Manhunter is a much better film though imo, the mistake people make before watching it is thinking it’s a Hannibal film, its not.
Agreed on both counts. Having read the book after seeing the movie, I was left with the feeling that "Manhunter" was like "Jaws," i.e., a streamlined adaptation that works better on screen than a direct adaptation.
"Red Dragon" is more faithful to the source material, but feels bloated as a result. Fiennes was awesome as a tortured, conflicted Dolarhyde, but Noonan was just freaking scary, and that's all we really needed on screen.
the whole "thinking it's a Hannbal film" though, cracks me up ... they showed "Manhunter" on TV after "Silence" became a mega-hit, and the promo showed Brian Cox but in Anthony Hopkins's cell, BLATANTLY pitching it as a Hannibal film to the point of rehiring Cox to act like Hopkins in the promo
reply
share
letess (1810)
2 years ago
Manhunter is a Michael Mann film and it is a gem. Much better than Red Dragon. And Brian Cox’s version of Hannibal is more menacing and manipulative. He’s truly a cold killer. We don’t see his relationship with Clarice in this one so he’s less amusing and likable. But how he gets info while locked up with that telephone is brilliant. I happened to see this movie first (that is before Silence), and it was the first time I saw Cox. I could make no comparisons. I just remember he (Cox) was scary and so was the actor who played Dolaryde. Joan Allen is also brilliant.
Manhunter, the movie, is better than the book, Red Dragon. When you read about Will Graham in Silence, it says that his face resembles Picasso, which tells you how it really goes. So where as Clarice is successful, Graham, a brilliant FBI guy, was a victim.
When something like Hannibal played by Hopkins gets that popular, people want to see it over and over. And it just doesn’t work. It’s a money grab after a certain point.
reply
share