Rating: 
Summary: If you don't realize...
Review: that this movie is far superior to "Silence" then stay away. If, however, you are one of the few who realizes that this movie blows "Silence" away in every sense of the word, you know what you have to do. This movie is one of the most perfect film viewing experiences I have ever had. This film is my idea of the pinnacle of a police procedural story, a genre that I like a great deal. Every single major character in Manhunter (except perhaps Freddy Lounds), is extremely competent and dedicated. This film goes through the process of criminal investigation step-by-step and shows you what it takes to catch a killer of this type. When I watch this movie and "silence" back-to-back, it becomes even more clear to me how superior this film is. As opposed to "Silence" where we have an inexperienced (if not incompetent) protagonist being led around by the nose for the entire film, In Manhunter we have what we should expect: a team of highly skilled, intelligent, competent detectives who know what to do and how to do it. If you watch Silence carefully, you'll notice that Starling doesn't have a single original thought in the whole movie. She only finds what Lector leads her to. This may be dramatic, but it is hardly realistic. No way on earth is the FBI going to send out a student (not even an agent) to deal with the most admittedly dangerous man on the face of the earth. In Manhunter we have Will Graham, the man who caught Lector and almost destroyed himself in the process, coming out of retirement to track a new killer. Graham is an experienced agent with the terrifying talent of being able to "see inside the mind" of killers. Graham is far and away a better character to pit against both the Tooth Fairy and Lector than poor Starling could ever be. Brian Cox' turn as Lector is also far superior to Hopkins. Cox portrays Lector much more as he is written in the book. Lector is supposedly well-educated, charming, polite and brilliant. Cox gives him an understated creepiness that allows us to believe that this man could function quite well in polite society as opposed to Hopkins' totally alien monster. Add to all of this the stunningly gorgeous cinematography and the wonderful musical score, and it's easy to see why Manhunter makes my all time top ten film list. Any true fan of Thomas Harris novels should recognize this film as the superior adaptation of his work.
Rating: 
Summary: I guess I missed it.
Review: Sorry.The movie just didn't do it or me. I read the book first and it was quite good. In fact, a few friends and I joined together last year for what we called, "The Thomas Harris Reading Project, 2000"...sort of in preparation for the release of "Hannibal" this year. In that pursuit, we researched and found VHS issues of the Manhunter movie and we all watched it after we read Red Dragon. We were all very disappointed. The Manhunter movie, did not even make a loose attempt to follow the movie and it was low budget, badly acted, and, as the man in the theater mentioned in one of the other reviews, looked more like a video. What an insult. Definitely a B-movie. I'm sure it is being trotted out and hyped now since Hannibal is coming out soon, but pls, do not buy this movie expecting anything on the production level of Silence of the Lambs. I also read the book of that last year, as well as watched the Anthony Hopkins movie, and also found THAT book much better than the movie. Having read Hannibal, I don't expect that movie to measure up to the book, either. Let me recommend to true Hannibal Lector fans, the unabridged audiobook of Hannibal. It is beautifully acted, and was thoroughly entertaining.
Rating: 
Summary: Silence is better
Review: Having seen Silence of the lambs years before I got around to watching Manhunter I was disappointed with the original. Perhaps Manhunter was much better in 1986, (I was 10) but by todays standards it just isnt very good. The film opens with a lame, cliched cop investigation cast with overused cop actors. Then we get to agent Graham who must come out of retirement because he is the best. Maybe that story line was fresh in 1986, but is smells tired to me. I thought it was laughable when Will Graham tried to explain his job to his son in the grocery store. It was like a bizarre after school special. Also I felt most all of the tension that the movie managed to generate was broken far to early by showing the killer's face midway through the film. When we see that he is just a man, he loses all mystery and Manhunter loses its edge. I think Silence managed to hold its tension even after the killer's face was revealed. I credit that to the acting... when Jame Gumm mocked and howled at Catherine in the pit it was demonic and animal. Manhunter's killer while adaquate, never manages a scene quite that sinister. Now, having said all that, let say what I did like about the movie. Brian Cox! While not as elegant as Anthony Hopkin's aristocratic Lector, he is at least as clever. But again I have to conclude that Silence is superior. First of all I thought Anthony Hopkins was a little more subtle. Take Silence's first shot of Lector. He is standing... very prim and proper, and very aware that Clarice is coming. With one seconds worth of film Hopkins and Demme suggest that Lector knows more than Clarice and that he is in control. Compare this to a slouching Brian Cox on his cell bed in Manhunter's first scene with Lector. My second Lector complaint with Manhunter is that while entertaining and well written, Lectors scenes in Manhunter aren't all that crucial to the story. Where as Jack Crawford hopes to use Clarice to extract information from Lector in Silence about a killer that Lector knows, Graham merely uses Lector to get back in the mind of a killer. Which strikes me as a flimsy excuse to use this really cool Lector character in the movie but doesnt really drive the story forward. In conclusion I find Manhunter worth watching simply to see a few more minutes of Hannibal in action, but not the equal of its sequel. Silence of the Lambs is just one of those rare examples of a sequel that is better than the original. Hope that trend continues with Hannibal Feb. 9th.
Rating: 
Summary: Better than *Silence of the Lambs* . . .
Review: mainly because the Tooth Fairy is a more compelling figure than Buffalo Bill was. (Tooth Fairy? Buffalo Bill? These are pretty silly names, aren't they?) This generally well-executed (pardon the pun, pleaz) movie is at its best when we start getting to know the killer, excellently portrayed by Tom Noonan. Even though the press have dubbed him "Tooth Fairy" because of some nasty bite marks on the cadavers, our killer prefers to think of himself as "Red Dragon" -- a suitably macho monicker which perhaps compensates for his painfully shy, socially inadequate, hare-lipped persona. While he's butchering families, he finds time to actually fall in love with a blind co-worker, and in so doing generating enough sympathy that you may find yourself surprised. This is a great character; this is good writing. (Although the writers fail the Tooth Fairy somewhat with the slam-bang slo-mo cliche ending.) Not so good is the overelaborate set-up with William L. Petersen's Will Graham and the FBI. Amusingly, the movie couldn't care less whether you're able to follow all the details of the high-tech tools, diagrams, psychoanalytical profiles, et al., that are thrown at you during the first half-hour. One would think that the FBI is sending Agent Graham to the Moon, rather than putting him on another case. And the notion of our hero putting himself in the exact frame of mind as our killer passes belief. Finally: what's the deal with Petersen's weird little beard? Well, not quite finally. A word about the legendary, mythic, pop icon, blah blah HANNIBAL LECTER. Okay, here's the news. In *Manhunter*, he's a minor personage, and shouldn't be worth so much discussion in all these reviews. This movie stands quite nicely on its own merits without dragging in baggage from later films. What has been presented between title-cards and end-credits should be the only items under discussion when reviewing this movie. Given that criteria, *Manhunter* is (mostly) a success.
Rating:
Summary: Intense Thriller
Review: Manhunter is based on Thomas Harris' novel Red Dragon. That is the book that first introduced Hannibal Lecter to the world. Unlike Silence Of The Lambs, the real star of the movie is not Dr. Lecter, but Will Graham, a retired FBI agent brought back in by the department to hunt a serial killer dubbed the Tooth Fairy. William Peterson plays Graham with the perfect amount of torment and intensity. In order to find the killer, who preys on families, Graham must try to inhabit the killer's skin. Mr. Peterson's performance is quiet and brooding (he does a great job of conveying many emotions through facial expressions) and is the finest of his career. Brian Cox brings the doctor to the screen and though Anthony Hopkins would win an Oscar five years later and create one of the most indelible screen figures from the same character, Mr. Cox does an effective job in the role. He is a minor character in both the book and movie, but Mr. Cox makes the most of screen time by chillingly bringing a quiet madness to the character. Michael Mann does a fine job of directing the film. He was also doing Miami Vice at the time and Manhunter takes on the color and stylings of a Miami Vice episode. The closing scene, set to "In A Gadda-Da-Vida", which finds the killer and Graham finally clashing is tense and thrilling. Manhunter is a first-rate thriller.
Rating:
Summary: Slence of the Lambs Meets Miami Vice
Review: This story is about Hannibal Lector PRIOR to "Silence of the Lambs" and Agent Starly... The book (Red Dragon)is fantastic, delivering a riveting thrill ride... "Silence of the Lambs" (movie form) almost did it's book counter part justice... "ManHunter" does NOT... I don't read a lot... but this is one book "Silence of the Lambs" movie fans should read... The problem with "Manhunter" is that it looks like the cinematography of Miami Vice... They use second rate actors... It just lacks in set design and screen play while visual and sound is reminiscent of bad TV movies... Buy it if you have limited expectations... But don't blow your bucks on the Collector's Edition...
Rating:
Summary: Read the book instead
Review: I was extremely disappointed with this film. After reading the book, and several of the glowing recommendations at Amazon, I thought I would be in for a treat, but received a trick! The film dragged along for just shy of 2 hours, and missed vital elements of the book necessary for a true telling of the story. The main factors which led to the killer becoming the monster he was were completely omitted. Instead, we have poor acting, and less than believable location shots, interspersed with "dreamy" montages that do nothing to evolve the plot. Anyone who was "gripped" or "terrified" by any portrayals in this film must have extremely low thresholds for excitement or suspense. It was a yawn that did little justice to Thomas Harris' wonderful book! If you want the full experience, read Red Dragon, and leave the film in the pile of forgotten movies of the week.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: After reading 'Red Dragon' by Thomas Harris, this movie was a huge disappointment. The actors, especially William Petersen as Will Graham, lack any strong personality. For whatever reason, the scriptwriters decided to change the script and eradicate several parts essential to the understanding of the story. The reason behind making up their own, somewhat bland and completely different ending to the twist in the book will remain a mystery to me. I may seem a little unfair, as after watching Silence Of The Lambs and reading Red Dragon, Manhunter had a huge reputation to live up to, but it failed dramatically. It's no wonder Dino De Laurentiis wants to make it again. Wait for that version - with the real Hannibal (Hopkins) we all know and love.
Rating: 
Summary: Promising but underdeveloped
Review: There are a series of problems with Manhunter. Firstly, the acting is, in places, disappointing. Petersen is occasionally unconvincing and his wife and son are dreadful. Secondly, the script is flawed, as it often lacks spontaneity and realism. Third, the film raises a series of interesting ideas that are tragically undeveloped - for instance, Lector's character and the Petersen's psychology - it failed to attempt an answer to some of the film's major issues. The killer's character didn't work - he seemed far too frail and pathetic to have murdered two sets of children in cold blood - the dualism of tenderness and cold violence doesn't really come off. The idea that the killer wants to become like God is also underdeveloped. There is also a fundamental structural flaw - the tension accumulated before we meet the murderer is impressive - sadly, his arrival not only destroys the tension, but also the psychological enigma surrounding his behaviour. His character is, to be frank, a disappointment and there is a general sense of bathos after his introduction. That said, the film has some serious pluspoints: Dante Spinotti's photography is, as ever, masterful; Mann's direction is subtle and suggestive; Brian Cox is superb as Lecter - the entire scene in the mental hospital is the crowning glory of the film - profound, disturbing and intense. This film shows promise and potential, but flounders due to the above.
Rating:
Summary: One of the best thrillers ever made .......
Review: Despite what you may have heard and may read in other reviews further down... THIS WAS NOT A MADE FOR TV MOVIE! Trust me. I saw it at the Ford/Wyoming drive-in in 1986 in Dearborn Michigan. I was blown away by it then and am still blown away every time I see it. It is a masterwork. It is a far more cerebral movie the campy and silly horror type movie called The Silence of the Lambs. If you like John Wong movies this is probably too much for you. It should be viewed on its merits as a film.... Not a book. Books rarely make it to the screen in pure form. This is Mann at his best.... Also check out Thief, and To live and Die in LA.
|
