Rating: 
Summary: You decide...
Review: I won't get into the debate over whether this is a better film than it's 'sequels' or not. But it's good enough to stand on its own merits, and in many ways, it is better than Silence of the Lambs (and definitely better than Hannibal) due to it's low-key charm and skill.I've heard they're planning to re-make it with Anthony Hopkins, giving it the big-budget treatment; that would be a mistake, because there's really nothing wrong with this film. It eschews the violence of the sequels in favour of creating mood (something Michael Mann excels in), and while the serial killer in this film isn't as compelling as he could be, it's still very effective. Brian Cox does a great job portraying Lecter, and I for one would love to have seen him in subsequent film versions of Harris' books. It may never happen, but this version is still here for all of us to enjoy.
Rating: 
Summary: Intellectually terrifying
Review: Before there was Silence of the Lambs, before there was Hannibal, there was a psychological thriller that put them to shame. What is more frightening about this movie than its subsequent images is the idea that any person -- not just the guy next door, perhaps even yourself, might be or become a killer. Perhaps the deeply unsettling implications of this movie was why it wasn't much of a box office success.
Unlike the relationship between the seemingly naive lady detective in Silence of the Lambs, the detective in Manhunter is valued precisely because is something of the same material that he is hunting.
Hannibal says to him, "If you want the scent, smell yourself." This idea, combined with the fact that the hero is family man and apparently one of reasonable competence -- with a wife who is worried about him and a son that misses him -- in short, his everday guyness, implies that any one of us could become, with the right conditions or inspiration, a Hannibal.
This underlying message made this movie deeply disturbing, but powerful and insightful. It scratches the surface of the "thin veneer of civility," that Iris Chang discussed in the Rape of Nanking. While the crimes against humanity described in the historical text of Chang's book are nonfiction and this movie is clearly fiction, the concept remains, nonetheless frighteningly real.
Rating: 
Summary: GLAD I ONLY RENTED IT
Review: I rented this DVD and I'm glad I didn't waste any money buying it. The first half of the movie is so boring and filled with the main character thinking out loud. All the interiors seem to be decorated by the same person with the exception of the "tooth fairy's" home and workplace. WHITE WALLS, WHITE FURNITURE, WHITE STAIRS, WHITE JAIL CELL, WHITE FLOORS. This movie picks up in the last half but not enough for me. Silence of the Lambs is a much better movie. I now understand why music is so important in a movie and how it adds so much to each scene.
Rating: 
Summary: Overrated and dated
Review: To be fair, you shouldn't compare a film to its sequel, or even compare it to the book on which its based. But in the case of Manhunter, it's really, really hard not to. Even if you don't, Manhunter just doesn't cut it: Much of the acting, particlarly from the supporting actors, is wooden; the script hackneyed (Peterson soto voce growls "Goddammit!" into the camera more than once too often); the sets (while trying desperately to be 80's haute fashion) are cheap; the soundtrack is dreadful in every respect (the music was lousy in the first place, being modishly (& cheaply) electronic now it sounds dated as well, it is poorly edited and it completely fails to project any sort of mood onto proceedings); there's an utterly irrelevant scene with an anaesthetised tiger; the narrative is jumbled and there is no sense of continuity in the picture at all. Having slowly built tension for an hour an a half, with in the space of two screen minutes - one phone call - the cops have gone from having no idea who the villain is to being on a lear jet direct to his home address. Was Mann's budget running out? Mann overdoes clever camera work and moody lighting and rushes critical plot exposition - many aspects of the story are barely explored or simply left unexplained. The key figure of Francis Dolarhyde is criminally underexplained. At the end of the film, the special effects guys had - quite literally - gone home (Petersen admits as much in the accompanying "making of" documentary) so the director had to improvise the splattery denouement. Boy it shows. Also it's odd that, having tried so hard (at the expense of dramatic tension) to keep the violence implicit, Mann allows the film to devolve into a ham-fisted bloodbath in the last five minutes. And that's not comparing it either to the book or the film versions of Silence of the Lambs or Hannibal. To realise how botched a job Manhunter is, you need look no further. In this context I can mention Brian Cox's Lektor because, like it or not, were it not for Hopkins, Manhunter's rendition of Hannibal Lektor would be thought of as nothing more than a bit part. Despite promisingly styling himself after Bela Lugosi, Cox plays Lektor far too much like a distinguished psychiatrist and not enough like a distinguished psychiatrist who eats people for the hell of it. Manhunter accolytes say Hopkins overdid Hannibal, but even leaving aside the fact that in doing so Hopkins made one of the most successful franchises in the history of cinema, that is still nonsense - the character of Lecter as Thomas Harris wrote him is completely cartoonish, based as he is partway between Dracula and Sherlock Holmes. Harris' novels are all tightly written, beautifully plotted and if anything over-egged with figuative structure. Mann has cut so much out in terms of plot I could barely follow what was going on (despite having read the book recently!), and he eschews Harris' symbolism for his own, which he realises in carefully contrived - but ultimately meaningless - camera angles, camera frames and lighting. Both Jonathan Demme in Silence of the Lambs and Ridley Scott in Hannibal have drawn out the depth of Harris' writing (in quite different ways), but Michael Mann fails at this task. The word is they're having another go at making Red Dragon. Second time lucky?
Rating:
Summary: Too '80s for you? Too bad!
Review: Its saddening to read that apparently, Manhunter will be remade (by Brett Ratner of all people!), with Anthony Hopkins as Lecter, so that the film can be a "better" fit with Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal (and, of course, so the new film can make the producers a lot more money). Perhaps most upsetting is the knowledge that this remake will probably lead Michael Mann's 1986 original into greater undeserved obscurity. The original Manhunter -- adapted from Thomas Harris's book Red Dragon -- deals with FBI profiler Will Graham who comes out of retirement to track down a horrific seriel killer known as the Tooth Fairy. In the course of his investigation, he seeks the advice of his former adversary -- Dr. Hannibal Lektor. Lektor is played by Irish actor Brian Cox here and its a performance that, if far more low key than Hopkins, suits this film far better than Hopkins more "loveable" version of the evil doctor. In Manhunter, Dr. Lektor shows up in only a few scenes and he is, make no doubt about it, only a supporting character. This is not a film about Hannibal Lektor. Its a character study of a decent man (the profiler, Will Graham) who finds himself being slowly consumed by the horrifying evil that he had previously dedicated his life to battling. When Lektor appears in this film, its obvious that he is the personification of the darkness that has entered into Graham's soul, almost as if Lektor sprang into existence from Graham's very nightmares. He is not an erudite, humorous gentlemen with a few antisocial habits. Lektor is not an antihero. Instead, he is pure evil and Cox brings out that malicous hatred in ways that Hopkins -- who always projects a certain gentleness in his performances -- never could. With Hopkins, you mourn what the doctor could have been if not sick. With Cox, you fear what he'll ultimately do and that is an approach that works perfectly for this film. The entire film, indeed, is well acted. William L. Petersen, at first, seems rather stiff as Graham but as the film progresses, it becomes obvious that Graham's stoic facade hides horrors that the viewer can only guess at. By the end of the film, Petersen's gone from being stoic to being almost dangerously out-of-control and vulnerable and its a turn that Petersen manages to make extremely convincing. Dennis Farina, as FBI agent Jack Crawford, isn't quite as manipulative as Scott Glenn's Silence version but, with his craggly face and crudely compassionate manner, Farina is actually a far more credible servant of the law. Joan Allen, playing a blind woman who befriend the Tooth Fairy, brings a heart breaking sweetness and unexpected strength to what, otherwise, could have been a standard victim role. Lastly, Tom Noonan's Tooth Fairy is a terrifying villian -- I know I speak for many when I say that its been difficult to see Noonan in other films without thinking about his performance here. The main criticism directed at this film -- and a foolish one it is -- concerns Mann's stylistic direction. "Too '80s" seems to be the common complaint. Which I suppose means that it would have been a better film if it had been more "'90s" with handheld cameras and Graham meeting Lektor in a coffee shop and relating trivia about old television shows. Or perhaps Mann should have gone "'60s" and filled the whole thing with jumpcuts, Viet Nam war footage, and protest songs! Here's what it comes down to -- Mann keeps the story moving, he creates some very strong and haunting visuals, his use of music is haunting (regardless of whether its the type of music that people listen to now, the fact of the matter is that it all very nicely compliments what we see on screen), and he gets some wonderful performances from a talented, if unsung, cast. If that's too '80s then take me back to the '80s! If it seems that he sacrifices reality for style, then I think one would do well to remember that, just by the process of editing together a film, one sacrifices reality. Silence of the Lambs and (especially) Hannibal, were not extremely realistic either. All three of these films created their own reality and made no pretenses to being documentaries. If the film does have any one flaw its that the motives of the killer do remains somewhat obscure, especially if you haven't read the original novel beforehand. But this really isn't a film about the Tooth Fairy or Dr. Lektor. Its a character study of Will Graham, with Mann's style perfectly mirroring Graham's increasingly disorted world view. Manhunter is an excellent film that can proudly stand up to Silence and easily surpasses Hannibal. And yes, it does all of this even though it was made -- gasp!!!!! -- in the 1980s.
Rating:
Summary: I like Michael Mann
Review: Having seen only three Michael Mann works before, I was pleasantly surprised when my ignorance was shed and I learned about this movie. It is very much like Heat, The Insider, and Miami Vice. The movie doesn't bore you with gratuitous murder scenes or delve into the killer's methods. Rather, it lets you know more about the killer himself. Some of this is conveyed by the scenes with the killer, but I think you learn just as much about the mind of Dollarhyde from Peterson. What happened to the note from the Tooth Fairy to Lecktor regarding Peterson's family? I am probably forgetting something there...The cinematography and screenplay in this movie are excellent. As usual, Mann throws in a brief yet explosive dialogue between two of the main characters. The frustrated and pure exchange between Farina and Peterson late in the movie is compelling. The scene when Peterson is used as bait for the killer is astounding. Too tense. Must be seen. I could have used a more meaningful ending sequence, but in light of the film-making constraints discussed in the interviews on the dvd, it is good. I am glad I purchased this film.
Rating:
Summary: BEST EVER
Review: This blows Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal out of the water in term of artistic expression in the cinematic medium. Tom Noonan is fantastic and the climax is among the best ever produced. BUY THIS IF YOU SEE IT, CHRIST!
Rating:
Summary: Great
Review: I couldn't say enough good things about this movie. It is far greater than Hannibal and a bit better than Silence. Oh and for the arrogant reviewer from Oregon, the reviewer from Worcester chastized spelling not grammar. Maybe you ain't a bit overeducated for your own good. Please forgive my poor grammar.
Rating:
Summary: Enter the Dragon
Review: I was going to try and talk about "Manhunter" without mentioning "Silence of the Lambs", but as someone once said, if you try not to think about elephants, all you can really think about are elephants. And really, would I ever come near this movie if I didn't have a "Silence" fetish? Probably not. The main difference between "Silence" and "Manhunter", from what I saw, is that in the former the chief investigator, who's also the chief victim in a way, was a woman. There isn't the same sense of menace here, for we believe that protagonist Will Graham is more than capable of going mano a mano with the horror he is searching for. Clarice Starling, for all her put-on gruff exterior, never gave us such confidence. Which made her triumph that much more surprising. And rather than being a psychological horror movie, "Manhunter" is a quaint little police procedural. It focuses more on the work of the cops (a lot of which is done against the clock) rather than the mind of the serial killer. Director Michael Mann, who in 1986 was best known as the brawn behind "Miami Vice", has created another piece of work that is definitively of the 1980s. Skinny ties, pastel coloured clothes, constant 5 o'clock shadows on the men, and bad perms for the ladies all make cameo appearances here. It never steps into the realm of the comical, as many '80s movies now do, but can be somewhat distracting. Also distracting is Mann's stylish use of his camera. He has a tendency to frame his subject off-centre in the frame. There is one telling moment where Will calls his wife, and their incongruous framing in the scene tells the audience that these two really aren't on the same page. But there's one shot where Will tells his wife that he loves her, and they appear in their respective frames in exactly the same shot. I liked this technique in this scene, but in other moments it became quite annoying: one scene is filmed entirely from behind a television set, which consistently gets in the way of the action. The image of the "Red Dragon", the William Blake painting which if I remember correctly was so vital in the book, is glossed over here. Couple that with the fact that they changed the name of the movie from "Red Dragon" to "Manhunter" (nomenclature at its most compromising), and the image gets totally lost. Only those who've read the book will fully understand the killer's obsessions. My final complaint, before I tell you why I actually liked the movie, concerns the music. The score reminded me at times of "A Clockwork Orange": epic, contemplative, and creepy. Except for that movie synthesizers were an exciting new technology. Here, they are only a cheap alternative to hiring a full orchestra, an '80s cliche gone bad. Also, is it just me, or did the composing duo of Michel Rubini and Klaus Schulze (which deserves the blame?) pinch the chord progression from Pink Floyd's "Comfortably Numb" at one point ("Hello hello hello... is there anybody out there?")? The ineptness of the score is made even clearer during the final sequence when "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida", by contrast, explodes from the speakers after 90 minutes of sucky synth noodling. It's kind of a cheesy song itself, but by comparison it comes off as an heroic rock classic. Now for the good stuff. Michael Mann, despite the flaws above, did a fine job with the look and pacing of the movie. He really sucks you in to the suspense, and his garish visual style never does get in the way of that, while making the movie such a treat to look at. His script, for the most part, retains much of the depth of the book (except for that silly Red Dragon omission; I still can't get over that), and it unravels slowly and assuredly, never letting the audience know too much too soon. William Peterson does a fine job as the stoic, psychologically bruised genius detective. The complaints regarding the implausibility of his mysterious magical powers are undeserved, though. I found it to be nothing more than heightened intuition, which a genius serial killer tracker would need. The film didn't make any more of this characteristic than it had to. Francis Dollarhyde, a.k.a. The Tooth Fairy, a.k.a. (in his own mind) Red Dragon, compares very favourably with Jame Gumb (say what you will about the man, but Thomas Harris sure came up with some trippy names for his killers). Both are tall, thin men, very blond and vacant looking, calm in their duties, wrestling with their own sexuality. Dollarhyde, inexplicably, gets a love interest here (an early, blind Joan Allen), which is terribly creepy, knowing what this man has done and is about to do I suppose I'm obligated here to compare the two Dr. Lecters. Okay. Brian Cox' Dr. Lektor is more like a "Hannibal"-era Hannibal than a "Silence"-era Hannibal. Even though he is just in the beginning of a long prison term, he has a certain joie de vivre about him, even through his obvious anger at being captured. Cox is charismatic, sharp as a tack, and terribly menacing. It would have been interesting to go back to 1986 and watch this movie for the first time, without the impediment of Hopkins' Lecter to compare it to. Would Hannibal the Cannibal have made the same impact in the movie as he does now? I doubt it. Not to take anything away from Cox' fine, but all too brief, performance. As I've said in this space before, I'm a sucker for serial killer movies. A good one will keep me engrossed from start to finish, and I'm glad to report that "Manhunter", despite its flaws, did just that. Go in with an open mind, be willing to overlook its datedness, try not to compare it too hard to "Silence", and you'll have a good time too.
Rating: 
Summary: Pretty dissapointing
Review: Before I start my review, I'll tell you this: Manhunter is NOT a prequel to The Silence of the Lambs, The Silence of the Lambs is not necessarily a sequel to Manhunter either. Manhunter was made 5 years before The Silence of the Lambs.
It says: "Hannibal Lecter's legacy of evil begins here" Hannibal doesn't really do anything, he's just helping Will Gramn catch "The Tooth Fairy" ( I think Buffalo Bill was better ). I expected Manhunter to show what Hannibal Lecter did during his career of cannibalizm. The music is kinda rough on the ears. Manhunter had a lot of boring parts, pointless sex scenes and others that should have been removed during the editing of the film. Just skip this, and see The Silence of the Lambs, you'll like it a lot better.
|
