MovieChat Forums > The Silence of the Lambs (1991) Discussion > Filmsite ranks Hopkins' Oscar win as amo...

Filmsite ranks Hopkins' Oscar win as among "the worst"?


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.

reply

[deleted]

That's just one person's opinion. A person who thinks Avatar and Kate Hudson in Almost Famous should have won Oscars.

reply

Yup. Everyone has opinions,they're like as*holes.

reply

The correct saying is:

Opinions are like haemarrhoids. Eventually every ars*hole has one.

108 193 23 8114 246* 47.73 22 42

reply

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 René 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). 

reply

I particularly liked the dozens of dozens of 'worsts' they list; movies, actors, actresses, directors, etc...without listing who they felt should have won instead.




Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

reply

Maybe it's just that it seems bizarre to give a Best Actor award to an actor who, amazing as he is, is onscreen for fewer than twenty minutes. Supporting Actor might have made better sense.

reply

[deleted]

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.

reply

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.

reply

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.

reply

I thought Anthony Hopkins played a bad Hannibal Lecter in Ridley Scott's Hannibal and in Red Dragon.

http://www.g7gaming.net/

reply

He was very good as Lector. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. In this case the opinion is wrong though. 

reply

I didn't feel there was much subtlety to his performance as fun and charming as it is.

reply