Besides the fact that it was released without much hoopla in 1986, and that it was recently remade(the same exact movie except for the end) as Red Dragon, Manhunter is undoubtedly the most overlooked movie of the past 20 years. The plot is tremendous, Mann's direction is outstanding, and the acting(especially Noonan) is equally amazing. What Mann realized while making this film is that a thriller was not just meant to shock and disgust the audience but to develop the characters carefully so that there is an even greater sense of anticipation for the climax of the movie than there otherwise would be. Recent thrillers are clearly lacking in the character development that made movies like Manhunter and Silence of the Lambs so good. Its a shame that Red Dragon had to be made, since it is basically a strait ripoff of Manhunter except for a different ending which is much worse than the original and way too predictable. Anyone who thinks Red Dragon was a good movie should watch Manhunter and compare the two. If you try this you'll see that there is no comparison. Tom Noonan's performance alone is worth the watch.
Add a Review
-
billymac7214 October 2002I'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 -
Lechuguilla11 February 2013A very serious, and conveniently photogenic, FBI man named Will Graham (William Petersen) takes a personal interest in catching a serial killer. It's an average thriller.
The first half is quite good as Graham, recovering from psychological trauma of a previous case, learns about the current killer, called the "tooth fairy"; consults with other cops; and gathers forensic evidence. He interviews Hannibal Lecktor (Brian Cox) in prison, to see if Lecktor can help him psychoanalyze the tooth fairy. There is a subtle sense of alienation about all the characters, trapped in their urban environments. Glass and windows play into this motif.
Unfortunately, the second half is terrible. It's like it was written by an amateur scriptwriter. While the first half focuses on Graham, the second half alternates between Graham and the tooth fairy, presenting a choppy, back-and-forth plot structure. Further, the killer is introduced too abruptly, and scenes generally lack effective transitions.
We never learn much about the killer's motivation. The "lunar cycle" theme is not explained, nor are we given much explanation about the "red dragon". Various geographic locations seem arbitrary. The appearance of the killer, especially when he's first introduced, is laughable. And the film's ending is preposterous and silly.
The film has a distinctive 1980s look and feel, with its fashions, slow-motion camera shots, and music track. Except for the killer, casting is acceptable. Acting ranges from acceptable to below average. Joan Allen gives a really nice performance.
If the second half had maintained the quality of the first half, this film would have been quite good. As is, "Manhunter" is an average cop movie, wherein the villain is a kind of stereotyped, and rather typical, bogeyman. -
kdidymus15 October 2001How many times have we heard "The film isn't as good as the book"? Let's face it. What film IS?! Red Dragon was a masterpiece and so is Manhunter.
To appreciate that there are two issues. Firstly, the film was created in 1986. It's stylised and looks slightly dated. The soundtrack is excellent but again very 1980's. Secondly, Red Dragon was not an easy book to write a screenplay for. There is way too much information that made the book so enthralling to squeeze in to 2 hours.
The cinematography, in particular the clever use of light and colours, is breathtaking. The choice of locations was also very deliberate. The scene where Will is running out of the building after speaking to Hannibal Lecter. They chose a building with a long spiral ramp down. The ramp is white, clinical. Running down the ramp is like those dreams where the bad man is chasing you and you can't get away. Will runs his heart out but doesn't get very far.
I agree that Cox plays a different Lecter but then the book wasn't about Lecter. There was some mention made but Lecter in this film is very much a Cameo appearance. The way in which Will goes about catching the killer is every bit as clever as Starling's methods, if not more so. In addition, we are treated to the thoughts, the inner monologue, the frustration and triumph of a hunter.
Make no mistake, if you expect an up-to-date movie as good in every respect as the book, you'll be disappointed. If you're sensible and expect nothing more than 2 hours quality entertainment you'll enjoy this one. -
ccthemovieman-114 October 2006This was the first look at Hannibal Lechter, but it really didn't have the impact of "Silence Of The Lambs" and the two subsequent movies also dealing with Lechter. Those - "Hannibal" and "Red Dragon" (a re-make of this movie) - all had Anthony Hopkins as the famous criminal. Hopkins "take" on the character was so memorable, so riveting that he made it his own. In this movie, Lechter is not memorable. Few people could tell you who played him in this film. The answer: Brian Cox.
That's not to say it's a bad film. It isn't, but it's no great shakes, either. The first half is very suspenseful but the second half of the movie is disappointing. It is interesting to look back now and see a young Bill Peterson in the lead. I am used to seeing the CSI television star as a more mature "Gil Grissom."
I watched this movie back in the '80s before I knew Petersen, Cox, Hopkins and the rest.....and it was better. Sorry to say, the other films have simply eclipsed this effort. -
Mann is a brilliant writer/director, and unfortunately he was a little to head of his time on this film.
I was a teenager when this movie was originally released, and it seriously disturbed me as a kid. Seeing a serial killer in a movie was rare enough in the mid-eighties, but to show the thoughts of a serial killer basically, putting the audience in the frame of mind was just so far from anything else at the time. So watching it was disturbing, which I think for people who missed this, they had that experience with Silence Of The Lambs. So that is the division of the reviews I see here. If you saw this when it original came out then it almost certainly left a big impact, and likely you realize how important and groundbreaking this film was. Which is exactly what reviews seem to say if they like the film. If you saw it years after first seeing Silence Of The Lambs, the impact, for many reasons, cinematography was based on a much lower budget, production levels in general were lower, and seeing it after seeing all the films that ere inspired by it, loses that sense of originality and that is going to decrease your experience of the film. But as many have said, this film, being first in many ways deserves the same level of acclaim that has gone on to Silence Of The Lambs. It had only a small box office unfortunately. I think as the studio was actually scared of pushing it at the time, it was so different than anything they had seen the time, and the subject was so dark. If they had I think it would have been hugely well received.
Overall because of budget, and having this movie as a template, Silence Of The Lambs is a superior film, but that is because the director had this movie to understand how to make a movie of this genre, and Michael Mann was basically creating it with his film. And some have said Tom Noonan was better than Anthony Hopkins, but I actually think they are equal, and i give props for Demme and Hopkins not going for the same feel as Noonan's a and Mann's portrayal, so bravo to both as they are the two most important films in the genre in my opinion.
Do i recommend seeing it now, if you haven't seen it yet, then yes, but only if you keep in mind that you are seeing a movie that has been copied many times since, if anything at all feels cliche, trust me, it was as far from it when it first came out. And so that is hard to do, but if you can do that, you likely will start to get how important a film this was. -
JoeB13127 November 2010The thing about this film is that it contains characters, notably Hannibal Lecter, before they became household names. In "Red Dragon", Lector is a minor character (it's even spelled "Lecktor" here, and he only has about three scenes in the movie, and they are effective enough, because he's not the key character.)
Obviously, the character was expanded in "Silence of the Lambs" and its sequel "Hannibal", prequels, "Red Dragon" (based on the same source novel) and "Hannibal Rising" so people watching this film wanting more Hannibal, and wanting Anthony Hopkins to play him.
Watch this movie pretending none of those other films ever existed, and that Hopkins never played the role, and you'll enjoy the film.
William Peterson (who later went on playing a very similar character in "CSI") delivers as a profiler who gets too close to his work, just getting burned by the insanity he has to try to comprehend without being swallowed up by it. Dennis Farina (Law and Order, amongst other things) plays Jack Crawford, an FBI agent who balances his friend's sanity versus the need to stop a maniac. These are the important characters in the film, and it's about them. The remake "Red Dragon" shoe-horns Lector into the film where he doesn't need to be, really.
The scenes with the Dollarhyde character are truly uncomfortable to watch, which is the point, I guess, particularly when he seduces the blind girl and then wants to kill her in a jealous rage. It's very effective.
Okay, we have to look at it, Brian Cox as "Hannibal Lecktor", not to be confused with "Hannibal Lecter", played by Sir Anthony Hopkins and having become a pop-culture icon. Cox is very effective. His "Lecktor" is not possessed of super-human powers. He's just a very clever psychopath. He's effective for his role in the plot, compared to the way he gets portrayed in the sequels and prequels and remake.
In short, check your preconceptions at the door, and you'll enjoy this film. -
mel-jones-4519 August 2019I agree with all of the reviews that I read. I, too, feel that Brian Cox was far more convincing and the whole film being color bare forces us to pay attention to the actors. The music, most of which I already heard, was so compelling that I bought the soundtrack. Of course, Will Peterson is outstanding. I couldn't wait to watch CSI when I found out he was cast as the lead. I always tell people who say they liked Red Dragon to watch Manhunter, then tell me which do they like best. Manhunter, naturally.
-
panquin23 October 2006The raw materials of a damn good film are here, but Mann's typically awful (and I mean hideous) musical choices (at least for his 80s movies) are on full display in Manhunter, and the first bit of remedy would be to chuck every song and piece of music, bar none, and either (1) don't feature any music or (2) bring on the musical subtlety (not Mann's strongest point). Then I would shake the actress playing the protagonist's wife, an entirely unbelievable and utterly annoying Hollywood-style wife, and jettison her, rewrite the part and make that character way marginal. Lastly, I'd give in to the story and shed the endless reams of style that are - yes - taking up the story's space, to quite annoying effect. All of these remedies would help make the movie less about Michael Mann and his direction and more about the story that direction is supposed to be...well, directing, you know? And I guess that's problem #1 with Manhunter: it's more about the director than about the unfolding supposed-to-be- engrossing story itself.
What's amazing is that Hannibal Lecter doesn't scare in the slightest, and suspense just isn't happening here. Even revulsion isn't happening, and it should be present in bucketfuls. There just isn't any hit to the gut that the movie's working (supposedly) to give you. Very disappointing.
I just wish I hadn't bought it. Oh well. -
hitchcockthelegend17 June 2012Retired FBI specialist Will Graham is lured back into action to track a serial killer who is killing families, seemingly linked into the lunar cycle. In the process it opens up some old mental wounds that were born out during his last action out in the field...
Before the gargantuan success of Silence of the Lambs, where the name Hannibal the Cannibal moved into pop culture, and before director Michael Mann became a named auteur often referenced with relish by hungry film students; there was Manhunter, Michael Mann's brilliant adaptation of Thomas Harris' equally brilliant psychological thriller, Red Dragon. It feels a bit redundant now, years later, writing about Mann's use of styles to bear out mood and psychological states, his framing devices, his commitment to his craft, but after revisiting the film on Blu-ray, I find myself once again simultaneously invigorated and unnerved by the magnificence of Manhunter. Visually, thematically and narratively it remains a clinical piece of cinema, a probing study of madness that dares to put a serial killer and the man hunting him in the same psychological body, asking us, as well as William Petersen's FBI agent Will Graham, to empathise with Tom Noonan's troubled Tooth Fairy killer. Here's a thing, too, Francis Dolarhyde (The Tooth Fairy) is a functioning member of society, he is quite frankly a man who could be working in a shop near you! This is no reclusive psychopath such as, well, Buffalo Bill, Dolarhyde is presented to us in such a way as we are given insight into this damaged mind, he is fleshed out as a person, we get to know him and his motivational problems.
Dream much, Will?
Mann and his team are not about over the top or camp performances, gore is kept to a premium, the real horror is shown in aftermath sequences, conversations and harmless photographs, but still it's a nightmarish world. Suspense is wrung out slowly by way of the characterisations. Will has to become the killer, and it's dangerous, he knows so because he has done it before, when capturing Dr. Hannibal Lecktor. Needing to pick up the scent again, to recover the mindset, Will has to go see the good doctor who has a penchant for fine wines and human offal. These scenes showcase Mann at his deadliest, a bright white cell filmed off kilter, each frame switch showing either Lecktor or Graham behind bars, they are one. When Lecktor taunts Will about them being alike, Mann understands this and visually brings it out. Dolarhyde's living abode is murky in colour tones and furnished garishly, and with mirrors, paintings and a lunar landscape, yet when Dolarhyde is accompanied by Joan Allen's blind Reba, where he feels he is finally finding acceptance, this house is seen at ease because of the characterisations. Switch to the finale and it's a walled monstrosity matching that of a killer tipped back over the edge. Brilliant stuff.
If one does what God does enough times, one will become as God is.
Lecktor, soon to be back as the source material Lecter in the film versions that follow, is actually not in the film that much. Brian Cox (chilling, calculating, frightening and intelligent) as Lecktor gets under ten minutes of screen time, but that's enough, the character's presence is felt throughout the picture in a number of ways. The Lecktor angle is very relative to film's success, but very much it's one strand of a compelling whole, I realise now that Mann has deliberately kept us wanting more of him visually. Noonan is truly scary, he lived away from the rest of the cast during filming, with Mann's joyous encouragement, the end result is one of the best and most complex serial killer characterisations ever. Lang scores high as weasel paparazzi, Allen is heart achingly effective without patronising blind people and Farina is a huge presence as Jack Crawford, Will's friend and boss who coaxes Will back into the fray knowing full well that Will's mind might not make it back with him. But it's Petersen's movie all the way. His subsequent non film career has given ammunition to his knockers that he is no great actor. Rubbish, with this and To Live and Die in L.A. he gave two of the best crime film portrayals of the 80s. He immerses himself in Will Graham, so much so he wasn't able to shake the character off long after filming had wrapped. There's a scene in a supermarket where Will is explaining to his son about his dark place, where "the ugliest thoughts in the world" live, a stunning sequence of acting and a showcase for Petersen's undoubted talents.
Newcomers to the film and Mann's work in general, could do no worse than spend the ten minutes it takes to watch the Dante Spinotti feature on the disc. Apart from saving me the time to write about Mann's visual flourishes, it gives one an idea of just how key a director and cinematographer partnership is in a film such as this. The audio is crisp, which keeps alive the perfect in tone soundtrack and eerie scoring strains of Rubini and The Reds. Some say that the music of Manhunter is dated? I say that if it sits at one with the tonal shifts and thematics of a story then that surely can never be viewed as dated. And that's the case here in Manhunter. The director's cut is included as part of the package but the transfer is appalling, and for the sake of one cut scene that happens post the Dolarhyde/Graham face off, there's really not much to the DC version anyway. The theatrical cut is perfect, brilliantly realised on Blu-ray to birth a true visual neo-noir masterpiece. 10/10 -
michaeljpfitzgerald6 September 2019Having finally seen MANHUNTER, I am left wondering why anyone ever felt the need to remake it - RED DRAGON is a fine flick, with a fine cast, but it feels exceptionally pale given what a tremendous source it was drawing from; scene for scene, line for line at some points.
So much threat, such a pervading sense of menace; the character work, and the direction, the wonderful soundtrack - it hums along, and there's no place to stop to catch your breath. I really adored this, and if you're looking for a really engrossing thriller, and I mean thriller, this movie delivers. -
derekcharles24 October 2010Manhunter is the best 'serial killer' genre film I've seen to date. It covers the 'serial killer' phenomenon from all possible angles - from the killings themselves and the motives of the killer, to the manhunt and the effects it has on the agents tracking the killer. Each of these four angles could themselves be the sole premise for such a film and it's to Mann's credit that he not only manages to deal with each of these angles in a substantive manner but also skilfully weaves them together into a coherent story.
The film moves at a steady pace and, while always conveying the urgency of the characters' actions, it never feels rushed. The process of tracking the killer is shown to us in meticulous detail right down to the unspoken rivalry and/or contempt that the different branches of the law enforcement system have for each other. And it's this last point that touches on that which makes Manhunter so clever and in my opinion better than the book itself.
Everything important in Manhunter is subtly hinted at so it's left up to the audience to infer: Graham's ability to track serial killers (he's half-way there himself); relatedly, Graham's motives for choosing Lounds to lure the killer (whether he was aware of them or not); Dolarhyde's disgust/insecurity at his own physical appearance (and the root of his desire to kill). This is the true brilliance of Manhunter. Rather than force-feeding the audience, Mann recognises that the characters in this film are driven by their ability or inability to deal with their own psyches. The subject matter is therefore subjective and should never be clear-cut enough so that it can be explained in black and white.
For those who say that there was too much focus on Graham and that the book focused mainly on the tooth-fairy, I will remind you of the film's title and to recognise the differences between this title and the book's. Mann quite rightly went his own way with the film. I've always felt that there's very little artistic merit in reproducing a book in film form - that's one step up from listening to a book read out on a tape.
While on the subject of reproducing the book in film form, I'm unfortunately obliged to mention the more recent Red Dragon film. I noted that this far inferior film actually has a higher rating than Manhunter and it makes me laugh that a film so formulaic, coarse, and obvious (on all levels) should be held in higher esteem. But I suppose it stands to reason that if babies like drinking formula they want the same thing from their films.
Manhunter is not just a technical masterclass in direction and writing but also in acting. Each character is fully drawn out by the actors and they each relate to the different characters in consistently different ways. Peterson has never been better as the introspective lead investigator who innately empathises with these killers and so understands how their profound insecurities can lead to murder. The progression of his character throughout the film is believable and quite expertly conveys to us his desperate attempt to separate himself from 'his man'. Farina is, as always, brilliant and as much as I'm a fan of Scott Glenn, the former's Jack Crawford is the grittier and more hard-edged. With every glance and eye-movement, Farina brings to bear his first-hand knowledge of what it is to be a cop doing his job under time pressure.
Standing out from this excellent ensemble is of course Brian Cox as Lecktor. While there is some merit to Anthony Hopkin's unfortunately more renowned portrayal of the same character, his is undeniably a caricature of a serial killer and, therefore, not realistic at all. A serial killer must appear to be, by definition,a very normal person - that's how he manages to kill a 'series' of people as opposed to just one and then being caught! My problem with Hopkin's Lecktor is that he is quite clearly not fully there in the head and so even the rawest recruit from the FBI down to the Cub Scouts would be able to pick him out as suspect no. 1. Cox gives us something entirely different. His Lecktor is smart, charming, and beneath the surface empty, devoid of sentiment and compassion. Again, it's to Mann's, and the actor's credit that, by the time his three scenes are done with, we have an implicit feeling as to what may be driving this Lecktor as well as an uncomfortable liking for him.
Three stand-out sequences to look for: 1) the 'walk-through' of the tooth-fairy's letter through the forensic process. Not a quick, flashy cut in sight. Instead we have a patient almost soothing series of scenes that convey exactly what the different forensic specialists do better than any film before it or since (yes, they each have their own departments and there is not one indication that Jimmy Price and co. carry a gun, let alone go tracking down the killers themselves!). 2) Graham's visit with Lecktor. A dream-like sequence where the two play the best mental game of chess I can remember seeing in a film. 3) Dollarhyde encountering Reba. Michael Mann at his best shows us in three scenes how the fantasy-driven psychosis of a serial killer can be shattered to the point that the real person beneath is partially and briefly exposed.
File under 'Masterclass'. -
Theo Robertson24 October 2005Comparisons between Michael Mann's MANHUNTER and the other films that followed the Hannibal Lectar franchise are inevitable but unnecessary . Stylistically and context wise MANHUNTER is an entirely different movie from its successors which makes it difficult to say whether it's a better or worse film
As a stand alone movie it just about works . The audience needs no pre knowledge of Dr Hannibal Lector because he's very much a peripheral character so much so that if you cut him out of the story no plot changes would be needed at all , in other words Hannibal is a disposable character and to be honest when I first saw this movie in 1990 I found Cox's performance very distracting as I tried to figure out where in the British Isles the accent was from ! Perhaps if Dr Lector didn't appear this film would be entirely forgotten today ? It certainly has little to do with Hannibal the cannibal and concentrates on FBI specialist Will Graham tracking down a serial killer dubbed " The Tooth Fairy "
Michael Mann directs in a minimalist 80s style which I'm afraid appears somewhat dated viewed today . Mann was well known at the time as the creator of Miami VICE and like the 80s cop show the synthesiser soundtrack coupled with non original rock tracks often seems the most important aspect . In the mid 1980s I was a teenager and used to love movies and TV shows that had pop music playing over the narrative but like I said this type of directorial flourish quickly become dated . Though to be fair to Mann he does manage to bring a depressing and bleak atmosphere to the movie without ever having to resort to blood and gore and gimmicks unlike Ridley Scott did with HANNIBAL
If you like murder mysteries or films that have a typically mid 1980s feel then I can certainly recommend MANHUNTER -
paul_haakonsen31 December 2015I was lured in by the Hannibal Lecktor (yes, it is spelled that way in this 1986 movie) and wasn't familiar with this movie prior to finding it by sheer random luck in the local secondhand DVD store for $2. So I bought it and gave it a go...
...and I wasn't particularly entertained or thrilled.
It was the story that failed to impress or captivate me. And not even the impressive cast could manage to salvage the sinking storyline. And it should be pointed out that the cast was fantastic with talents such as William Petersen, Brian Cox, Dennis Farina, Tom Noonan and Stephen Lang. As good an actor as Brian Cox is, he just didn't cut it as Hannibal.
I quickly lost interest in the movie as the story never caught my interest and it was only half-hearted that I made it through the two hours that the movie dragged on for.
I am sure that this movie will appeal greatly to the hardcore fans of the Hannibal legacy. But for a casual viewer this was a less than mediocre movie experience. -
tieman642 March 2009Michael Mann directs "Manhunter", a 1986 thriller which sees actor William Petersen playing an FBI specialist tasked with tracking down a serial killer. The film was based on Thomas Harris' "Red Dragon", the prequel to "Silence of the Lambs".
Though he directed "Thief" some years earlier, it was with "Manhunter" that Mann's distinct style first appeared. This style, which I call "Armani decorum", seems to have a preference for clean, uncluttered compositions. Elsewhere Mann trades the "old noir" look of "Thief" - with its dirty alleyways and grimy, rain swept cities - for 1950's modernism, block colours, expansive glass panes, geometric divisions and contemporary, linear houses.
With "Manhunter" we also see Mann's first experimentations with colour. Consider the sterile whites assigned to master criminal Hannibal Lecter, the sick green hues of the Tooth Fairy's home (the film's serial killer) or the cool blues of our hero's bedroom (watch how blues slowly turn to whites when we investigate a crime scene).
All these stylistic traits lend Mann's films a unique look. Rooms are divided into flat surfaces, characters are dressed in pastels, scenes are assigned panels of light, compositions are inspired by Alex Colville and Edward Hopper and buildings are relentlessly modernist, with fluorescent bulbs and geometrical, flat surfaces.
The shooting locations are carefully chosen as well. Atlanta's Museum of High Art acts as a sand-in for a prison, artist Robert Rauschenberg's home is used prominently, and the stylish Marriott Marquis hotel pops up several times.
Like Antonioni, Mann uses architecture and urban settings to emphasise, not only the psychology, but the alienation of his characters. His characters seem as hollow as the surrounding decor, and are always gazing, somewhat naively, out toward some fantasy horizon. Like the heroes demonstrate in "Thief" and "Collateral", this fantasy always takes the form of a simple beach or ocean. Mann treats water as a kind of tranquil haven, a sense of serenity which his characters aspire to but which remains forever out of reach.
And of course windows and glass feature prominently in Mann's films. They act as a container or insulator, the "noir cages" of early film noirs, with their brick walls, dark shadows, cramped spaces, iron bars and tiny windows, neatly transformed into an aesthetic of vast window panes and transparent sheets; commit a crime and the whole world is made of glass.
In this way, Mann seems to have reversed the very aesthetics of noir. He has re-imagined noir, transforming clutter, confinement and darkness into a world of slick neons, expansive spaces and transparent walls.
These glass windows/walls seem to themselves pop up frequently throughout Mann's filmography. They induce a sense of paranoia, his characters always under observation, suspicion and/or vulnerably exposed. They also provide little protection, offer only false security and of course allow his characters to gaze longingly out at that distant horizon. Think those fleeting gazes in "Miami Vice", "Heat" and "Manhunter"; glass facilitates the existentialist's desire for escape.
And so "glass" plays a big role in "Manhunter". Indeed, The Tooth Fairy specifically preys on homes with large glass windows. These windows allow him to spy on the inhabitants inside. Once he kills his targets, he then places shards in their eye sockets. Toward the end of the film, our hero then dramatically breaks through a plane of glass, entering the inner sanctum of The Tooth Fairy and finally confronting that which he has been trying to keep at a distance throughout the film.
Narrativewise, "Manhunter" adheres to genre conventions. It does one interesting thing, however. The film's hero, Will Graham, spends most of his time attempting to delve into the mind of his opponent. By "becoming the killer" and "entering his darkness", Will is able to understand The Tooth Fairy and effectively hunt him down. But in becoming that which he hates, Will only distances himself further from humanity and further from those he loves.
While Will falls further and further into this abyss of "evil", The Tooth Fairy begins to re-connect with humanity. He falls in love with a blind woman and for the first time in his life experiences a "normal" human relationship. So on one hand we have a good man spiralling into darkness, and on the other we have a serial killer climbing back towards humanity. The implication, of course, is that if the monster is capable of being a man, then so too must monstrosities lie within Graham.
A braver film would have really delved into these issues, would have focused more on the Tooth Fairy's response to normality, but "Manhunter" ultimately resists humanizing the monster and seems content to keep things on a surface, superficial level. But then, Mann's story is itself preoccupied with surfaces, told more with music, mood and visuals, than dialogue.
The film's big flaw, though, is its lacklustre shoot out, in which Mann uses weird editing and jarring subliminal jump cuts. This scene was filmed with a skeleton crew on the final night of shooting and it really shows. But perhaps Mann is attempting some odd symbolism with this scene. Consider the way Will breaks through the glass, the way the shots are all shown twice and the way The Tooth Fairy dies in a pool of blood visually similar to William Blake's "Great Red Dragon". Perhaps the odd jump cuts signify that this event has happened twice; we know Will was similarly slashed in the past by Hannibal Lecter.
8.5/10 – Mann's minimalist visuals and music lend this film a unique edge. While later serial killer films ("Lambs", "Zodiac", "Seven") continue to fetishize a sense of Gothic darkness, "Manhunter" dares to paint a prison cell brilliant white. Incidentally, while these later serial killer flicks would prove influential on 90's TV (X-Files), "Manhunter" led to the birth of such flashy forensics shows as CSI (also starring William Petersen). -
rmax30482315 February 2009William Peterson is a traumatized FBI agent drawn back to duty by his colleague, Dennis Farina, to track down a serial killer, named "the tooth fairy" for his habit of removing his victims' teeth, played by William Noonan. Brian Cox is Hannibal Lecktor, who remains safely locked away and plays a minor part in the hunt. Joan Allen is a blind woman taken captive by Noonan and saved from slashing at the last moment.
It precedes "The Silence of the Lambs," by the same author, William Harris, but is independent and not quite so commercial. I GUESS it wasn't as commercial anyway, since it didn't receive nearly the media attention that "Silence of the Lambs" did.
I'm not sure why. Maybe because it didn't have Jody Foster in the lead, and lacked Anthony Hopkins' touches as Horrible Hannibal. But William Noonan brings his own kind of menace to the role of the tooth fairy. Noonan is a strange-looking guy. The character is supposed to be seven feet tall and he's shot in such a way as to make the claim convincing. He's balding and dolichocephalic and always speaks in a direct, matter-of-fact mid-American voice. He's far more ambiguous a character than Hopkins, to whom I'm comparing him because he and Hopkins are the chief villains in each film. Noonan can feel human emotions. He sensitive. He meets the blind photographer, Joan Allen, and is attracted to her, so he takes her to a veterinarian friend and lets her feel the fur and the fangs of a giant narcotized tiger. Well, that's quite a thrill for her, so she seduces him. Can you imagine Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lector being seduced? It's only later, when Noonan comes to believe that Allen has betrayed him, that his cool rage emerges.
Tightly directed, except for a couple of action-scene clichés that appear in slow motion. The image of a red dragon has cropped up now and again during the film, and when Noonan's bullet-riddled body is spread eagled on the floor, the blood spreads out from his torso like dragon wings. The photography is uninviting -- not that it's inappropriate -- with all the lights apparently being fluorescent. Or, if they happen to be blue or pink, they seem to be coming from neon signs. It's summer but the entire film seems to be filled with chill.
There are some gruesome scenes that might disturb some people, though maybe not much more exuberantly horrifying than some of those in "Silence of the Lambs." Okay, so there's a man strapped in a wheel chair, set on fire, and rolled down the ramp of a parking lot into the camera with flame streaming behind him. True, it's worse than what my dentist does to me, but it's no more shocking than what Richard Widmark did with a wheelchair in "Kiss of Death." -
I'm big fan of this movie. At the time of its release it didn't have a lot of star power, so it's impressive that it succeeds in spite of that. All of the actors were perfectly cast.
There's a lot of realism in this film. It doesn't try to tell a story with expensive actors and special effects. It brings you in with a great storyline, engrossing score and brilliant use of colors and visuals.
This movie holds up very well and is an all time classic. -
gnosis_x8 November 2001I'm not going to go TOO deeply into this film, as I believe my associates before me have already deeply analyzed the film. Having recently read through "Red Dragon," I felt compelled to see the movie and see just how poor of an adaptation it was - I'm a cynical person, what can I say?
The film - at best - was your run of the mill, utterly clichéd "serial Killer on the loose" film. The movie actually began pretty well, bearing strong likeliness to the book. A half hour into it, however, things began to really diverge from the book's flow and we are left with a tangle of scenes that seem to have very little flow at all. Acting was a little stale in several cases (William Peterson's attempts to seem enraged with the killer's thoughts are weak and are only comparable to a soap opera) and, while I know this is a thing of opinion, I was completely unsatisfied with Brian Cox as Hannibal Lector (spelled Lecktor in this film, for some reason).
"Manhunter" could have been a pretty good had they kept in the real meat of the book - the background of Francis Dolarhyde and his struggle with the Red Dragon. Over a quarter of the book was about Dolarhyde's childhood and a good third was about the struggle with the Dragon. Truly one of the most incredible scenes in the book is when Dolarhyde faces down and devours (literally) the Dragon. All these scenes make the character seem really alive and something more human than it appears. So, what does the movie do with these scenes? TOTALLY discards them! The film leaves us with an unimpressive 2-D cardboard cutout of Dolarhyde, which was perhaps what dampers the film most for fans of "Red Dragon".
The film may enjoy some cult flavor, and is a decent addition to the Lector trilogy. At best it would be wise to rent this flick before buying it. You may regret purchasing it if you read the book first.
I'll leave you with some book-to-movie differences (AKA Minor Qualms):- Too many scenes with Graham and his wife attempt to milk empathy from the film. 'Suppose it's the director's way to atone for cutting out all of the phone conversations. - Missing Francis Dolarhyde background - Dolarhyde's house is a one level, instead of a two level (now I'm just being picky.) - Love interest with Reba is cut down from the book's eight scenes to just two (combing six into one). - Dolarhyde's schizophrenic Dragon personality isn't even included in the movie. Therefore there is no showdown with the Dragon. - Movie's ending is completely FUBAR - completely clichéd and unworthy of even being considering an interesting ending. The book's plot twist ending is thrown into a paper shredder and comes out as your average "good guy shows up at the last moment to save the girl" type.
FILM SCORE: 6/10 -
judithlaib200025 April 2006I can only surmise that the detractors of this film are under 25, the new generation of cinema-goers who need all the ultra-violence and gore to make a film "complete". This is quite simply, one of the best films of all time. Tom Noonan is amazing and absolutely masterful in his portrayal of Dollarhyde, and even comes across as sensual, when he is obviously deriving sexual satisfaction watching Reba fondle the sleeping tiger. One of the sexiest scenes ever, by the way. This is what I think people who don't "get" this film are missing, the little nuances, such as his look of sexual ecstasy watching Reba with the tiger, you can see he is imagining himself in the tigers position, being the recipient of loving caresses. And his awkwardness when Reba finally makes love to him, its all these things that you actually have to engage your brain to understand, thats where people just don't understand this film. The music is incredible, especially Shriekbacks "This Big Hush", where Dollarhyde is in bed with Reba, is just inspired. William Petersen was born to play Will Graham, the tormented retired forensic cop, brought out of retirement by the Tooth Fairy's slayings of whole families. Brian Cox's portrayal of LECKTOR is superb, playing the "straight man" to Hopkins "over the top" campness. I cant understand why Cox didn't play the proper Lecktor role in the subsequent films. But thats what people don't get-its not about Lecktor. Its not about Red Dragon. It is BASED on the novel Red Dragon, which is why it doesn't follow the book ad verbatim. Don't watch this as a prequel or sequel, watch it on its own merit as one of the best films ever made.
-
valleyjohn25 February 2021I think people look back at Manhunter with a lot of nostalgia. I had someone say to me yesterday that it's the best film that features Hannibal Lecktor. That's so wrong . It's not even the third best film that features him in my opinion but it definitely has its memorable moments and I can see why it's so well liked .
This is the story of Former F.B.I. profiler Will Graham who returns to service to pursue a deranged serial killer named "the Tooth Fairy" by the media.
What surprised me was that there is only six years from the release of Manhunter and Silence of the Lambs. I always though there was a much longer gap between films and watching Manhunter , i looks so dated , you would certainly think it's at least fifteen years older .
What I like about this is that it's all about getting into the mind of the killer . Will Graham had already suffered mental health issues doing the same thing previously but he's willing to go through it again to save another family . The problem I have is that the threat to the family never actually materialises because the Tooth Fairy sets his sights on a blind woman instead , which seems an odd turn of events.
Brian Cox is good as Hannibal Lecktar but doesn't have anywhere near as much menace as the Anthony Hopkins version but you can't blame him for that , seeing as this was made before that brilliant incarnation.
Manhunter is a decent film but I'm not buying that it's better than the films that followed , because it's not , but you have to be extremely grateful that if it wasn't for this , then we'd probably never have seen Silence Of The Lambs , Hannibal & Red Dragon . -
tabuno27 January 20193 July 2002. I had to read through the comment index twice to make sure that I had never commented on this film. Before there was Silence or the Lambs or Hannibal, before CSI, William Petersen starred in an amazingly similar role (of his now famous, number one hit television series) in the movie Manhunter, which I consider one of the best movies ever made. I can understand some of the criticisms written about this movie, but it really depends on what you look for in a movie. For me, this movie had realism, a stylish seriousness that didn't try to make fancy, polished statements. The dialogue was real, hard-hitting something you could listen and hear in real life, but in a dramatic - slice of life way, hitting the key points in a murder investigation.
Yes, there were many, many slow moments, but real moments - a father and his son in a grocery store - that scene was polished, wasn't acted to perfection. This scene was one real kid talking about his fears, he wasn't even looking at the camera or his father, just off into space like a real kid. The investigation process was smooth, methodical, scientific and luck. There was the early scene in the meeting room which played out as in real life - and the Tooth Angel - comment was portrayed as a serious event even though people laughed. The serial killer was real, even sympathetic at times. And Hannibal was even more scary because he was so cool, somebody without a soul but who could be charming as a good salesman on the phone.
There really isn't a bad scene that I can find in this movie and I've scene the movie perhaps ten times. The music blended well into the fear and excitement, drama and tension without being overwhelming. The deaths were not for shock value for themselves but as stated factual reality - sometimes death is bloody, but not for cheap thrills for moviegoers.
The seen where police come to protect some innocent people was a great scene of (what I would think) were real police officers talking as they would normally, "I think you better go into the house ma'am." It was anything like in the mothers. That scene by the police wasn't acted it was a re-enactment of what would really happen, and it was compelling, dramatic. Yet, the movie at the same time amazingly never came across like real TV. There were production values, there were lines performed, but they were performed with serious intention, to communicate more dramatically what occurs in real life. The movie was like a photograph that was touched up to make the edges appear sharper, the colors more brilliant. There were dramatic ocean scenes, stark blood-bathed bedroom scenes.
The characters were memorable, their relations with other characters moving, the plot riveting in its steering away from typical Hollywood productions, playing over the top, shooting, mayhem, action just for special effects sake. Nothing was done in this movie but to really let the audience soak in the experience - the building tempo, building urgency of crime investigation, the humanity of the people killed and those targeted for death. The only flaw was the reporter who really was the only character who for whatever reason was a stereotype of tabloid journalism.
I would recommend this movie to any one who cares about murder mystery in a slow, methodical way that builds into a more heart-pounding climax. It is definitely not all action, blood and guts, it is an intellectually stimulating thinking, feeling movie that even those emotional women and men might be able to appreciate. This is a must see if you like to soak in the colors, the hard edges of step by step forensics and a no-holds barred snap shots of style and substance combined into one sleeper of a movie that Anthony Hopkins will have a real challenge in starring in a remake. 10 out of 10. -
I've always admired Michael Mann's ability to make even the darkest of crime movies emit a neon, martini-sweet glow. He can shock us, disturb us, magnetize us; but all traumas are wrapped up in a quasi-cool package, kept swirling around in pulp noir fantasy. Recurring in Mann's films, or at least the ones I've seen, is the persistent distinction that, while the atmosphere may look like a colorized "Kiss Me Deadly", something much, much bleaker lurks beneath the surface.
Esteem goes much farther than an emotional connection when it comes to a Mann picture: like Lynch's "Lost Highway" or Antonioni's "Red Desert", sitting back and getting lost in the thickly spread luster is much easier a task than walking out of the theater moved, tears streaming down our faces from the penetrative emotions thrown about left and right. We're left cold, drowning in the sorrows of the characters, suffocated by the elusive sheen of Mann's camera-work. "Manhunter", a thriller that initially introduced the world to Hannibal Lecter (rebranded Lecktor here), is a rather aloof serial killer suspense drama, murderous in its tension but icy in its pathos.
William Petersen plays Will Graham, a retired FBI profiler lying low after a gruesome attack by cannibalistic murderer Hannibal Lecktor (Brian Cox). His resting period is cut rather short, however, when he is approached by his former superior (Dennis Farina), who is in desperate need of help. A new serial killer, billed "The Tooth Fairy", is wreaking havoc on the area, slaughtering families at random in hopes to attain some sort of mental catharsis. With Graham's chilling ability to put himself into the mind of the person under investigation, he very well could be a valuable asset. So reluctantly, knowing he could very well end future killings, he accepts the blood-stained invitation, aided by the now-jailed Lecktor.
The interest "Manhunter" provides steadily increases, especially after it introduces The Tooth Fairy himself (spoiler warning). As Francis Dollarhyde, Tom Noonan is convincingly disturbed, so much so that we see him as a psychologically scarred monster, not a two- dimensional one that so many serial killer based movies provide us with. He is a victim of a neglectful society; all he ever wanted was for someone to like him.
I suppose the most problematic fixture in "Manhunter" is Dollarhyde; he is the only character that holds immense interest. Noonan is so dedicated, so expressive that we fear that reading too much into his performance would ruin his startlingly effective capacity to freak us the f-ck out. Petersen, on the other hand, is much too understated to be believably haunted by his past, while Kim Greist and Joan Allen, two magnificent actresses, are wasted in roles too small to go anywhere.
But the film is dripping with style, and when the writing fails to move, the cinematography takes the spotlight and galvanizes what's left of glass-littered-on-the-ground reality. Mann's excessive tinting works well here: dark blues wash out scenes of comfort, of love; greens, pinks, and oranges hint at imminent threat. Even the score, mostly consisting of synthetic, distinctly '80s mood pieces, heighten Mann's hallucinogenic embellishments.
"Manhunter" is entertainment of the highest quality, subversively stylish, intelligently directed; but it remains so brisk, so distant, that even the slimmest thrill is brought to entirely new levels because it somehow feels more hospitable than everything coming before its insertion. -
The Visual!!! It is too powerful in Manhunter, my first encounter with acclaimed director Michael Mann. Colors, film-noir aesthetic, shot compositions and camera movements, they all are not only stunning to look at but also creat such a staggering mood and moved me beyond any word can describe. My tension, excitement were at their highest the whole time beacuse of how great the storytelling was and I haven't felt like that in a while with movies
I don't think I can continue this review without mentioning it's predecessor The Silence of the Lambs because I kept comparing Brian Cox's Lecktor to Anthony Hopkins's Lecter, William Petersen's Will Graham to Jodie Foster's Clarice Starling, Tom Noonan's Francis Dollarhyde to Buffalo Bill throughout the movie. They are really different from one another, it just that the whole plot structure and characters between the two are kind of similar that I can't help but do it. All the performances here are really fantastic with Noonan in the seat of antagonist standout.
While not unsettling as TSL, Manhunter is a great crime thriller movie and a unique film in it's own ways. The two are on a par with one another. -
jordantolman7 August 2019It is the story for Red Dragon. The story is good, and the climax is well done. Unfortunately the cast is only ok. Unlike the cast you'll find in the silence of the lambs or red dragon. The movies soundtrack also is very poorly used. There are many times where the music ruins the mood and lessens the effect it could have had. Worth seeing, but if you have seen the others movies that feature Hannibal, the cast in Manhunter will leave some to be desired.
-
gregwombat8 September 2001(I do mention some plot points from the movie, so if you don't want too much revealed, don't read on)
Good Points: The cinematography was pretty good at times, good usage of shadows, shooting from behind a person rather than in front, and using the whole screen with 1/2 of it in darkness. I also liked the music, contrary to many people's comments, because it just somehow fit the overall lameness of the movie. I was pleasantly surprised that all the violence was imagined and not shown on the screen. The viewer's imagination can take that and run with it - thus making it as scary as one wants it to be without ever seeing the perp actually kill anyone (except the one guy in the yard but not even really then).
But, here's what's wrong with the movie, in no particular order:
* The "stunning ending" I heard about for the director's cut - where was it? Did I miss it? It was a lame shootout, and the guy took 5 hits in the chest before lamely dying and then there was no more to it. * Why did Graham visit the family at the end? To 'feel' what it's like to be a serial killer? Lame. If he had converted himself and killed them - that would have been interesting. But don't show the family, and then the Grahams all happy-end on the beach. * Hannibal was in no way freaky, and while the code thing was smart it could have been played slicker. * All the ludicrous "I love you" scenes with the wife - whatever. Leave that stuff out. The one scene where she thought she was in danger - fine. But other than that, she could have been cut from the whole movie. Clarice Sterling didn't need a mate to make her movies work, why does Graham need props? * Jack Crawford was totally underdeveloped and seemed like he was half hindrance instead of leading an FBI investigation. * It was clear from the beginning that the videos of the families were important and that the killer either shot them (like a hired photo-guy for a b-day party) or processed them afterwards. Ooooh. Suspenseful. * The killer had no decent motive. While they tried to explore his obsession with needing to be accepted, it was done in a lame way. Jame Gum in SOTL was a transvestite freak wanting a body suit. Good serial killer stuff. Hannibal likes to eat people. Excellent. But Frances just waited for a full moon and made dead people stare at him. Pathetic.