Old film review #9: The Silence of the Lambs (Released 1991)

Image source: http://www.goldposter.com/9168/

Before we get into proceedings I would once again like to do as I did with the last film review on this here blog.  Many thanks to the University of Sussex Horror and Sci-fi society for giving me the opportunity to see this film because I had never seen The Silence of the Lambs before this past Monday. 

Through some source of media or another, many of you by this point may have been exposed to pop-culture references to this 1991 cinematic thriller/horror/psychological classic.  Especially considering that as of this review,  the film has now been out for 26 years.  When you think about it, the movie has had plenty of time to expose its wide reach to the masses.  Something that the main character does in regards to their mental psyche and emotions.

Image source: https://thesouloftheplot.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/the-silence-of-the-lambs/

The main character I am referring to of course being Jodie Foster's career-making turn as trainee FBI investigator Clarice Starling.  Now it is true that Foster's truly big first break in film was with her teenage powerhouse performance in Taxi Driver (1976), but I personally feel that her wide range of acting talents is no better shown than in The Silence of the Lambs.  Simply put, this cinematic classic contains what is easily the best performance in Foster's career to date.  Well...at least that's my takeaway from it.  But really though, Foster really makes Clarice a convincing character in both a realistic as well as cinematic manner.  The dramatization of a trainee FBI investigator being thrust into a dangerous investigation and unwanted limelight from the media is portrayed superbly by Foster who shows Clarice to be a real go-getter but also prone to mistakes and the adversities of inexperience.  A cinematically enthralling but ultimately relatable and realistic character representation.  In turn, Foster also shows a more human side of Clarice's character by portraying her role as determined and fatalistic in one sense while also being considerate, kind and rational in the other.  I think most people want to see themselves as a good balance of reasonable and determined and combined with a cinematically dramatic setting.  Because of this, I felt genuinely concerned when Starling would do something that puts her life or job in jeopardy because it seemed all the more believable thanks toJodie Foster's performance.  A scenario that happens in agonisingly tense detail in the film's climactic showdown between Clarice and the maniacal serial killer 'Buffalo Bill'.

This performance is so resonant and good that I feel there is only one performance in the film that matches or surpasses it.

Image source: http://picphotos.net/silence-of-the-lambs/

That other standout performance being the great Anthony Hopkins' turn as iconic film villain Hannibal Lecter.  Its no secret from the previous entries into this franchise, both book and film, that Lecter is a sneaky, slimy and manipulative butcher who adores toying with the emotions of both his victims and even those who end up helping him.  His cannibalistic tendencies being the amalgamation of his more psychotic side. But what I feel is sometimes underappreciated, and something that neither Hopkins or the makers of this film miss thankfully, is Dr Lecter's intellectual streak which gives him his psychological supremacy over most if not all of his adversaries.  Hopkins has this aspect of Dr Lecter's character nailed down to a T as his performance in this film, much like Jodie Foster's, is easily the best of his career to this date.  In a long career which includes many marvellous performances, again like Foster, I have to applaud Hopkins in getting every scrap of tension and cinematic quality out of his direction and script as possible through his performance.

Now this isn't to say these are the only good performances or that there is a marked amount of bad ones.  Even the weaker actors are still given room to flex their acting chops a bit thanks to the already-mentioned high-quality directing on behalf of seasoned director Jonathan Demme who sadly passed away this April at the age of 73.  A good way to note Demme's legacy though would be to note his trademark use of steady-cam shots in close-ups particularly during scenes that are both quiet and dialogue-heavy.  There are scenes like this dotted throughout The Silence of the Lambs where they are used to magnificent effect for character building and exposition.  These are aspects of filmmaking which I've always implored that; if you do moments regarding these aspects of film, you have to do them well or else you risk losing the audience's attention.  Fortunately, in combination with the tense atmosphere throughout the film and a magnificent musical score, the camerawork really shows its quality through the steady-cam scenes as well as some more mobile scenes of intense action towards the end of the film.

Image source: http://quotesgram.com/silence-of-the-lambs-quotes-fava-beans/

I suppose that I should talk about the plot a bit before wrapping things up and when thinking about it, I guess I should've done that after the introductory thank you line to the Horror & Sci-fi society.  However, as far as I can tell, the film's secrets and twists have been a tad spoiled by the immense mark of popularity that it left on pop-culture and cinema as a whole.  This is what I mean when I sometimes say that popularity is a double edged sword.  I really don't want to sound like a stuffy-minded hipster spoiling films for some ironic reason that amounts to me liking the sound of my own voice or saying that every film pre-1992 was better than anything post-2000 or so, instead I'm just saying that the more popular and mainstream something gets, the more unwieldy its influence and popularity gets.  Regardless of this waffle, I recommend you go into seeing this film with as little info as possible other than the briefest of summaries.  Clarice Starling is a trainee FBI agent who is tasked by her boss Jack Crawford (Played by Scott Glenn) with capturing the savage murderer 'Buffalo Bill' while bargaining with the caged criminal genius Dr Hannibal Lecter in order to get as much info on Bill in order to capture him before he kills again.  I could go into more detail and as lightweight as this sounds, I want you all to experience this film to the maximum for yourselves by going in blind.

Image source: http://www.pophorror.com/727-2/

In conclusion, The Silence of the Lambs is possibly the best film of 1991, easily amongst my top 10 favourite films of the 1990s and is definitely ranked up with my top 3 psychological and horror thrillers ever made.  If you want to see how to do a suspenseful thriller properly with efficient use of all aspects of the film at hand, look no further than this nail-biting super-classic.

Cinematography/camerawork: 10/10

Directing: 9/10

Writing: 8.75/10

Acting: 8.5/10

Theme of suspense: 10/10

Overall rating: 46.25/50

New film review #11: Thor: The Dark World

What is it with sequels?  They seem so fickle about how good or bad they may be.  At the very least there is a common consensus amongst film fans that remakes usually suck rat-poison-pellets, historical dramas are sentimental and formulaic but still moving and that some reboots such as The Amazing Spider Man (2012) are made far too soon to have either any real success or ground-breaking impact on the world of film and cinema.  In contrast to these kinds of films and in much similarity to a former-child-star's moods and career prospects, sequels to films can either be improving on the first film in some way (E.g. Bad Boys II (2003) or Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan (1982)) or (arguably in most cases) being nowhere near the greatness of the first film that the sequel was based off of (E.g. Universal Soldier III: Unfinished Business (1999) or The Neverending Story III (1994)).  Yet sometimes, and by 'sometimes' I mean 'A-reality-show-off-of-MTV-being-good' rare, there pops up a sequel to its original film that is just about as good.  No doubt this should put some emphasis on how surprised I was that when I went to see the new Ultimate Marvel Cinematic Universe film, Thor: The Dark World I was surprised to find that it was neither better or worse than the first film but just about the same, I know right?

The first Thor film which was released in 2011, was good and a great box office hit for a number of reasons.  Firstly, it was a hit particularly with young kids because the little ones always enjoy a bit of action mixed with humour and represented by shining knights in armour representing things like freedom, justice and other noble traits.  Adults also made this film a success because they had kids like that or simply wanted to see it themselves for a simple bit of fun while teenagers pretty much went to see it on the same reasons.  On top of this, the film itself was great as it had loads of well-filmed and done action, colourful characters, even more colourful sets and costumes, an easy-to-explain but also deep mythos and universe and of course, great acting by Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Tom Hiddleston as the Norse god of mischief and evil Loki and Anthony Hopkins as the regal but wise Norse all-father god Odin.

Now the story isn't a huge deal different from the film that it is a sequel to so there is no real need to go into too much depth of its description.  Thor must face an enemy attacking from the outside and within (this time its the murderous but wily dark elves) in order to prevent them from stealing some ancient maguffin of untold power (this time its a floating, reddish-black liquid called the aether) led by a foe unexpected by the Asgardian gods (Malekith the cursed played by an under-used Christopher Eccleston) and do this while having been cast out by his father Odin for a crime of disobedience (this time its disobeying his orders to wait for Malekith to return to Asgard after the first battle there).

There are a few differences in Dark World in terms of the story in particular though.  Firstly, something I was particularly interested by was the exact reason why Thor was cast out of Asgard in this film in the sense that this time round, the reason for him being forced into temporary exile is less selfish and more noble than in the first Thor.  In the first film, Thor was banished for going to the realm of the frost-giants and giving them a real good Mike Tyson-style beating despite the fact that Odin made it very clear that doing so was not needed and would only bring ruin to the doorstep of Asgard which indeed did happen.  This made Thor's struggle to better himself in the film more compelling as he had a very real character trait that he needed to get rid of while redeeming himself for a really damn stupid crime.  On the other hand Thor is thrown out of Asgard in Dark World for simply following an actually noble reason for vengeance and going against Asgardian tradition in order to save the lives of the men in the Asgardian army and his non-goddess-normal-nerdy-but-hot-human girlfriend Jane Foster (Natalie Portman).  See the reasons why Thor this time flees from Asgard are noble ones as SPOILER ALERT Thor's mother Frigga (Rene Russo) is murdered by Malekith and his right-hand man Algrim, aka Kurze (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), and a piece of the aforementioned aether is just under the skin of Jane Foster who is brought to Asgard which in turn attracts Malekith to the god-city in order to what was once his most powerful weapon.  These are noble reasons indeed and I just can't see why Thor is forced to flee from Asgard in order to achieve them, perhaps it is in part because he releases the already proven-untrustworthy and Disney-corporation-evil Loki from prison to help him achieve these goals.

This is probably the main gripe I had with Dark World apart from one, probably more important, factor that didn't bother me so much but did indeed niggle at the back of my mind like taking out a room-full of foes in Battlefield 3 (2011) and then realising you have plenty of ammo left but only one bullet left in your clip thus leaving you with the annoying choice of either shooting out a firing-slit in the wall or reloading. In the first film there was a definite reality and sense that we all as the viewers knew the mood of each scene and what to feel when watching each scene thereof.  In Dark World there are definitely palpable moods to most of the scenes such as grief, desperation, determined valour (particularly in the final battle in the third act) or swashbuckling excitement.  But one factor that definitely puts the first film above Dark World in terms of pacing and emotional setting is the fact that Dark World interchanges most of its big action-set-pieces or small skirmishes or even emotional scenes with moments of comedy.  Now admittedly, while these moments of comedy were well-executed, the frequency with which they were dropped in between the more important moments of plot and character development made for some slightly jarring feelings I had like when one important character dies and I'm supposed to laugh almost immediately afterwards.  It isn't really a big problem but it is quite irritating.

Despite this little rash on the film's otherwise good performance, it does one-up the first Thor on one very notable aspect of the story.  In Dark World Thor is clearly shown to be up against far greater odds against a far greater threat with far greater stakes.  In the first film, Loki was prepared to demolish a town in Texas to take over Asgard, but in Dark World Malekith clearly raises the stakes by not only forcing Thor to go on a forbidden crusade of vengeance but also threatens his Father, Brother, girlfriend, SPOILER ALERT AGAIN kills his mum, threatens to snuff out any semblance of light in the nine realms of Norse mythology, threatens the destruction of Asgard, threatens the destruction of Earth (or Midgard as the Norse gods refer to it) and threatens the literal existence of life as we know it throughout the nine realms altogether.  This adds a greater sense of tension and suspense to Dark World  than the first Thor had as Thor's sometimes desperate plans to defeat Malekith are truly justified as is his desperation, heroism and pseudo-reckless attitude towards battle.  All this is emphasised even more so as Malekith himself is extremely powerful nearer towards the end and is ever backed up by his powerful forces of foot soldiers and badass, knife-like magical space ships.  Yes that sounds dumb but MAN do they ever look cool.

As for the action, its pretty much the same quality as in the first film.  In my personal opinion, whereas the fight before the finale in the last Thor that was most memorable had to be Thor's battle against the destroyer, in this one it has to be the clash during the battle of Asgard where Heimdall (Idris 'badass' Elba) takes on one of the dark elves ships with daggers LIKE A BAWS and blows it THE FUCK UP.  In general the action is pretty much equal in both films with slight differences such as the action in the first film being driven more by Thor's strive for moral redemption while the action in Dark World is driven more by the character's frantic desperation to win the battle.

So while the action and plot is still as good as it was in the first film, I am glad to say that the rest of the film including acting, costumes and camera-work is still on par with the first film.  There isn't much to say about the acting in the Thor films in particular as they both feature well-talented actors who seem to be more acting out their favourite Saturday cartoon characters and simply having fun, and boy does it work well for them.  Unlike the other Ultimate Marvel Cinematic Universe films where the main character is either a slightly stereotypical characture of a country's patriotism (I.e. Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)) or a confident but emotionally unstable embodiment of a common character trait (I.e. Iron Man (2008)) and this in turn reflects onto the other characters in those films, the main character in the Thor films seems to be somewhat aware of his own emotional, psychological and physical limitations which in turn radiates off onto the other characters.  This means that the characters in the Thor films are given a bit more freedom to simply have fun acting as the main character is a bit more of a stronger emotional anchor for them to behave off of more so than in the other Marvel films in general (with possible exception to the very underrated first two Punisher films (2004 and 2008)).

Camera-work still is excellent as well.  Particularly in the formulaic but nonetheless beautiful panning and far-landscape shots we are shown either the destruction being wrought by Malekith's dastardly schemes and evil forces or the majesty of the golden and shining city of Asgard.  Equally shining in this film to the same extent that it was so in the first Thor are the costumes.  In particular this time round, I very much myself liked the armour that Natalie Portman wears for a few scenes in the middle of the film (although it doesn't seem to serve a great deal of purpose) and the uniforms for Malekith's dark elf soldiers which definitely express their dark and evil nature and heritage.

One last compliment I must give to the film as well is the exposition it gives at the beginning of the film.  Now exposition at the beginning of a film with a daring or epic universe and/or premise is a very difficult thing to do at times and has certainly been done wrong an innumerable amount of times (E.g. for good examples of bad exposition at the beginning of a film see films like Howard the Duck (1986) or Alone In The Dark (2005)).  But Thor: The Dark World manages this very well by combining excellent narration at the beginning of the film by Anthony Hopkins as Odin, telling us how aeons ago the evil Malekith was defeated and forced into hiding by the fearsome and noble might of the Asgardians led by Odin's father Bor.  With this great exposition coupled with a great opening action scene and very good special effects I guarantee you will be drawn into the drama of the film very quickly.

In conclusion, Thor: The Dark World IS FUCKIN' AWESOME WITH A SIDE OF GARLIC MASHED POTATO AND COLESLAW.  The quality of action, acting, characters, plot, camera-work and direction is still the same as the first film which is always a plus if the first film in a franchise is as good as the first Thor.  Perhaps this might come across as a bit disappointing to some people who were hoping for an even greater improvement on the first Thor but really, I don't think it matters so much.  I would recommend watching the first Thor first if you're not familiar to the series but going into Dark World with an open mind wouldn't hurt to be honest.  The only real criticisms I would have for Thor: The Dark World would be the fact that sometimes the emotional pacing and balance in certain scenes is not up to the same par as in the first film while the deaths of some main characters are pushed aside insultingly quickly.  On top of this I wish the ending would've included a little more clarity than it did and also wish that Christopher Eccleston's turn as Malekith had gotten more screen-time.  Regardless of this however, I would still say that Thor: The Dark World is a must see and mead-kegs worth of fun for the youngest children to the most noble of Asgardian gods.

Plot: 8.35/10
Action: 9/10
Characters/acting: 8.25/10


OVERALL RATING: 25.6/30