Julianne Moore did a much better job...

LOL no. Just no.

Julianne is a solid actress in her own right - if her range demonstrated since "Safe," "Boogie Nights," "Magnolia," and "The Hours" is to one's tastes...

But Ms. Foster was definitely on another level when it comes to her iconic portrayal of Clarice.

What you interpreted as one-dimensional, is what I saw as a tour de force showcase of Ms. Foster's palpable intensity, conveying an elegant emotional truth that has served her well throughout her career.

In the last leg of the movie - that instant Clarice realizes she is in Buffalo Bill's domain - an expression cascades over her facial features and then crystallizes with an authentic immediacy. I could almost feel the surge of real adrenaline myself.

When Clarice subsequently finds herself fumbling / stumbling around in the night vision sequence, the director might as well have superimposed a pop up heart rate monitor on screen - that's how well Ms. Foster sold it.

Finally, let's take, for example, the exchange in which Hannibal tears down aspects of Clarice's physical presentation, background and upbringing. It's almost like a violent, psychological rape. The way that Clarice's face slowly crumbles and her spirit is crushed is a master class in subtle acting. She can take those lingering close-up shots, because the micro expressions in her face and eyes are so powerful. Chills.

In the three highlights I've chosen, she is so convincing to me while needing no language at all.

And when there *is* dialogue, the chemistry between Hannibal and Clarice in the first film is molten lava hot.

Does he want to hinder her? Help her? Sexually consume her? Kill her? Is he a patriarchal figure to guide her? Or is she already empowered from within and self-sufficient? Is she a "victim" of the male gaze? Or is she using perceived femininity as a strategic tool?

Everything unfolds in the movie in ambiguous, subtle ways as the two characters spiral and intersect. It's all very engaging and I couldn't take my eyes off the screen when they were merely interacting.

That's not even taking into account the intriguing camera positioning that ties in with thematic elements, the plot twists and taut, muscular narrative etc.

In the revisit, some of the tiny inflections that were ambiguous and subtle are now obvious sledgehammers.

Also, Ms. Foster comes across as very intelligent and highly educated. At the time, she and / or her agent had an uncanny knack for picking well-written projects with the potential for critical acclaim or commercial success. This was definitely one of those successful projects.

I can see why she passed on the revisit - right at the script level - and stand by her smart decision 100%. It was the right call.

My gut instinct tells me that the new material was read through - from a literary perspective - with a fine tooth comb.

There's a reason why Ms. Foster won her second Oscar despite starring alongside Anthony Hopkins, whose Hannibal only appeared in the movie for ~17 minutes... yet was universally celebrated.

Even though Hannibal chewed up all the scenery in sight, the Academy still remembered to reward Ms. Foster's contribution almost a full year later.

I had zero problems with her voice in the movie and any perceived accent issues real or imagined.

Mind you, I rather enjoy Peter Dinklage's portrayal of Tyrion in Game of Thrones. But if his atrocious, made up "British" accent of indeterminate origin can win an Emmy and Golden Globe, then surely Ms. Foster can sleep soundly at night.

Any subpar or debatable performance would have been forgotten - or dropped from the top tier in running - between the time of the movie's release (February?) and eligibility for Academy Award nominations the next damn year. No holiday season Oscar bait and campaigning was needed back in the day. She simply just could not be denied.

Put another way, I've re-watched Silence of the Lambs - in whole or fragments - more times than I can remember. A lot of that has to do with the electric, psychological exchanges between Clarice and Hannibal.

I've seen each of the sequels / prequels / TV spinoff / whatever once... because they are throwaway, frivolous trifles and don't warrant critical attention nor further viewing... for me personally.

Honestly, I barely even remember what happened in the follow-up movies aside from a memorable image here and there.

I liked both, but I thought Moore's portrayal was stronger (and closer to how I viewed the book character).

I think Jodie Foster did good as the naïve trainee, and Julianne Moore was perfect for the 10 year seasoned agent. They both did good in their own rights. I did like Julianne's performance just a bit better, though.

"Whoever saves one life, saves the world entire"~ Schindler's List

Moore is a great actress...Foster felt very one-dimensional.

Go away and never come back.

Foster was miscast (or she just acted poorly). You can't talk in a submissive, shy, vulnerable whisper and be credible as a federal agent. It just doesn't work.

Foster's accent was ridiculous.

Moore is a great actress...Foster felt very one-dimensional. The reason the movie did so well overall is that it was a 'new' sort of film.

Sorry, had to to say it.

[deleted]