Manhunter

This will no doubt elicit howls of outrage, but I have always thought that Mr. Cox's portrayal of Hannibal Lector to be far superior to that of Mr Hopkins'. Mr Cox portrays Lector as someone coldly intellectual, almost reptilian and inhuman, while Mr Hopkins gives a performance that always brings to mind that of Ernest Thesiger as Dr. Pretorius in Bride of Frankenstein". Mind you, I really enjoy Ernest Thesiger as Dr. Pretorius; I'm just saying that the charming, witty and OH! so urbane serial killer has been done to death, and had been even when "Silence Of The Lambs" came out. Rent this video if you want to see how it's supposed to be done.

The bulk of comments concerning this film center on the debate of its superiority/inferiority versus Silence of the Lambs. That line of criticism does not do justice to either movie.

Besides the Thomas Harris link, there is no connection between them at all. Sure, there are shared character names, most notably Dr. Lecter, but not shared characters. Cox's and Hopkins' interpretations of the infamous cannibal could not be any more different. Whose is better? That's irrelevant here. What is relevant is Manhunter's success as a stand-alone feature film.

Michael Mann's film is standard serial killer fare, which is not necessarily a bad thing. What separates it from its cinematic brethren is its style and class. It's easy to follow a hunter-prey storyline. What isn't easy is to provide the audience with well-rounded characters who convey that grey moral ground of real life. In that respect, Manhunter is a success. From the FBI agent teetering on the edge to the killer struggling with his emotions, Mann weaves a complex story that takes a step above the genre.

The movie is definitely of the 80s. Timelessness is the top determining factor of a film's "classic" status. Whether or not Manhunter stands the test of time is yet to be seen. The music is already dated, but not to the point of impeding the story. Fortunately, it has not suffered the same fate as the now campy reruns of Miami Vice.

Manhunter is not a great movie. It is an above average genre film aided by a stellar cast and crew. Take it for what it is and enjoy an underappreciated thriller.

This film reminds me of a deglamorized verison of the Hannibal films. IMO it has a more realistic view to it. Instead of the likable and friendly Ed Norton, we have the moody and intense William Petersen playing Will Graham. Brian Cox's Hannibal is just as clever as Anthony Hopkins' but not as charismatic. Thus, that makes him more realistic, instead of superhuman, like the character later becomes. Instead of a spooky dark basement prison as in Slience or Hannibal, we have an austure white cell. Ralph Fiennes' Dolarhyde is quiet to the point of being a mute and almost semi retarded almost. I can't see how the girl would be attacted to him (even if she is blind). Tom Noonhan's Dolarhyde is more amible and friendly. He actually speaks in a friendly voice, at times even being a normal person. Even the ending is more realistic. Instead of having a supspense full thilling end, it ends rather anti-climaticly...but thus is life.

I'm starting to think that I may be one of the only people who saw this film when it was originally theatrically released! Years after that, as a freshman in college, I was managing a video store when a woman came in looking for the recently released `Silence of the Lambs.' She said she knew William Petersen from childhood and told me that he was in THE first Hannibal the Cannibal movie. Having not read the novel or seen the movie for a while, I never related the two before that. But I specifically remembered `Manhunter' for its creepy killer, spectacular use of Iron Butterfly, and the strange & frightening notion (for then) of FBI profiling. These three details alone speak volumes for the film's acting, style and writing. The irony of forcing oneself to share the same maniacal thoughts as a killer in order to catch them is the stuff of nightmares. Since reconnecting with `Manhunter' back then, I've remained a constant fan of the film.

But the film suffers today in several ways. First off, any comparison to `Silence of the Lambs' is going to come up short. `Silence' is simply a better film – a classic of the highest caliber that will continue to sustain itself with the passage of time. Those already acquainted with Jonathan Demme's world will probably have a hard time accepting `Manhunter.' But audiences should judge the film on its own merits, and recognize that unlike `Red Dragon' it was not designed to resemble an established world of a classic movie – which is both a curse and an advantage for both films. I recently saw `Red Dragon,' by the way, and loved it. Walking out, I found myself asking whether I liked it better than `Manhunter.' These comparisons can get very silly because not only am I basing my impressions on a book, but also a previously filmed version and a closely related `sequel.' Best method: let each stand alone, THEN decide if either was successful. Both films succeed for similar and different reasons.

The approach of `Manhunter' is much more cold and observational than `Red Dragon.' This style (often concerned with widely symmetrical composition), like Kubrick's, can greatly benefit the story if used properly. I really liked it here. The neatness and sterility of the 80s décor also works perfectly in this format, providing a nice contrast to the horrors sometimes contained within its walls.

As for the music, it has not aged well. The synthesized stuff in the first hour is effective at times (especially when it's just a single, sustained note a la John Carpenter, or those bits that sound like `Blade Runner'), and the inclusion of In-a-Gadda-da-Vida is inspired, but the electronic balladry during Dolarhyde's romance is simply awful and detract from the scenes. Obviously, the danger of using such modern music is that it can become outdated and cheesy very quick. Is it just me, or does this especially seem true of 80s music? Given Michael Mann's career, he clearly wouldn't agree. I guess one never knows. The Tangerine Dream score for `Risky Business' or Phillip Glass' for `Thin Blue Line,' for example, still hold up remarkably well from this period.

The performances, however, are still wonderful. Petersen (whom I've heard didn't like the job he did) reaches just the right blend of seeming haunted, detached, morose, and as Dolarhyde describes him, purposeful. Dennis Farina, himself a former Chicago cop, exudes realistic authority as Jack Crawford. Tom Noonan obtains a disturbing childlike innocence and deliberation in his terror. And Brian Cox…poor guy, will always be compared to Anthony Hopkins. It's unfair because he gives us a Lecter that is different, to be sure, but intelligent in a way that, to me, is more realistic, intriguing and ultimately frightening. Hopkins' Hannibal is so supremely horrible that he's practically supernatural at this point, not unlike Dracula or the Wolfman. I enjoy all of that too, but just on a different level.

8/10

I have a problem with a lot of people's review of "Manhunter". Every single bad review that criticizes Cox or Noonan invariably mentions the movie "Red Dragon" in the same breath. How about being a little objective?

On its own as the original Hannibal Lecter movie, Manhunter is a good movie. Cox plays Lecter convincingly, and you can read from other reviewers who praised his work shows that with a little objectivity we can see an alternative representation of Lecter. It is true, as one other reviewer says, Hopkins acts Lecter, Cox *IS* Lecter. Cox never seems to be acting, he really plays the part with mystery and ambiguity not like the distinctly maniacal Lecter that Hopkins portrays.

Cox plays a true psychopath - one devoid of feelings, and yet a consummate actor. Some of the world's best actors are in fact psychopaths. A psychopath is not necessarily a killer - a psychopath is simply someone who does not feel for other human beings, which is often why the psychopath killers of this world were in fact convincing actors - for example Geoffrey Dahmer and Charles Manson.

So when we analyze the profiles of true psychopathic serial killers, we can quite clearly see that Cox plays the better Lecter than Hopkins. We can see Cox is devoid of compassion, and yet acts like a normal person. Hopkins on the other hand, never passes the creepy stage - he is too creepy and doesn't have the "acting" ability of a true psychopath to mask that image from the public eye. Cox shows that he could blend into normality without being caught.

And therein lies the problem with the negative reviews. We read countless negative reviews of this movie bemoaning the fact that Cox is not as creepy as Hopkins - but my dears, that is exactly why Cox plays the better Lecter!