MovieChat Forums > The Silence of the Lambs (1991) Discussion > Hopkins' performance hasn't aged well, b...

Hopkins' performance hasn't aged well, but still a great film....

posted 9 years ago by moviefool09
61 replies | jump to latest

Watching this on the big screen during my senior year at college made a huge impression on me, especially Hopkins's performance. But watching it repeatedly over the years, the luster has worn off a little....not of the film as a whole, but for Hopkins.

Watching him now, his performance seems quite cheesy and silly, with some menacing moments in between. Compare his performance to Mads Mikkelsen in "Hannibal" and Mads blows him away, with more intelligence, subtlety and creepiness.

I'm not saying Hopkins didn't give a terrific, grand, entertaining performance....he did. But what I notice more NOW when I re-watch the film that perhaps I overlooked before: the amazing cinematography and how each careful and meticulous shot pulls you in, grabs you, and ups the tension....an increasing appreciation for Ted Levine's terrifying performance as a wounded, lost soul....and just an appreciation for the amazing direction and pace of the film.

Most people will probably remember the film for Hopkins but, for me, he isn't the reason NOW that the movie has remained a classic.

"The future is tape, videotape, and NOT film?"

[–] Legend (49) 6 months ago

I disagree. In Silence, Lecter doesn't have to act subtle or any kind of normal way since he is already caught. His performance should be judged without taking any kind of parodies into consideration.

Cox is good, for what little screentime he has. Mads Mikkelsen doesn't even seem like Hannibal Lecter.

Hopkins>Cox>>>Mads

[–] Stratego (31052) 3 days ago

"Watching him now, his performance seems quite cheesy and silly, with some menacing moments in between. Compare his performance to Mads Mikkelsen in "Hannibal" and Mads blows him away, with more intelligence, subtlety and creepiness."

I kinda agree with the first part, but not at all with the second part. Mikkelsen was lame and not memorable.

The cinematography was nice, but I did not like all the close-ups.

[–] KiwiJim (1760) 3 days ago

Let’s not forget Hannibal Lecter had appeared on screen before, and in an excellent movie, but was still a largely unknown character until Hopkins made him iconic.

Fair enough if some have cooled with their appreciation of Hopkins as Lecter but for me it’s timeless and one of the finest screen performances of all time.

[–] letess (1802) 3 days ago

I think Brian Cox’s Lecter might be the best of all three. What was great about Hopkins was his relationship with Clarice in the movie. But the real Lecter was more without mercy and Will Graham did not fare so well in The Red Dragon as he did in Manhunter. But Cox in Manhunter for those brief minutes on screen was the most spectacular.