Siskel & Ebert Classics - 2/8/91 - Silence of the Lambs, Sleeping With The Enemy 

you're welcome roblox gamer! Appreciate it.

I didn't see "Slience" until it came out on video later that same year. I watched it three straight times in one day. The only movie I have ever done that with. Watch > rewind > watch > rewind > watch. Mesmerizing.

Silence divided by The Lambs?

"I do wish we could chat longer but...I'm having an old friend for dinner"

i seem to remember thinking it was exceptionally cliche/basic... However, I will be rewatching it soon as i haven't seen it in many years, maybe I was completely wrong.

He's being goofed on right now in Heaven (or hell) for missing that mark

I agree with him

@@jjgreen5206 You have an opinion that is in the very scant minority.

It took me some time to appreciate the film as well. I thought the production values were very weak, like a tv miniseries, and the acting was wooden. Now I think it's a masterpiece.

​@@alexthompson9516 There is much to love, but I always put first the fascinating dynamic between Lecter and whoever he is around regarding power. He is in a dungeonesque cell in a mental facility, behind a wall of plexiglass with air holes like a hamster gets... He is strapped to a backboard with a rabid dog type mask on his whole face... yet he is in control over everyone and everything. He is a prisoner dictating to the FBI and the local police, and his warden, how things are going to go. I just love that. The combination of self control and genius is what makes him so creepy and interesting. Just think of the dominance and masterful manipulation he exhibits when he says "Five foot ten, strongly built, about 180 pounds, hair blonde, eyes pale blue. He'd be about 35 now. He said he lived in Philadelphia, but may have lied. That's all I can remember, mum, but if I think of any more, I will let you know." Not only does he instantly stop everyone in their tracks and make them turn back to him, but we can easily imagine him further using their desperation against them in getting everything he wanted in his upstairs cell. The thing that still leaves me with wonder is trying to figure out how the hell he got Chilton's pen. And I don't want to know, if the book says, or something. Not knowing makes it better, more mysterious, creepier.

True. Gene just didn’t see it was a monster movie, like Frankenstein.

An articulate and erudite man, but with a misled prudish approach to the art of cinema. Carpenter was right at ridiculing him.

Gene Siskel =way to steeped in Chicago where he grew up to get anything in L.A. Story-they didn't even mention the sigalert signs giving Martin Romantic Advice??:)

check out Kevin Anderson in Liebestraum,film-Kim Novak's in it too:)

It's amazing to me that siskel could attack The Silence of The Lambs as violent and ugly but somehow gave thumbs up to Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer. It's not that o have a problem with him being harsh on horror films and thrillers. It's that I don't appreciate the inconsistency.

To be fair, Roger liked it and Gene didn't criticize it for violence, but for trying too hard to manipulate you into being scared of Hannibal Lecter.

Gene Siskel was a good movie reviewer, but he was never more wrong than on his take of SOTL. He likely realized this on Oscar night when the film mopped up so many big awards.

@@Walterwhiterocks The Academy awards don't mean anything in my opinion. I never took them seriously. But some Academy awards winning movies are exceptions as ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST and FORREST GUMP!

@@Jeckxdeel I used to enjoy watching the awards back in the 70s and 80s when they were meaningful and for the most part the Academy got them right. But over time, they have become very political, both in the selections and "speeches." Often (not always) these days the top awards tend to go for the political stance of the performer and not on the quality of his/her work in that particular film.

Well, it's Henry, and it's actually a pretty good thriller. But you're right, 'Silence' is now considered a masterpiece and probably one of the ten greatest thrillers of all-time. Siskel did, from time to time, as did Ebert, really miss the boat on a future classic, though to be fair, they sometimes did change their opinions of the film later on, as Siskel did w/ Taxi Driver.

@@Jim_Wolf Many other films in the thriller/crime movie genre, even older, are way far better than THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS!

Many? Way better? I disagree.

@@Jim_Wolf It's absolutely your right! But I really think so. THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS is one of the most overrated movies all times combined in my opinion. This is my last word!

Hey, I'm not looking for a fight. You're entitled to your opinion. And I disagree w/ it. Mine is it's a nearly flawless film w/ absolutely flawless performances, and a brilliant script. But just out of curiosity, if you don't mind sharing, what are some thrillers you think are way better? Again, not looking for a fight, just wondering.

Gene assessment of the picture is totally off base. The material is sensational but the substance is there in the form of Clarice Starling and her plight hence the title of movie. Henry is totally different film and the comparison is nonsense.

Good point.

Who cares that he might prefer some other kind of film? SOTL is an incredible movie on its own terms. He completely missed it.

Do you really wish that?

@@Jeckxdeel Yes, sans the compulsion to kill.

You like liver and chianti?

How is Silence of The Lambs "distorted" ?

While I was entertained by some of the complexities of how the young FBI agent was to hunt down a serial killer, I had a few major reservations about the picture. One of the problems I had was when Clairce had to interview Hannibal. Sure he internally had some sinister intent to get to know her (that happens with clever-minded killers who are willing to open up to the person, before slowly but steadily, have the opportunity to harm and kill the victim covertly), but it seemed intellectually patchy from time-to-time. I'm not saying the interviews were dreadful, it was kinda half-hearted to some degree. One other major problem I had was the time when Hannibal was moved from Baltimore to Memphis, it didn't look like there needed to be heavily armed security to monitor Hannibal, in case he was to kill the officers. The death scenes were alot of fun I have to admit - it was well made and still holds up well 30 years later. However, I thought the FBI acted too late to try their hardest to catch Hannibal. They seem to be ill-conceived, as they finally come into terms they lost their escapee. Did I like the overall quality and presentation? Of course I did. It's not a perfect film to sit through, but it's enjoyable enough to learn Buffalo Bill is the main antagonist of the film.

It's not really the acting that bothers me, but the pacing issues and the way too much longer dialogue sequences that make the film feels way longer than it is. Without forgetting also the countless and painful close-ups on the face of the characters! It's not a very impactful thriller/crime movie but rather a wet firecracker! Many other films in the thriller/crime movie genre, even older, are way far better than THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS in my opinion!

@@Jeckxdeel The acting still sucks. No one speaks like that in real life the way Hopkins spoke. That was his IDEA of how bad people speak, but they don't. Go watch serial killer interviews. They speak like normal people. He did a caricature.

@@MediaBuster You are not wrong about the way Hopkins speaks. And I already watched serial killers interviews! I only watched some clips in English from THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS! I watched THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS in French version in early 1993. I'm from Belgium and French is my native language. But anyway, I'm not a fan of this movie at all!

Ooohh sounds edgy, innit

All this...and it goes on to Win Best Picture. Go figure? As for me,... pretty shity B movie with campy acting !