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.
Not very original, but 'We accept the love we think we deserve.' Brilliant.
[deleted]
Silence of the Lambs isn't a Horror movie. Oscars are a bunch of biased nonsense which proves nothing. Examples for this are Chicago (2002) , Shakespeare in Love (1998) or Titanic (1997) winning best picture over movies like The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002), Saving Private Ryan (1998) & L.A. Confidential (1997). Which confirms Oscars are a joke. Also even though Silence of the Lambs is not Horror there are loads of better ones such as;
- Halloween (1978)
- The Shining (1980)
- The Thing (1982)
- A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
- Alien (1979)
- Psycho (1960)
Nightmare on Elm Street is in no way an Oscar-worthy movie. Maybe for effects/ makeup/scaring the *beep* out of everyone. But I can't get over the terrible acting.
ü
Lance Henriksen is KING!
RIP MASK!
I don't think the acting was terrible. Sure, it wasn't the strongest factor in the movie, But it wasn't terrible. You would know terrible acting by watching terrible horror b-movies like the newer Friday the 13th or the Saw series. Also soundtrack is amazing in A Nightmare on Elm Street.
I could say the same about Jodie Foster's character in this movie not being 'Oscar-worthy', but she won it anyway. Oscar-worthy doesn't exist. The academy is a joke, ALOT of their picks are biased nonsense.
[deleted]
You keep your opinion and I'll keep mine. [It's director, producers, and marketers disagree with you.]
The Oscars are a joke. They also prove to Producers whether they should make a sequel(s) or not. And so they did.
[deleted]
While I consider Se7en in the same vein, psychological drama crime thriller as SOTL, Requiem is no more a horror than Trainspotting. Both movies are just about extreme drug use and messed up people. Requiem couldn't come close to being horror at all.
But yeah for Oscar purposes somehow SOTL was classed as a horror. *shrugs*
((Damn the remakes, Save the originals.))
It is a thriller cum drama, with horrific elements. It is not technically a horror film. This is only commented on, to sensationalize the film.
Exorcist: Christ's power compels you. Cast out, unclean spirit.
Destinata:💩
Agree for Chicago and Titanic, disagree for Shakespeare in Love.
I'd add Crash, Moonlight and, my personal ultimate disagreement with the Academy, Forest Gump in that list. No, these movies weren't ''bad'' per se, but they were all in competition with obvously way better movies. Just like Chicago and Titanic, the Academy definitely went with emotion rather than objectivity.
As for Shakespeare in Love... well, I know it is widely considered as one of the worst decisions the Academy ever has ever taken. I just have a real love for Shakespeare and everything that talks about him or is adapted from his work tends to give a favorable impression to me. Forthermore, please people don't kill me, I hate Saving Private Ryan. The first 20 minutes are absolutely outstanding with this wonderfully filmed Normandy landings... and then it becomes 2 hours of American sentimentalism and drags on and on. It is a great movie, I just don't like it.
The best picture winner I appreciate the least is Braveheart. I actually didn't like it. I thought it was historically innacurate, too long and really I felt like the movie had an obvious lack of substance. It's like... I wasn't fulfilled by the viewing, I didn't feel like it really brought me something. There are movies you watch and you are so impressed that you think about them for the next couple of days... But Braveheart, my only emotion was like ''okay... I've seen it... nothing to really remember''. I expect a best picture winner to blow my mind, or at least give me some emotion.
Well SOTL is classified as a psychological thriller, crime, drama, though for Oscar reasons it somehow was dubbed a horror.
((Damn the remakes, Save the originals.))
You agreed with me, and now I agree with you: I thought Julianne Moore was so much better than Foster.
Part of that, but not all, is that Julianne Moore was so much closer to the image of Clarice Starling that I had from the books -- both in looks and in demeanor.
If a private venture fails it's closed down. If a government venture fails it's expanded. M Friedman
Things like that are hard to say, Jodie Foster is the only Clarice Starling as far as I'm concerned. Although, I don't remember having any issue with Julianne Moore's performance, I'm sure I would have been fine with her if she had the role from the beginning. The big problem is that she had the bad luck to play the character in Hannibal, which just wasn't good, it's not her fault, or anyone involved with the movie really, it's just that the source material wasn't good. I think Harris didn't want to write a sequel, but they kept pestering him, and the money finally got big enough that he just couldn't turn it down, so he wrote something that was pretty close to unfilmable. They gave it a try, and even changed the ending, but it still didn't result in a good movie.
shareTwo great actresses. Two very different iterations of the role. Jodie plays a younger FBI trainee and Moore plays Clarice that's older and under duress at her job. Apples and oranges. Give Foster the edge for having originated the role and for giving Moore a baseline from which to re-interpret the character. And Silence was just basically a superior film. Hannibal was more Grand Guignol.
I don't know about much better (Foster was pretty damn good), but I preferred Moore's take on the character.
------
Wait a minute... who am I here?
[deleted]
I love Julianne Moore as an actress, however Foster was the best Clarice to me.
share[Julianne Moore did a much better job...]
Have to say I despise Julianne Moore's performance of Clarice Starling, but to be fair most of that is the writing. (There's a reason Foster refused to reprise the role.)
How would Moore have fared if she performed the same script as Foster? That's an impossible question to answer but my gut instinct is that Foster was the better fit for the part.
[deleted]