Filmsite is such an elite, art-house based site which imposes its film school crap onto people, especially when talking
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Silence of the Lambs
BoyWiththeGreenHair — 11 years ago(November 19, 2014 07:52 AM)
Filmsite is such an elite, art-house based site which imposes its film school crap onto people, especially when talking about Oscar "injustice" wins in hindsight, like complaining that Citizen Kane lost an Oscar to How Green Was My Valley, in which case historical context would have made such a win impossible (it would take years for CK to catch on with viewers).
http://www.filmsite.org/worstoscars.html
But one bizarre complaint of theirs is that Anthony Hopkins' win was undeserved. Not only that but that the more deserving winner was Robert De Niro in Cape Fear?
This I don't get - how is De Niro's portrayal of Max Cady more worthy? Aside from the fact that De Niro had already won twice, but his Cady is horribly overacted, almost cartoonish, IMHO. Heck, his isn't even the definitive version, for me. Robert Mitchum's more relaxed and "not obviously threatening" Cady was far more worthy of an Award than was De Niro. So, its hardly an injustice - methinks Filmsite is just looking for things to complain about, lol. -
grayremnant1 — 10 years ago(August 28, 2015 09:57 PM)
There are critics for pretty much everything. Everything that every person has said in the history of the world has drawn outrage from at least one other person. Hell, there are people who disagree with Ren Descartes' famous philosophical statement: "I think, therefore I am". Just goes to show that even the most obvious truth in the universe has its critics (albeit idiots).
-
HowYaLikeDemApplesWill — 10 years ago(September 24, 2015 12:45 PM)
I particularly liked the dozens of dozens of 'worsts' they list; movies, actors, actresses, directors, etcwithout listing who they felt
should
have won instead.
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it? -
nemenemenes — 9 years ago(May 22, 2016 04:48 AM)
I get your point but 20 minutes is more than enough to make an impression. The impression Anthony Hopkins made with Hannibal Lecter in this movie 1) is the one thing that most viewers would still remember from this movie if everything else about it was forgotten, 2) would be carved to the minds of whoever that watched it and appreciated it, for the rest of their lives.
-
catjoescreed — 9 years ago(May 22, 2016 10:02 AM)
I'm not saying he wasn't good - he was fantastic. And yes, he made a lasting impression, or his character did. Fava beans and chianti and all. But then so did Buffalo Bill - we're still seeing memes based on the "It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again" and "baby in the basket" bits. He definitely deserved an award; just not Best Actor. His was a supporting role, not a starring role.
-
nemenemenes — 9 years ago(May 23, 2016 06:37 AM)
In my opinion, although the film's story evolves around Bufallo Bill's murders and final kidnapping, it is Lecter who this film is really about, and Clarice to an extent. I mean, anyone else could have played Buffalo Bill and the film would still get the same level of appreciation. But remove Anthony Hopkins and I don't think much of this film would be remembered like it is now.
-
CyberpunkCentral — 10 years ago(October 01, 2015 08:23 AM)
I thought Anthony Hopkins played a bad Hannibal Lecter in Ridley Scott's Hannibal and in Red Dragon.
http://www.g7gaming.net/