The Silence of the Lambs Blu-Ray Review (Criterion)

A perfect, thrilling, and absorbing piece of cinema 5 Stars

Crafted with a gift for capturing the layers of complex characters, investigative pursuit, and the tightening screws of tension, The Silence of the Lambs builds its effective psychological horror. It is mesmerizing cinema deserving of its five Academy Award wins, including for Best Picture, Best Actor (Anthony Hopkins) and Best Actress (Jodie Foster). Criterion’s release is a definitive presentation, with flawless audio and video, and near-complete collection of special features.

The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Released: 14 Feb 1991
Rated: R
Runtime: 118 min
Director: Jonathan Demme
Genre: Crime, Drama, Thriller
Cast: Jodie Foster, Lawrence A. Bonney, Kasi Lemmons, Lawrence T. Wrentz
Writer(s): Thomas Harris (novel), Ted Tally (screenplay)
Plot: A young F.B.I. cadet must receive the help of an incarcerated and manipulative cannibal killer to help catch another serial killer, a madman who skins his victims.
IMDB rating: 8.6
MetaScore: 85

Disc Information
Studio: Criterion
Distributed By: N/A
Video Resolution: 1080P/AVC
Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
Audio: English 2.0 DTS-HDMA, English 5.1 DTS-HDMA
Subtitles: English SDH
Rating: R
Run Time: 1 Hr. 59 Min.
Package Includes: Blu-ray
Case Type: Special Criterion
Disc Type: BD50 (dual layer)
Region: A
Release Date: 02/13/2018
MSRP: $39.95

The Production: 5/5

“You know what you look like to me, with your good bag and your cheap shoes? You look like a rube. A well-scrubbed, hustling rube with a little taste. Good nutrition’s given you some length of bone, but you’re not more than one generation from poor white trash, are you, Agent Starling? And that accent you’ve tried so desperately to shed: pure West Virginia. What is your father, dear? Is he a coal miner? Does he stink of the lamp? You know how quickly the boys found you… all those tedious sticky fumblings in the back seats of cars… while you could only dream of getting out… getting anywhere… getting all the way to the FBI.”

Trainee-FBI Agent Clarice Starling is recruited to assist in a special case by Agent-in-charge Jack Crawford. She is tasked to approach notorious serial killer, Dr. Hannibal Lecter-Hannibal the cannibal-for potential insight into the serial killer, Buffalo Bill, known for skinning his victims. Starling is green, but eager. A capable student with a desire to work in Agent Crawford’s Behavioral Sciences Unit, she accepts, and confronts the fascinating, manipulative, oddly compelling Dr. Lecter locked away in the dungeons of a Baltimore criminal facility. Starling and Lecter form an unusual relationship as he teases out information and insight into the mind of the brutal killer Starling so desperately wants to help catch.

The Silence of the Lambs demonstrates a superb skill in terrifying audiences within the frame of a dramatic and thrilling plot. It tells quite a simple story; the hunt to catch a vicious serial killer and the young FBI agent who must consult a dangerous, seductive prisoner, “Hannibal the Cannibal,” to gain insight into the man being hunted. Giving the film an additional sense of urgency and a brisk pace is the race to save the young captive woman, who while still alive, does not have long. In the hands of the late Jonathan Demme directing, this fiercely intelligent production builds a frightful reality. Demme’s proclivity for having characters look directly into the camera, looking and talking to us-the audience-breeds an intriguing intimacy. We become a part of the scene and cannot look away. Demme directs from a splendid screenplay by Ted Tally, adapting Thomas Harris’ book, to create.

The world seen in The Silence of the Lambs is a drab, gritty place where the muted colors of life permeate everything, and the somberness of investigative procedure is mirrored in every dank location, run-down house, and landscape worn out by winter. Anthony Hopkins provides an immensely taut and outstanding performance as the cannibalistic killer, Hannibal. His interactions with the novice Agent Starling, played by Jodie Foster, as she tries to learn critical details about “Buffalo Bill”, are now legendary. Hopkins’ performance is landmark and magnificent. His ability to lure us with his soft-spoken way, unexpectedly and reluctantly endears us to him. He is likeable despite the ferocity of his actions-and that makes the character far more dangerous. Jodie Foster as Starling excels in her role. She portrays Starling with timidity and a growing sense confidence. Her wariness becomes a striking source of courage as she maneuvers the male-dominated field of law enforcement. We often see her surrounded by men, often much taller, who tower over her, but she never relents. She is able to more than hold her own with her keen intelligence and a fervent fortitude. She is a brilliantly realized hero, thrust in the center of brutal, violent circumstances, resolving to not become a hero, but to do the right thing, becoming the hero as a byproduct. One of cinemas most compelling characters.

The horror in The Silence of the Lambs comes most notably from the brutal and heinous mutilations of victims and from the associated bloody and disturbing images. But the true horror in this modern classic is found in the grotesqueries of distinct possibility. There is no apparition, no undead or implausible killer on the loose, and no supernatural or unnatural realm being tapped here, just the darkest dominion of what people can do. This is one of the best horror films ever made. It generates a sense of fear, placing the audience in a terrifying voyeuristic state watching characters in states of vulnerability. There we engage in nail biting and burying faces in pillows when the tension rises. And the denouement with riveting misdirection is still something to behold.

The film is a triumph, not only for the quality of its production and story, but for its ability to breach the mainstream consciousness and achieve a commercial and critical success nearly unheard of for a film like this. It thrust into the popular culture scene the iconic Hannibal Lector character, doing so in part by transcending genres to become a top-class thriller and an unsettling chiller. It has settings and sounds that are the territory of horror–brick dungeons with haunting echoes, ruthless and bloody killings, and a killer with shocking motives. All these things masterfully coalesce to earn this film a rightful place as an undisputed classic.

Video: 5/5

3D Rating: NA

Criterion’s perfect release features a new digital restoration, created in 16-bit 4K resolution from the 35mm original camera negative, all approved by director of photography Tak Fujimoto. The range of detail is striking. Plenty of dark, dank scenes are filled with more detail than I’ve caught in previous releases. Black levels, shadow details, contrast, colors and grain are consistent and stable.

This film doesn’t look 27+ years it. It looks like it was filmed recently. Outside knowing these are actors in their younger days, you can be fooled into thinking this is a new film just set in the early 90s. There’s a vibrancy and clarity and impressive contrast of colors and details in full preservation of the original intent. Just extraordinary and the most impressive this film has looked at home.

Audio: 5/5

This release features a terrific 2.0 surround DTS-HD Master Audio as well as an alternate 5.1 surround soundtrack, presented in DTS-HD Master Audio. For the purposes of this review I watched with the 2.0 track (and sampled the 5.1), and they are outstanding. This is a dialogue-rich film which, in every opportunity, is clear and unfettered. The impressive sound design lures and traps us, and, with Howard Shore’s score creating an entire, isolated world where we exist, thrilled and frightened. In fact, Howard Shore’s masterstroke score builds a tension, swells with dark threats and emotional wrenching and release. Any pops, cracks or other issues are nowhere to be heard. The 5.1 allows for more immersion, and gives the sound-design more space, but those looking to experience the original audio will be very pleased with the 2.0.

Special Features: 4.5/5

Just about everything ever included as a special feature has been included this release. The new elements are a new set of deleted scenes and an interview with critic Maitland McDonagh is an interesting discussion of killers and the cinema that examines them.

The scenes are alternate takes on scenes that made the final cut, or lines around those scenes, and a few other ideas. These deleted moments are of varying quality, from poor to okay. A collection of outtakes rounds these out. The commentary remains a fine listen, and the interview with composer Howard Shore offers still compelling insight into the process. I’ll also add that the booklet included, with the essay by critic Ann Taubin (and introduction by Jodie Foster and interview segment with director Jonathan Demme) is very, very good.

Audio commentary from 1994 featuring director Jonathan Demme, actors Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins, screenwriter Ted Tally, and former FBI agent John Douglas

New interview with critic Maitland McDonagh

Thirty-five minutes of deleted scenes

Interview from 2005 with Demme and Foster

Inside the Labyrinth, a 2001 documentary

Page to Screen, a 2002 program about the adaptation

Scoring “The Silence,” a 2004 interview program featuring composer Howard Shore

Understanding the Madness, a 2008 program featuring interviews with retired FBI special agents

Original behind-the-scenes featurette

Trailer

Essay by critic Amy Taubin

Overall: 5/5

Horror has many faces. Things that go bump in the night, zombies, aliens, ghosts, the supernatural and the terrifying horror of what one human can do to another. That form of horror, sharing the unthinkable cruelty where the dark corner of the soul abandons its own humanity to perform unimaginable acts, is where Silence of the Lambs exists. And in its examination of that horror, and the hero of a young FBI agent-in-training standing up and standing out in her field, where this film earn its place as one of cinemas most thrilling films.

Published by

Neil Middlemiss

editor,member

62 Comments

  1. Because I'll support Criterion in most any way I can, I've already purchased this and it should be on its way shortly. That said, reading that it's a 4K 16-bit scan from the OCN…Criterion really need to get on the UHD bandwagon so I can buy this again from them.

  2. Wish they had used the original poster art on the front cover, or at least maybe the old DVD art. IMHO the only thing that keeps the Criterion releases from being "perfect" is lack of the orig poster/ ad campaign artwork. With few exceptions, Criterion never uses the original artwork (occasionally it may appear inside or in a booklet, just not as cover art). In fact, I must admit I've found some of their recent cover art downright awful. Alas, I guess you can't have everything…

  3. It's currently $25 on Amazon as well. If you're only planning on buying a single title from the Criterion sale (which means you pay for shipping) the Amazon price works out to be about the same if you have Prime.

  4. Tom St Jones

    Wish they had used the original poster art on the front cover, or at least maybe the old DVD art. IMHO the only thing that keeps the Criterion releases from being "perfect" is lack of the orig poster/ ad campaign artwork. With few exceptions, Criterion never uses the original artwork (occasionally it may appear inside or in a booklet, just not as cover art). In fact, I must admit I've found some of their recent cover art downright awful. Alas, I guess you can't have everything…

    I completely agree. Some of their covers are horrific—- case in point: CARNIVAL OF SOULS. What the hell was that? Don't get me wrong— I love Criterion, but whatever money they're throwing at their cover artist(s) would be better spent acquiring/rights-clearing original theatrical poster art. This one detail prevents most of their editions from being truly definitive for me.

  5. First catalog title in a while that I rushed home to, immediately unwrapped, and watched. Believe the quality hype. Audio and video is top notch.

    It's incredible how well this holds up to repeated viewings over a span of years. Even when you know the twists and the outcomes, it frees you to pick up on little nuances you hadn't noticed before. Little tics and mannerisms in both Lecter and Clarice that you didn't notice before. These were two actors who earned their statues–even given the relatively "short" screen time for Hannibal. The fact that Hopkins' performance has embedded itself so deeply in film history and culture over the years just confirms that it's not how much screen time an actor is given, but what he does with it that should judge whether a performance is Oscar worthy.

    Bonus treat? My flatmate and his fiancee had never seen it beginning to end (they're about 14 years younger than I am) and both thoroughly enjoyed it. She was fully creeped out by Hannibal, which says something given how she is in her late 20s and was raised in an era of Silence-inspired programs like CSI, Criminal Minds, True Detective S1, etc. Even then, Hopkins' performance chilled her.

  6. A staggeringly great transfer of a staggeringly great movie. I shan’t be watching the extras because my experience in the past has been it always ruins the film for me. I don’t want to know what this was or that was or alternate takes – it all cheapens the watching experience for me and I just steer completely clear and let the movie do its job.

  7. Carlo Medina

    It's incredible how well this holds up to repeated viewings over a span of years. Even when you know the twists and the outcomes, it frees you to pick up on little nuances you hadn't noticed before. Little tics and mannerisms in both Lecter and Clarice that you didn't notice before. These were two actors who earned their statues–even given the relatively "short" screen time for Hannibal. The fact that Hopkins' performance has embedded itself so deeply in film history and culture over the years just confirms that it's not how much screen time an actor is given, but what he does with it that should judge whether a performance is Oscar worthy.

    I don't think the "complaints" about Hopkins' victory have to do with his performance – I think they have to do with the fact he got Best Actor when his screentime seems more in line with Best Supporting Actor.

    I've never felt bothered that Hopkins got BA instead of BSA, mainly because his presence looms over the entire film – it really comes as a surprise to realize how few on-screen minutes he maintains!

    But I do get the argument for BSA…

  8. Colin Jacobson

    I don't think the "complaints" about Hopkins' victory have to do with his performance – I think they have to do with the fact he got Best Actor when his screentime seems more in line with Best Supporting Actor.

    I've never felt bothered that Hopkins got BA instead of BSA, mainly because his presence looms over the entire film – it really comes as a surprise to realize how few on-screen minutes he maintains!

    But I do get the argument for BSA…

    I think Carlo is trying to say the same thing, but, he just didn't spell out that he was talking about BA when it came to screen time and performance.

  9. Neil Middlemiss

    For fans of Howard Shore's score, Quartet Records is releasing a limited edition, expanded version (27 or so extra minutes,) produced by Neil S. Bulk!

    Neils sticking together, supporting one another. :thumbsup:

    😀

    That's, actually, very cool info.

  10. I've always been more of a fan of Manhunter than this film and always preferred Brian Cox as Hannibal. Still like this picture though and ordered it from Criterion. I have not seen it in many years and did not own it so this will be fun to revisit.

  11. Reggie W

    I've always been more of a fan of Manhunter than this film and always preferred Brian Cox as Hannibal. Still like this picture though and ordered it from Criterion. I have not seen it in many years and did not own it so this will be fun to revisit.

    Hell, I'm one of the few people that actually watched Manhunter in a movie theater during its theatrical run. Love both films and Hannibal performances!

  12. Robert Crawford

    Hell, I'm one of the few people that actually watched Manhunter in a movie theater during its theatrical run. Love both films and Hannibal performances!

    You are not totally alone then here, Robert. I saw Manhunter several times when it was in the cinema as I really loved the film and then took different people to see it.

    A good one to watch after Silence of the Lambs is Titus as Hopkins is again a nasty piece of work in it and manages to work in his personal tribute to Hannibal. :laugh:

  13. Reggie W

    You are not totally alone then here, Robert. I saw Manhunter several times when it was in the cinema as I really loved the film and then took different people to see it.

    A good one to watch after Silence of the Lambs is Titus as Hopkins is again a nasty piece of work in it and manages to work in his personal tribute to Hannibal. :laugh:

    It played that long in your area to do so? Hell, it played one week at my locale and the theater was basically empty during my showing.

  14. I think it played for about a month. Funny, I went about 4 or 5 times always with different people and back then they all loved it. Then many years later I used to take part in a "movie club" where a group of people would gather once a week and we would all take turns picking the "movie of the week" and watch it together. I was the oldest person in the group and chose Manhunter on the first night it was my turn to choose the film. Wow, they hated it. Literally, halfway through people were saying "This sucks!" and wanted to turn it off. On my second night when I got to choose I picked 2001. I think they wanted to throw me out of the club. Hated it! On my third go around which I figured would be the last time I would get to pick a film I chose Donnie Darko and they loved it…told me if I had bombed a third time they were going to stop inviting me. 😆

  15. Reggie W

    I think it played for about a month. Funny, I went about 4 or 5 times always with different people and back then they all loved it. Then many years later I used to take part in a "movie club" where a group of people would gather once a week and we would all take turns picking the "movie of the week" and watch it together. I was the oldest person in the group and chose Manhunter on the first night it was my turn to choose the film. Wow, they hated it. Literally, halfway through people were saying "This sucks!" and wanted to turn it off. On my second night when I got to choose I picked 2001. I think they wanted to throw me out of the club. Hated it! On my third go around which I figured would be the last time I would get to pick a film I chose Donnie Darko and they loved it…told me if I had bombed a third time they were going to stop inviting me. 😆

    Were you living in a big city during Manhunter's theatrical run? I was living in a small college town Champaign, Illinois and it was playing at a small downtown cinema that had seen better days.

  16. Yes, in Boston. I recall that back then films would, even if they were not attracting big crowds, seem to stay in the theater longer. Now, on several occasions there have been films that I wanted to see but if I did not get there the first week they were out…they are gone. I do not think anybody has the patience anymore to let a film continue to play to a mostly empty cinema. Everything is about first week performance…if it bombs in week one…it does not get week two.

  17. Colin Jacobson

    I don't think the "complaints" about Hopkins' victory have to do with his performance – I think they have to do with the fact he got Best Actor when his screentime seems more in line with Best Supporting Actor.

    I've never felt bothered that Hopkins got BA instead of BSA, mainly because his presence looms over the entire film – it really comes as a surprise to realize how few on-screen minutes he maintains!

    But I do get the argument for BSA…

    I've thought about this too. I didn't realize at first that his performance was so short, 16 min, but I thought why he got Lead instead of supporting… and you are right. His performance does indeed loom large over the entire picture. Jack Crawford isn't a lead; neither is Jame Gumb. Lechter is. He IS the film. He MAKES the film what it is. No doubt about it. When you walk out of the theater, do you remember the FBI or Gumb? or even Starling? No, you remember "I ate his liver… Ssss Ssss Ssss…"

    I was shocked to see Roger Ebert's review where he didn't like the film. I loved it the first time I saw it. I knew how great it was then, and I still know how good it is. Classic. Can't wait to view the Criterion disc when it arrives.

  18. battlebeast

    I've thought about this too. I didn't realize at first that his performance was so short, 16 min, but I thought why he got Lead instead of supporting… and you are right. His performance does indeed loom large over the entire picture. Jack Crawford isn't a lead; neither is Jame Gumb. Lechter is. He IS the film. He MAKES the film what it is. No doubt about it. When you walk out of the theater, do you remember the FBI or Gumb? or even Starling? No, you remember "I ate his liver… Ssss Ssss Ssss…"

    I was shocked to see Roger Ebert's review where he didn't like the film. I loved it the first time I saw it. I knew how great it was then, and I still know how good it is. Classic. Can't wait to view the Criterion disc when it arrives.

    You can't help, but, remember Starling because for most of his performance, he plays against Starling. I found Foster's performance to be excellent. That scene at the end with her walking in darkness without her saying a single word and with fear totally expressed over her face as she faced death one way or another is classic acting in my opinion.

  19. battlebeast

    I've thought about this too. I didn't realize at first that his performance was so short, 16 min, but I thought why he got Lead instead of supporting… and you are right. His performance does indeed loom large over the entire picture. Jack Crawford isn't a lead; neither is Jame Gumb. Lechter is. He IS the film. He MAKES the film what it is. No doubt about it. When you walk out of the theater, do you remember the FBI or Gumb? or even Starling? No, you remember "I ate his liver… Ssss Ssss Ssss…"

    I was shocked to see Roger Ebert's review where he didn't like the film. I loved it the first time I saw it. I knew how great it was then, and I still know how good it is. Classic. Can't wait to view the Criterion disc when it arrives.

    Roger Ebert didn't like it? I found two negative reviews of the film and only two – Gene Siskel (idiot) and Dave Kehr (bigger idiot). To read their reviews and see how really wrongheaded both are is an amazing thing.

  20. Robert Crawford

    You can't help, but, remember Starling because for most of his performance, he plays against Starling. I found Foster's performance to be excellent. That scene at the end with her walking in darkness without her saying a single word and with fear totally expressed over her face as she faced death one way or another is classic acting in my opinion.

    Don't get me wrong, I LOVED her performance. It was magnificent.

    haineshisway

    Roger Ebert didn't like it? I found two negative reviews of the film and only two – Gene Siskel (idiot) and Dave Kehr (bigger idiot). To read their reviews and see how really wrongheaded both are is an amazing thing.

    Well, I watched the Siskel & Ebert clip again and I guess what Ebert said was the he liked the first half of the film, the dynamic between Lechter and Starling, and the writing, but that the ending didn't work. I guess I was wrong a bit.

  21. Here’s what Ebert said in his 1991 review. Interpret it as you will.


    Against these qualities, the weak points of the movie are probably not very important, but there are some. The details of Foster's final showdown with Buffalo Bill are scarcely believable.

    Unless you look closely, you may miss the details of how Lecter deceives his pursuers in one grisly scene. The very last scene in the film is hard to follow.

    But against these flaws are balanced true suspense, unblinking horror and an Anthony Hopkins performance that is likely to be referred to for many years when horror movies are discussed.”

  22. haineshisway

    Yeah, he waffles like crazy and in my opinion he's completely wrong and probably came to realize it later. Siskel, on the other hand, HATED it. As did Dave Kehr. Marvel at their inept reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.

    Why are they idiots and were inept because they didn't like this great film?

  23. Tino

    Here’s what Ebert said in his 1991 review. Interpret it as you will.


    Against these qualities, the weak points of the movie are probably not very important, but there are some. The details of Foster's final showdown with Buffalo Bill are scarcely believable.

    Unless you look closely, you may miss the details of how Lecter deceives his pursuers in one grisly scene. The very last scene in the film is hard to follow.

    But against these flaws are balanced true suspense, unblinking horror and an Anthony Hopkins performance that is likely to be referred to for many years when horror movies are discussed.”

    They talk about the plausibility of that sequence in the audio commentary as the FBI didn't like it for obvious reasons, but Demme gave some kind of explanation as to how Clarice alone could do a follow-up interview with Gumb.

  24. Robert Crawford

    Why are they idiots and were inept because they didn't like this great film? There isn't a movie that's ever been filmed that didn't have some critics as film appreciation is such a personal and subjective evaluation that is affected by the personal baggage one brings when observing any film. I remembered Siskel's negative review and just kind of shrug my shoulders because the film worked for me.

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/…150268_1_dr-lecter-serial-killer-jodie-foster

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-02-14/features/9101140291_1_demme-killer-clarice-starling

    I enjoy reading old reviews of dissenting critics. Even film critics who have a similar taste to mine, can have a completely different feeling after seeing a movie, than I have. Good film critics are both passionate and interesting to read. Roger Ebert was very articulate about why he absolutely hated Blue Velvet, which was for personal reasons.

  25. Robert Crawford

    Why are they idiots and were inept because they didn't like this great film? There isn't a movie that's ever been filmed that didn't have some critics as film appreciation is such a personal and subjective evaluation that is affected by the personal baggage one brings when observing any film. I remembered Siskel's negative review and just kind of shrug my shoulders because the film worked for me.

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/…150268_1_dr-lecter-serial-killer-jodie-foster

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-02-14/features/9101140291_1_demme-killer-clarice-starling

    Obviously it is MY opinion that they are idiots – that's been my experience reading many reviews from both of them – I find Mr. Kehr pedantic and a poor writer, and Siskel even poorer as a writer. I find their writings on film idiotic. In his original review Mr. Kehr misspells Lecter as Lector repeatedly. Then in his follow-up review (who didn't know he'd do a follow-up review) he gets it right at least – and has to acknowledge that the film is a huge success, which clearly irritates him. I have no issue with him not liking the film, but to give it a one-star review is ridiculous whether you like or dislike it. And he continues down his silly path in this follow-up review: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/…er-serial-killer-fbi-trainee-clarice-starling

  26. haineshisway

    Obviously it is MY opinion that they are idiots – that's been my experience reading many reviews from both of them – I find Mr. Kehr pedantic and a poor writer, and Siskel even poorer as a writer. I find their writings on film idiotic. In his original review Mr. Kehr misspells Lecter as Lector repeatedly. Then in his follow-up review (who didn't know he'd do a follow-up review) he gets it right at least – and has to acknowledge that the film is a huge success, which clearly irritates him. I have no issue with him not liking the film, but to give it a one-star review is ridiculous whether you like or dislike it. And he continues down his silly path in this follow-up review: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/…er-serial-killer-fbi-trainee-clarice-starling

    Fair enough!

  27. Lou Sytsma

    Anyone have the previous Criterion DVD release of this? Very happy with my copy.

    Everyone was very happy when that DVD came out. If your point is that you're happy enough not to get the new Blu-ray, well, no. The new Blu-ray is a MASSIVE improvement in picture and sound quality.

  28. Lou Sytsma

    How does it compare to the previous Blu-ray release?

    It looks absolutely fantastic compared to the old blu and Criterion DVD.
    The DVD was non-anamorphic, but the extras were great. So the MGM was the best for DVD picture.
    This new one is a new transfer with space on the dual layer disc for the AVC encode to breathe. The old one was MPEG2 on a single layer disc. Same codec as DVD but 6 times the pixels and only 3 times the disc space to fit it.

  29. Thanks for the details brap! It’s on order. All this talk got me jonesing to see the movie again and pulled out the blu-ray. It never fails to pull me in. Such a great across the board endeavor. Everyone involved with this really were on the same wave-length. Shore’s score is also fantastic. Something I have to keep reminding myself about as his LOTR scores blot out his other works for me.

  30. Those eight notes that open Silence of the Lambs are one of the most memorable motifs for my money. When I hear it, it instantly conjures up total recall for the film. That's what the best of these soundtracks manage to do. Just like the opening notes for The Godfather. It's on par with that for me.

  31. I have not seen this movie since around the time that Hannibal came out and I had kinda forgotten how damn good it is. The performances are excellent. Obviously, Foster and Hopkins but even the actors with only a scene or two are completely believable and memorable.

    I'm no authority but I think the disc looks great too.

  32. My Criterion Blu-ray will satisfy me the rest of my life. The dynamic range is exquisite and I doubt my naked eye could comprehend more lines even if they were there.

    I have bought SILENCE OF THE LAMBS for the third and final time, I am happy to say. And the third time was, indeed, a charm.

  33. Picked this up the other day and watched it last night, upscaled to 4K on a calibrated 65" 4K LG OLED. While I'm sure this is the best it's ever looked in any home video format, I can't help but wonder if it could have been better. I don't know. Clearly the DP signed off and was involved in it. But there is inconsistency in the grain throughout the film, and the grain is quite heavy throughout. Not sure what film stock was used, but even in the brighter scenes the grain is heavy. And I have quite a few films pre-1991 films (80s, 70s, etc.) on Blu-ray that look cleaner, and I *don't* mean that they were DNR'd! I suppose that was the film stock used – no other explanation, unless the film was underexposed and pushed in post. Also the blacks could have more detail, though I realize it's a dark theme. But they seem crushed at times.

    I'm only this critical because I love the film, having seen it on release 3 times in the theater opening week, my senior year in HS.

    Overall it's very good, sharp, detailed, muted color palette I recall, etc. Like I said, the best it's probably been for sure, just wondering about that mad grain! Of course I don't recall what it looked like back in the theater 🙂

  34. haineshisway

    I doubt the release prints looked as good back then. There is no "mad" grain in this transfer, not even in the opticals, which are quite good here.

    Probably not, I would agree. I don't mind grain at all, hope that's not the impression I conveyed, but am curious why it is so grainy throughout, even, as I said, in the brighter scenes, compared to films of that era and earlier, just as dark. Must be the film stock and how it was exposed. Can't find any details.

Leave a Reply