brian Cox as Hannibal in Manhunter, which is a very good film. Michael Mann's gritty style works for that film. William Peterson is much better in the role of Graham than Norton and Tom Noonan's performance makes for a much more terrifying villian than Ralph Fiennes portrayed.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

neither film captured the books terror.

[Morlock 11]

I do agree about Moore in Hannibal. But, luckily, over there, Lecter is really the main character. Though the vacuum of Moore's presence is filled in part by Giancarlo Giannini.

[Ollie 1,059]

Gary Oldman also makes up for Moore's presence, somewhat.

[Morlock 11]

Indeed.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Roger... Moore?

[Ollie 1,059]

Idiot!

[A24 4,336]

William Peterson is much better in the role of Graham than Norton and Tom Noonan's performance makes for a much more terrifying villian than Ralph Fiennes portrayed.

Do you really think Fiennes wanted to out-terrify Tom Noonan? Could it be that Fiennes wanted to take the character somewhere else?

Moore might not have Foster's charisma but she's certainly a more versatile actress than Jodie, who basically plays always the same role.

Alex

[Morlock 11]

I think that Foster often plays similar roles, yes. But within that niche, she can be rather good. Though I like her a lot in Maverick, which is entirely different than the typical Foster role. Moore I often like, but something about her bugs me. Not sure what it is. But even with performances I appreciate in movies I like, there's something about her that bugs me.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

William Peterson is much better in the role of Graham than Norton and Tom Noonan's performance makes for a much more terrifying villian than Ralph Fiennes portrayed.

Do you really think Fiennes wanted to out-terrify Tom Noonan? Could it be that Fiennes wanted to take the character somewhere else?

Moore might not have Foster's charisma but she's certainly a more versatile actress than Jodie, who basically plays always the same role.

Alex

OMG thats so funny, that is really funny, unless your serious, in that case, well if I can't say something nice...

[Ollie 1,059]

William Peterson is much better in the role of Graham than Norton and Tom Noonan's performance makes for a much more terrifying villian than Ralph Fiennes portrayed.

Do you really think Fiennes wanted to out-terrify Tom Noonan? Could it be that Fiennes wanted to take the character somewhere else?

Moore might not have Foster's charisma but she's certainly a more versatile actress than Jodie, who basically plays always the same role.

Alex

If Fiennes decided to go in a different direction then he failed. Red Dragon feels like an effort just to get Hopkins back on screen as Lector.

[Morlock 11]

I disagree. Hopkins feels like a sideshow in there. He's fun in his small role.....but he has a minimal presence in the film. I thought that Fiennes was fascinating in the film.

[A24 4,336]

I disagree. Hopkins feels like a sideshow in there. He's fun in his small role.....but he has a minimal presence in the film. I thought that Fiennes was fascinating in the film.

He was, even though he was a little too complex for some viewers. The film failed but not because of Fiennes. He was the best thing about it. And he did more than just being another menacing freak.

Alex

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I liked the ending to Red Dragon.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

The book is even better.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

The book is even better.

indeed, neither film adaption can touch the book,

Silence of the Lambs is different, both the book and the film are stunning.

I choose to ingore anything that takes place afterwards

[QMM 4]

Saw Infernal Affairs this week

Might've been due to having seen The Departed first, but I liked both of them equally. I enjoyed finding the deviations that were made in The Departed.

and today was Enter the Dragon.

Yup.

[Morlock 11]

Saw Hancock. I liked it a lot, and it pissed the hell out of me. I liked the humor of the first half. I was genuinely shocked by the emotion in the second half. And I loved that. Loved not having a clue where it was going. As it turns out, I should have, as it ends dissapointingly. But for a few minutes there, I was thrilled by the turn the movie took. But just as it is about to reach it's climax....it deflates into an ending that made me smile in the theater, but pissed me off a minute later.

I think that, in general, the script was not handled particularly well. The movie felt so rushed, it felt like it was seriously condenced and tones down. Peter Berg's style (well, not his style....but the style in which the movie was shot) generally felt very inappropriate to the film. This is a not a kinetic Michael Bay "script", and this is not a verite` movie, the shaky camera undercut a great deal of the effectiveness of the film. Strangely enough, the verite` aspect of the shooting actually worked better than the Bourne-ish mess. I was quite taken by some of the close-ups in there. They felt entirely out of place....yet worked on their own. And it's those moments that reveal how much more we could have gotten performance-wise. The performances feel rushed, edited, lacking enough focus. Smith is good....but I didn't feel the performance really breath. I really loved the existentialism in the last third of the film....but it didn't feel connected enough to the rest of the film. Charlize Theron, too. I love a lot of what she did. The way she looked at Smith was great. But, again, lacking. I was pleasantly surprised by Jason Bateman, though. He showed some sides I haven't seen from him yet. Oh, and I loved the producers' cameos. Goldsman and Mann looked comfortable in their roles.

Effects were unimpressive. They looked particularly bad with the shaky camera.

I liked the score a lot. A lot of the music choices were not very well-placed (non-score), but the score had the right amount of punch. Loved the cue for the bank scene. Starts off with a Superman rythem...than turns into it's own thing. And the whole finale was quite good, score-wise.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

KING KONG (05)

Man, this has lost a lot for me, to the point where I skipped half the film. So much of this is extraneous, to the point where I looked at the timer on the DVD player and it was running 2h:12m and they hadn't even gotten off the island yet! From when Kong breaks free it's glorious, but even that is a bit overlong. I hope for the sake of THE LOVELY BONES that PJ has realized every film doesn't have to be three hours long.

As an aside, I noticed the latter half of "Beauty and the Beast IV" was tracked onto the scene where Kong is chloroformed. I guess seeing the film after knowing the score, that really stands out. The score is nice, and I like Kong's themes, but I do wonder what Shore had in mind.

[Richard Penna 3,690]

Just watched The Happening.

I wouldn't say it's quite the cinematic disaster some are making it out to be (I thought Wahlberg's performance was pretty good actually, although I can't say that for everyone), but it wasn't particularly good either. I enjoyed it just enough to want to see how it 'ended', but other than that, I can think of no reason whatsoever to see it a second time.

Mrs Jones just seemed to be a fairly pointless character at the end of the day - just seems like M.Night tried to use her for some scares, and she, and the

model home

just seemed to be completely redundant pieces of the story (?!).

Night - direct someone else's ideas, please.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Welcome to the wonderful world of not knowing what the hell was going on in that film.

[Richard Penna 3,690]

Yeah, it's like Night is trying to make the world afraid of our back gardens for a few hours one day...

Or... I think the guy in the interview at the end says it all really... just what the f**k was happening?