Hopkins' performance hasn't aged well, but still a great film.... - The Silence of the Lambs (1991) Discussion

[–] CyberpunkCentral 9 years ago

I agree. Mads Mikkelsen is a much superior Hannibal Lecter.

http://www.g7gaming.net/

reply

[–] Edward_de_Vere 9 years ago

Hopkins' Lecter is very entertaining, but I never thought of it as great acting. It's up there with Bela Lugosi's Dracula (Lecter's fava beans and Chianti is an updated "I vant to suck your blood") - fun, perhaps even iconic, but without any depth or subtlety. Hopkins gave far better performances in many of his less flashy roles, IMO.

What makes serial killers seem especially menacing is how normal their mannerisms and speech often are. In interviews, they don't hiss and slurp their lips, they speak and act like normal people, even when describing some of the most vile things. Less would have been more when playing Lecter, in my opinion.

reply

[–] moviefool09 9 years ago

Hopkins' Lecter is very entertaining, but I never thought of it as great acting. It's up there with Bela Lugosi's Dracula (Lecter's fava beans and Chianti is an updated "I vant to suck your blood") - fun, perhaps even iconic, but without any depth or subtlety. Hopkins gave far better performances in many of his less flashy roles, IMO.

Without a doubt. Nothing subtle at all about Hopkins's performance, though it was great fun in the iconic 'movie villain' way. He was Dracula without the fangs, basically. Scary? Not so much.

What makes serial killers seem especially menacing is how normal their mannerisms and speech often are. In interviews, they don't hiss and slurp their lips, they speak and act like normal people, even when describing some of the most vile things. Less would have been more when playing Lecter, in my opinion.

EXACTLY, and very well-said. How often do you hear of serial killers like Dahmer or Bundy, "they were so nice and so quiet....I never would have thought!" Hopkins SO obviously telegraphs his "evil" that he becomes like a caricature and not a true 'character'. He may as well have been wearing a t-shirt that read, "crazed, evil killer!". It's so much more terrifying to see a portrayal of calm and INNER rage, rather than one that's all over the place. I think even Brian Cox gave a more convincing portrayal of Hannibal in "Manhunter" (precisely because he UNDERPLAYS it) and he was probably onscreen for a total of less than 5 minutes!

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

reply

[–] CyberpunkCentral 9 years ago

Well in the Hannibal Lecter novels, Hannibal acts pretty normal. I never think about Anthony Hopkins when I read the novels. Which is why I never understood why people say Anthony Hopkins is the only true Hannibal Lecter? Because Anthony Hopkins isn't even the first actor to play Hannibal Lecter, nor is he the most accurate portrayal of the character.

http://www.g7gaming.net/

reply

[–] moviefool09 9 years ago

Which is why I never understood why people say Anthony Hopkins is the only true Hannibal Lecter? Because Anthony Hopkins isn't even the first actor to play Hannibal Lecter, nor is he the most accurate portrayal of the character.

Agreed 100%. Brian Cox is far better and truer to the novel's depiction of Hannibal in the film "Manhunter", still one of my favorites. Same for Mads Mikkelsen in "Hannibal", once you get past the accent.

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

reply

[–] CyberpunkCentral 9 years ago

The thing about Brian Cox is that he wasn't given enough screen time. If he did, then Brian Cox would probably be considered the best Hannibal Lecter. I mean, Brain Cox is better at playing villain roles than Anthony Hopkins does. As for Mads Mikkelsen, Hannibal Lecter is eastern European. So it makes sense that he has that accent, rather than a British accent.

http://www.g7gaming.net/

reply

[–] moviefool09 9 years ago

The thing about Brian Cox is that he wasn't given enough screen time. If he did, then Brian Cox would probably be considered the best Hannibal Lecter. I mean, Brain Cox is better at playing villain roles than Anthony Hopkins does. As for Mads Mikkelsen, Hannibal Lecter is eastern European. So it makes sense that he has that accent, rather than a British accent.

True, Cox wasn't given much screen time but he definitely made more of an impression in that short time. I wanted to see more of him, whereas Hopkins in "Lambs", you almost want less of him. A little of him went a long way.

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

reply

[–] SnoozeAlarm 9 years ago

>>> whereas Hopkins in "Lambs", you almost want less of him.

The most ridiculous thing I've read on this website in quite some time. And that's saying a lot.

If a private venture fails it's closed down. If a government venture fails it's expanded. M Friedman

reply

[–] Edward_de_Vere 9 years ago

The thing about Brian Cox is that he wasn't given enough screen time. If he did, then Brian Cox would probably be considered the best Hannibal Lecter. I mean, Brain Cox is better at playing villain roles than Anthony Hopkins does. As for Mads Mikkelsen, Hannibal Lecter is eastern European. So it makes sense that he has that accent, rather than a British accent.

To get an idea of what Cox's Hannibal Lecter would be like with more screen time, watch him in L.I.E., where he plays a pedophile who hides behind a facade of charm, respectability, and his war hero credentials. I never really could get into the Mikkelsen Lecter TV series, mainly because it tries too damn hard to be "stylish" that it trips over itself in the few excerpts that I've seen.

reply

[–] Edward_de_Vere 9 years ago

I actually think that Hopkins would have made a much more effective Hannibal Lecter if he had just toned it down a little, since Hopkins is equally capable of giving subtle and nuanced performances when he wants to. The end result probably wouldn't have made him the pop culture icon that he became, but it would probably have been more interesting.

This reminds me of what I posted on another messageboard about Jack Nicholson: he's remembered for his flashy roles with little subtlety and depth (Batman,As Good as it Gets, etc), but not for his complex and nuanced performances in movies like Ironweed,The Pledge, or About Schmidt.

reply

[–] AndrewGS 9 years ago

Hannibal is already caught and is trying to disturb the investigators so there's not a need for a lot of subtlety and I thought Hopkins' acting in Silence still generally drew more attention to his inner thoughts than what we directly saw. Cox was OK but a little too lacking in energy and I think lines like "you think you're smarter than I am since it was you who caught me" are pretty unsubtle places to start from.

reply

[–] Jwink72 9 years ago

Looks like I'm in the minority on this thread, lol. That's okay.

Hopkins may have put on a more unrealistic performance, but I love it. I think he makes a genuinely interesting character, but maybe that would exist with or without Hopkins. I do not think Brian cox gave a better performance, I don't think it's even close. Mads did a good job and was creepy, but Hopkins brought the character to life like no other actor. Mads was rather stale at points, to me.

You're right on what makes SOTL a great movie, the music and cinematography. Clarice is a very interesting character, and their conversations are brilliantly written. Buffalo bill was always the scariest character to me, and Levine was an underrated actor in this film.

A lot of the interest in the character comes from writing, and Hopkins performance was just perfect enough to bring it to life and draw people in. The intelligence and stories connected to Lecter, the set up, the mesmerizing dialogue, Hopkins voice, tone and accent, his calmness and ability to control and manipulate all the characters and, in turn, the audience. His glaring eyes. Take the scene between the senator and Hannibal. He knew how to say what in the perfect way to make you hate him and love his sadistic word torture. Really, does the line about an amputated leg not affect you?

reply

[–] moviefool09 9 years ago

Jwink, very good points and I don't disagree with a lot of what you said. I agree that Hopkins gave a good performance, one full of zest and wit. I guess it ultimately comes down to a matter of preference.

For me (and some others), restraint in a role like this makes it even more terrifying. I think Brian Cox as Hannibal in "Manhunter" was great, but you make a good point about "bringing the character to life". Could a low-key Cox have carried the entire film in SOTL, with the same vigor and energy that Hopkins did? Not sure and we'll never know. Cox's style lent itself to a small cameo, but Hopkins projected much louder. Perhaps that was needed for Demme's grand film, SOTL, and what he truly wanted to show audiences.

As for Mads, he is certainly low energy in the tv role but you really have to pay a lot of attention to his words and his mannerisms. I think it's a lot more "challenging" performance he gives than Hopkins....much more cerebral and literary. Is that truer to the vision Thomas Harris had of Hannibal? I believe so, but I can understand how your opinion would differ. I know many people prefer the Harris book to the Demme film. Again, a matter of subjectivity.

In the end, Hopkins has an Oscar for playing one of the great villains in movie history and making the role his own, as you said. He will always be a part of film lore, but I ultimately find subtlety more terrifying when it comes to portraying and suggesting a truly dark soul underneath all the bravado. I agree that Hopkins is great fun in the role and could very well be more captivating in a feature film as Hannibal than Mads or Brian Cox.

But, for me, the essence of who Hannibal is, the purity of the character....that's Mads or Cox, much closer to the mark. But I won't deny that Hopkins is a hoot in the role. Not sure I find him terrifying (think he's too cartoonish in the film to be scary) but he clearly is having a blast, that's for sure.

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

reply

[–] CyberpunkCentral 9 years ago

The Silence of the Lambs may be a better film, but I prefer the Red Dragon story better. Will Graham is a more interesting character than Clarice Starling, and Francis Dolarhyde is a much more terrifying and better developed villain than Buffalo Bill.

Also how is Mads Mikkelsen's performance as Hannibal Lecter stale exactly?

http://www.g7gaming.net/

reply

[–] SnoozeAlarm 9 years ago

>>> The Silence of the Lambs may be a better film, but I prefer the Red Dragon story better. Will Graham is a more interesting character than Clarice Starling, and Francis Dolarhyde is a much more terrifying and better developed villain than Buffalo Bill.

Interesting. I've read both of the books, and I think both are very good, but in terms of the psychology of the characters, I definitely agree with you that RD is far more "meaty" than SOTL.

If a private venture fails it's closed down. If a government venture fails it's expanded. M Friedman

reply

[–] moviefool09 9 years ago

Also how is Mads Mikkelsen's performance as Hannibal Lecter stale exactly?

I can't speak for the poster, but I would guess he means that Mads becomes a little repetitive after some time in the role, perhaps a bit tiresome. I myself find him constantly engaging but I can see how someone might form that opinion. For me, Mads is the kind of Hannibal where you kind of smile to yourself after something he says....whereas Hopkins, you may laugh out loud at the outrageousness of him.

I mean, can you really even *picture* Mads saying the fava beans/chianti line, let alone hissing at the camera?

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

reply

[–] CyberpunkCentral 9 years ago

Err... I can never get tired of Mads Mikkelsen. He's such an hypnotic actor. He doesn't even need to act over the top like Anthony Hopkins does to suck you in. If anything, Anthony Hopkins got stale when he did Hannibal and Red Dragon. Where as Mads Mikkelsen's performance was consistent through out all three seasons of the TV series. I sound like I'm hating on Anthony Hopkins right now, but I don't. I love him as Hannibal Lecter. But I'm not going to pretend like he's the definitive Hannibal Lecter, just because he was my first introduction to the character.

http://www.g7gaming.net/

reply

[–] moviefool09 9 years ago

Agreed on Mads....he's terrific. I have the DVD of "The Hunt" but haven't watched it yet.

When I saw Hopkins as Hannibal on the big screen back in '91, he blew me away. But, like you, I've gotten more familiar with the character of Hannibal as originally conceived. While I admire the carnival side-show side of Hopkins's performance, there's not much meat under the bones when you look back on it. Mads gives us something to chew on (no pun intended) and there's so much UNSAID in his role. With Hopkins, everything is pretty much worn on his sleeve.

Not to be so cut and dry, but Mads seems like the thinking man's Hannibal, while Hopkins is more of a crowd-pleasing Hannibal.

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

reply

[–] CyberpunkCentral 9 years ago

I loved The Hunt. It's the film that helped Mads Mikkelsen win the role for Hannibal Lecter.

http://www.g7gaming.net/

reply

[–] Jwink72 9 years ago

Will graham is a more interesting character, but I don't like Norton as Will. Francis is scary, but bill is a different character and I would say just as scary, and undeniably equally portrayed.

I liked Manhunter much better than Red Dragon, as a film, although it has an 80's feel.

Stale at times, not stale as a whole. He was classy, he cooked, he knew psychology and was intelligent and sophisticated, but he at times didn't draw me in like Hopkins or cox. The writers and mads didn't get much more into him as Hannibal the cannibal or manipulative Doctor Lecter. However, this was only a few moments during the show. This was a tv show, so they obviously couldn't pull a lot of punches in one episode. His dialogue wasn't always the most enthralling and didn't play on the psychology of the character enough. Some may say it was downplayed, which is fine. But this is not the best excuse for the first couple seasons because he isn't known by all the characters as a killer.

Will Graham was the star, and they managed to dive into his character and psyche, Hannibal was the worry of will. There was intrigue into what he does, who he kills, and how he manipulates will and Crawford. But mads sometimes plays him as not doing or saying much, just thinking. Every once in a while, we see who he actually is, but mostly he's just the next door psychiatrist who we know is doing something, but we rarely see him confronted or in conflict.

I'm probably speaking too soon because I have yet to see all of season three. I think his performance is fine, but I would like to see him dive more into the character, not just cook and drink wine. In season two, he gets much more interesting. Still, Hopkins for me really brought layers and an interesting performance, even if it's not the most terrifying. Hopkins managed to draw me in, while mads left me wanting more from him, slightly underwhelmed at times. A lot of that is made up by the stylings of the show.

Stale probably isn't a fair term because it's more of Will Graham's show for the first two seasons, and Hopkins more dramatic style would get old after the first episode. He was good at portraying the character, just didn't give me as much as I wanted. Lol, a little selfish, aren't I?

And I do agree, Hopkins Hannibal got a little old in "Hannibal " and "red dragon".

reply

[–] moviefool09 9 years ago

Jwink72 said:

think his (Mads) performance is fine, but I would like to see him dive more into the character, not just cook and drink wine.

LOL....that line made me laugh. Yeah, he tends to be put in the same scenarios on the show, again and again. I also have not seen Season 3, only the first 2. But the show does take his part VERY slowly, no question. A lot of what he does on Hannibal is like mental foreplay, little acts that lead up to something. It takes some concentration and patience to sit through his speeches but the monster is in there. In a way, it's more fun to detect layers in his performance. With Hopkins, it's all in front of you and there's not much to "interpret".

Regarding the film "Manhunter", I loved it and still do. Some people complain that it's too dated to the 80's but that's actually one of the reasons I love it. Yeah, the hairstyles are poofy and the clothes are cheesy and the music is electronic, but the TENSION is still there and the great acting, particularly by Tom Noonan and Will Petersen. Those elements that were great in the film are still there, and the unique setting in the 80's just enhances those elements and allows them to stick out, more than if the film's look was simply "timeless". The 80's look simply makes it more memorable. I hope I'm making sense here.

As far as the films "Hannibal" and "Red Dragon", I largely ignore them and I can't take them seriously.

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

reply

[–] Jwink72 9 years ago

I completely agree with you on Manhunter, Hannibal and Red Dragon. Y'all are talking about how over-the-top Hopkins is in SOTL, I don't think that can even compete with the latter two films, haha.

I like subtlety, but there's a point where I want subtlety to turn into action. It's all opinion, I just like a more outward Hannibal. Not aggressive or over the top, just flavorful, if you may excuse the adjective.

reply

[–] moviefool09 9 years ago

Indeed, too much subtlety can be boring. I admit, there were times I wanted to scream at Mads, "do something!" during the first 2 seasons. And, of course, he finally did. Most of his dastardly deeds were done off-screen, so it was refreshing to see some action for a change.

I tend to think one of Lecter's true weapons is his mind....and also his words. I suppose that's why I get such a kick out of Mads.

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

reply

[–] Edward_de_Vere 9 years ago

Regarding the film "Manhunter", I loved it and still do. Some people complain that it's too dated to the 80's but that's actually one of the reasons I love it. Yeah, the hairstyles are poofy and the clothes are cheesy and the music is electronic, but the TENSION is still there and the great acting, particularly by Tom Noonan and Will Petersen. Those elements that were great in the film are still there, and the unique setting in the 80's just enhances those elements and allows them to stick out, more than if the film's look was simply "timeless". The 80's look simply makes it more memorable. I hope I'm making sense here.

Manhunter remains of my favorites in the world of serial killer films. Tom Noonan's performance as Dollarhyde was what first sold me on the movie, we definitely see the killer's vulnerability and inner struggle without any need of a back story.

As far as the films "Hannibal" and "Red Dragon", I largely ignore them and I can't take them seriously.

Hannibal was mostly junk, but at least entertaining and visually beautiful (e.g. Florence scenes) junk. Plus it had some dark humor with the Mason Verger scenes and a great performance by Giancarlo Giannini as Pazzi.

Red Dragon had no redeeming qualities at all. It was a case of completely wasted talent, i.e. a potentially great cast in the hands of a hack director who was in over his head with the material. Brett Ratner should have stuck do directing music videos for Madonna and let someone with some talent handle RD.

reply

[–] CyberpunkCentral 9 years ago

Love Manhunter! Sometimes I have trouble deciding whether I love Manhunter or The Silence of the Lambs more.

Ridley Scott's Hannibal has kinda grew on me a bit from time to time. Red Dragon tried way too hard to be another Silence of the Lambs. The book Red Dragon is just as good as The Silence of the Lambs, if not better. So Red Dragon should stand on it's own, rather than just being that prequel to The Silence of the Lambs.

But I think the Hannibal TV series is probably the best in the franchise. Except for the Red Dragon story-arc in the show. Manhunter is still better in that aspect.

http://www.g7gaming.net/

reply

[–] ragebeforebeauty 9 years ago

The Silence of the Lambs may be a better film, but I prefer the Red Dragon story better. Will Graham is a more interesting character than Clarice Starling, and Francis Dolarhyde is a much more terrifying and better developed villain than Buffalo Bill.

Agree. Red Dragon is, overall, a better and creepier story. Even the ancillary characters are more interesting and were certainly better acted in the film ("Red Dragon," not "Manhunter").

reply

[–] CyberpunkCentral 9 years ago

I actually prefer Manhunter over Ratner's Red Dragon to be perfectly honest, lol! I mean, Ratner's Red Dragon does have far better actors. But the characters in Manhunter were done a lot more justice to the book than they were in Ratner's Red Dragon.

http://www.g7gaming.net/

reply

[–] ragebeforebeauty 9 years ago

Yeah, but Edward Norton and Ralph Fiennes = eye candy. 😄😘

reply

[–] CyberpunkCentral 9 years ago

To me, William Petersen hotter than Edward Norton, lol!

http://www.g7gaming.net/

reply

[–] Cult_of_Kibner 9 years ago

Looks like I'm in the minority on this thread, lol. That's okay.

I'll join you in that minority. Without Hopkins' performance in this movie people in general wouldn't give a damn about the character. I think people who criticize him as over the top are failing to take into account that he's incarcerated and has no reason to act like he's normal person anymore. He's actively trying to freak people out for his own pleasure.

reply

[–] moviefool09 9 years ago

Without Hopkins' performance in this movie people in general wouldn't give a damn about the character.

I agree with you, but I think Hopkins simply helped bring the character to the forefront. His was 'one spin' on the character and some consider it the best. As conceived by Thomas Harris, I believe Mads or even Brian Cox was closer to the purity of what that character is. But I certainly don't deny that Hopkins was very entertaining in the role, though leaving not much to the imagination.

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

reply

[–] Cult_of_Kibner 9 years ago

I don't look at it from a "purity" perspective but rather who gave the most effective performance. Cox and especially Mads are great but Hopkins in SotL is still the quintessential Hannibal Lecter as far as I'm concerned.

reply

[–] moviefool09 9 years ago

To each, his/her own!

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

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Edward_de_Vere 9 years ago

I think that those describing Hopkins' performance as over the top or cheesy are doing so from the position of 25 years hindsight. 25 years in which his performance, and indeed the image of his character has been established in popular culture as 'psycho killer'. Straight after the film was released, any sketch show or stand-up comedian wanting to get a quick laugh or establish a character as an insane serial killer would do a Hopkins impersonation, or have a character come on in the overalls and jaw mask. A few years ago a newspaper in the UK ran a story about a notorious prisoner being confined in a 'Hannibal cage'. Instant pop culture recognition.

You make a good point, in that Hopkins' performance was effective and even iconic for its time but doesn't seem to hold up well. That's why I compared Hopkins' Lecter to Lugosi's Dracula: I'm sure people found Lugosi's Dracula unnerving in its time, but since then "I vant to drink your blood...blaaah!" has become comedic. The same is true with talk of Chianti and fava beans followed by slurping.

In contrast, truly great performances stand up to the test of time. Orson Welles' Kane or Peter O'Toole's T.E. Lawrence don't seem comedic and campy even many decades later. Sure, I'm comparing across genres, but to me great acting is great acting, no matter what the genre. As another case in point and closer to home, Psycho has been parodied as much as SoTL, but to me Perkins' performance as Norman Bates never seems ridiculous or over the top (in the original Psycho, as opposed to the mediocre to completely unwatchable sequels, of course)

reply

[–] moviefool09 9 years ago

You make a good point, in that Hopkins' performance was effective and even iconic for its time but doesn't seem to hold up well. That's why I compared Hopkins' Lecter to Lugosi's Dracula: I'm sure people found Lugosi's Dracula unnerving in its time, but since then "I vant to drink your blood...blaaah!" has become comedic. The same is true with talk of Chianti and fava beans followed by slurping.

This is an excellent point. We have been so over-saturated with the image of Hopkins in this role over the years, so beaten over the head with it, that it starts to become almost a parody of itself. The role has firmly attained its place in pop culture and, over the years, the "danger" and shock of that initial bravura performance by Hopkins has really worn off. At the time, it did seem very jolting and even disturbing. Now? It seems very cartoon-like...almost ironic, in a way.

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

reply

[–] Degree7 9 years ago

Hopkin's portrayal is larger than life, I think would be the best way to describe it. There's definitely a hammer horror vibe going on with the character, and the comparison to Legosi is on point, or maybe even Christopher Lee. What I am impressed with the most about his performance is how he comes alive off the screen, but always keeps it pulled back from being completely over the top, scenery chewing imo. The scene where Clarice confronts him for the last time, he almost resembles an incarnation of the devil, but he toes the line between surreality and reality enough to keep it believable. For true cartoonish was, I would look no further than his Red Dragon/Hannibal roles to see him taking the character a wee bit too far.

Ted Levine as Buffalo Bill balances the movie out with his more low key approach. They offer a nice contrast with each other.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

[–] CyberpunkCentral 9 years ago

Anthony Hopkins was also way too old to play Hannibal Lecter. Especially in Red Dragon. In the books, Hannibal Lecter is in his 40s with full head of hair. Just like Brain Cox and Mads Mikkelsen were when they played Hannibal Lecter. You just can't take things seriously when an old man is trying way too hard to act creepy.

http://www.g7gaming.net/

reply

[–] Degree7 9 years ago

Hopkin's was only 52/53 when he made SotL, with a bit of a receding hairline. But by Red Dragon be was noticeably, distractingly older. In fact, Red Dragon kind of sucks.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

[–] CyberpunkCentral 9 years ago

Yeah, Manhunter was a lot better than Red Dragon.

http://www.g7gaming.net/

reply

[–] Jwink72 9 years ago

Lecter was approaching (probably in) his fifties in SOTL book.

And the movie takes place around 1989-1990, so he's well above 50.

reply

[–] CyberpunkCentral 9 years ago

Yeah but still. Anthony Hopkins looked older than your average 50-year-old at the time. Already going bald and having gray-hair in his early 50s. Where as Hannibal Lecter in the book, he has dark slick-back hair with a widow's peak.

http://www.g7gaming.net/

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Edward_de_Vere 9 years ago

Another thing that occurred to me was that Hopkins, before SOTL, had had quite a few very quiet years. That meant he brought no baggage to the part. No audience expectations. It wasn't like, say, Alan Rickman (RIP), Christoph Waltz or Charles Dance, who have tended to play the same type of character on film and TV, so when they appear the audience collectively thinks "OK, here we go...". He was, to the bulk of the 1991 audience, an unknown quantity.

Hopkins had some great roles in the 80's, such as Captain Bligh in The Bounty and Dr. Treaves in The Elephant Man, but he was hardly a household name for most audiences. You're right that it's easier to suspend disbelief about a fictional character when you don't recognize the actor or associate him with a specific type of role. Casting celebrities in certain roles can be too much of a distraction.

reply

[–] Cult_of_Kibner 9 years ago

Anthony Hopkins looked older than your average 50-year-old at the time. Already going bald and having gray-hair in his early 50s. Where as Hannibal Lecter in the book, he has dark slick-back hair with a widow's peak.

In SotL he looked perfectly appropriate, and he certainly didn't need to be wearing a Dracula wig. Sometimes it's best for filmmakers not to take descriptions in books to literally.

reply

[–] CyberpunkCentral 9 years ago

I agree. Movies don't have to stick so closely to the books. But I just like Hannibal Lecter looking younger is all. Because that's when you're at your prime. I'm okay with it in The Silence of the Lambs, but in the later movies it became distracting.

http://www.g7gaming.net/

reply

[–] Cult_of_Kibner 9 years ago

It's definitely an annoyance in Red Dragon but in Hannibal he's supposed to be that old.

reply

[–] CyberpunkCentral 9 years ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Hannibal Lecter suppose to be in his 50s in Hannibal? I think Anthony Hopkins was in his 60s when he reprise the role. I know 50s and 60s isn't really a huge gap, but there was a lot of physical stuff Hannibal Lecter had to do in that film. It just isn't very convincing that Anthony Hopkins was almost untouchable in Hannibal. That's one of the things I like Mads Mikkelsen's Hannibal Lecter better. Is that you KNOW you can't lay a finger on him. You'll die instantly. Because Mads Mikkelsen has a lot of experience with fighting scenes in many movies, and his physical presence clearly shows that. Sure he's a lot younger, but he's almost the same age as Anthony Hopkins was when he did The Silence of the Lambs.

http://www.g7gaming.net/

reply

[–] Cult_of_Kibner 9 years ago

Hannibal takes place ten years after SotL, so he should be an older guy. Anyway to me one of the appealing things about Hopkins' Lecter is the fact that he looks like this nerdy little bookworm you could push around, but in reality he's the most dangerous guy you'll ever meet.

reply

[–] CyberpunkCentral 9 years ago

Oh, I was confusing the movie with the book. Because in the book, it takes place 7 years after The Silence of the Lambs. Instead of 10 years like in the movie.

http://www.g7gaming.net/

reply

[–] Cult_of_Kibner 9 years ago

Oh yeah, I forgot the timeline in the books was a little different. So he would be a bit younger, though not by all that much.

reply

[–] AndrewGS 9 years ago

I'm not sure how you can think his performance was both terrific and cheesy & silly. Cheesy is used to mean a lot of things but it's hard to see how his acting was cheesy and I don't see anything silly (aside from maybe the slurping sound) in his acting.

I think Hopkins was greatly effective and creepy in part because he didn't try to always be subtle, he was willing to be clearly and incredibly evil, especially in his climax, and made it work. He was also especially effective because he conveyed such intelligence and power over people even when he was locked up and he was both helping and trying to corrupt Clarice and he both makes you kind of want to know more about his background and accept that you don't have to.

I did think he was a lot less effective in Hannibal and pretty disappointing, just so-so, in Red Dragon.

reply

[–] moviefool09 9 years ago

I'm not sure how you can think his performance was both terrific and cheesy & silly.

Sure I can!

While I admire his performance, it hasn't aged well and is pretty cartoonish in terms of villainy. Part of that is NOT Hopkins's fault, as his performance has been so lampooned and satirized through the years that it has naturally lost its "danger" factor and become almost comedic, in a way.

The character of Hannibal is not meant to be a sideshow freak, but an intelligent, cunning demonstration of evil. Hopkins doesn't quite do that in SOTL, but his is an undoubtedly highly entertaining performance.

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

reply

[–] AndrewGS 9 years ago

An interesting response but when I watch movies I pretty much avoid thinking about spoofs and other imitations that came later.

I think with Hopkins's acting the character does come off as quite dangerous and intelligent and definitely believable though also freakish; I think most of the character's dialogue feels like it wasn't intended to be delivered in a subtle way.

reply

[–] Poopsey1 (948) 5 years ago

I do not agree at all.

Nothing touches the madness of Hopkin's eyes when we first meet Lecter. That in my view is the best scene of the whole serious of films.

reply

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 5 years ago

Total agreement with OP. While I like Hopkins in most everything he does, his Hannibal was often too zany for the role. Those parts are the weak parts of the film.

Mads>Cox>>>Hopkins

reply

[–] ebhaynz (3689) 5 years ago

No offense but I have to disagree with you on this one. Hopkins brought Hannibal Lector to life, he's an iconic character by an amazing actor.
I will admit that Ted Levine hit it out of the park as well.

reply