Julianne Moore is good, but far worse than Jodie Foster in her interpretation of Starling. Influenced by the script setting and Julianne's own performance, Starling in this film is just a genius agent who hates evil but is suppressed by the patriarchal society. He has a thin image and is completely inferior to being strong and compassionate, and he is particularly eager for justice due to childhood trauma. Judy's version of Starling [The difference between the two is particularly obvious in their attitude towards Hannibal: Judy initially fled against the ogre, and after many contacts, he gradually developed sympathy and trust, and opened his heart to Hannibal, The two seem to have become friends, and the ambiguity of Ruoyou Ruowu is looming. This kind of sympathy between the eccentric genius ogre and the FBI talented female student makes the audience move; and Julianne? It's like an emotionless case-handling tool, completely disregarding previous feelings...only wanting to arrest or even kill Hannibal] Anthony Hopkins' performance is still of a high standard. The fact that Hannibal was in love with Clarice in the film made me even more regretful that Judy refused to continue the role. Although the character itself has no room to break through and may destroy the original classic image, I still hope that Judy will play against Anthony in the ending! ? "Silence of the Lambs" is a subtle hint to the patriarchal society. Surrounding and watching the room full of men is enough to make the audience understand, and justice still dominates evil, which is more in line with aesthetic expectations; Outright sexual harassment by superiors, dismissal of Starling on trumped-up charges to describe patriarchal oppression, and portraying the government as corrupt and incompetent, relying on lynching to maintain justice is too low.
View more about Hannibal reviews
