Manhunter

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.

Rating:
Summary: Not close...
Review: I love Michael Mann, but this movie aged as well as "Bio-Dome". The whole mind-melding aspect of the plot was silly, as was daddy's explanation of said mind-melding in the cereal aisle. The Sleaze Reporter (tm) character was paint-by-numbers, and a good indication the movie wasn't to be taken seriously.

And to the reviewer from Worcester, MA, a helpful hint. When referencing and abbreviating decades, the proper form is to put the apostrophe before the first number; e.g. "...'40s" or "...'50s". If you're going to be one of those internet goofballs who chastizes other people for spelling and grammar mistakes, you might want to be a bit more careful.

Rating:
Summary: Read the book!!!
Review: First of all, maybe I was already setting this movie up for disaster from the moment I put it in my DVD player. Why? Because I have heard so many great things about this movie that my hopes were very high. Unfortunatley, this movie is so dated by Michael Mann's Miami Viceish screenplay that the entire film comes off a cheesey with very forced and clumsy acting. There's a good reason why few people knew of this movie prior to the release of Slience of the Lambs, and that is because it it a bore. Hannibal Lecter in this movie is not horrifying, mesmerizing, cunning or even amusing. He is a chubby man with an accent in a retro 80's south florida style prison that is more annoying than annything else. The movie drags, Hannibal has a minor role, and the main villian looks like the butler out of the Rocky Horror Picture show. The acting is terrible all around, and the scene to scene transfer is very disjointed. THIS MOVIE STINKS. So read the book if you want to enjoy this story. Thanks.

Rating:
Summary: People who dislike this movie can't spell for beans
Review: First of all let us end this debate. Obviously this is the best film featuring the Hannibal character. As for those who criticize it for being very quote "80's" well duh it was made in the 80's. Let me emphasize Duh again. I don't see these toothless rednecks whining about silver screen classics being too 40's or 50's.

Rating:
Summary: Miami Vice Meets the Silence of The Lambs
Review: As a big fan of Miami Vice, I enjoyed this movie, mainly because I enjoy the style of music that Michael Mann uses, it is very similar to the way Jan Hammer would score a Miami Vice episode. Also the clothes are very similar to the show, they are both outfitted by Hugo Boss. Now this movie is not anything like Hannibal, which is absolutely horrible or Silence of the Lambs which won Best Picture. Take the 7 minutes that Lecter is actually in the film out and no one would realize that this film had anything to od with the other two. Michael Mann created his own version of Red Dragon through his own 80's pop culture/Miami Vice look. You are given a look into the mind of an FBI officer who becomes the killer to catch the killer. This in turn makes the movie very dark, and the pace becomes very slow. I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes a dark thriller with a lot of music throughout the movie.......

B

Rating:
Summary: Beware
Review: It is pointless to think it is superior to Hannibal or even The Silence of the Lambs. Notwithstanding the superb cinematography from Dante Spinotti, the plot is weak, the Miami Vice looks are awfully 80's...and the soundtrack is utterly weird..it does not match the slow action! It is a pity that Mr. Lector hasn't received more credit.Also, the featurettes are not that interesting. After all, believe it or not, the DVD is worth the small booklet, that looks like a mini FBI file.Unless you are a movie collector like myself, maybe, you should consider spending your money with other DVDs like Hannibal or Silence of the Lambs. I advise you to browse Amazon for something more meaningful.

Rating:
Summary: Hollow Characters, Boring 80s Throw-away
Review: This movie is sad... It is so text book and absolutely sleep-inducing that I cant believe anyone would give it the rave reviews I'm hearing. Buffalo Bill vs. Francis... Buffalo Bill is SO much more complex. His mind is operating on so many more levels, and isnt just going to throw how he REALLY feels directly at you. Francis is your typical 80s -kindahomophobic- view of what a gay serial killer would be. Basically, I would have given this film three and a half stars if I had never seen SOTL and heard all of these comparisons and the ones proclaiming manhunter superior. Hannibal Lector is one of the most infamous and interesting characters in recent film history. In Silence of The Lambs he has a truly mysterious connection to Starling, in Manhunter, Lector is more of a, hey I'm evil and smart too! Plus I'm crazy! The most ANNOYING part of this film is when Dr. L actually feels a connection and decides to help another murderer. This almost abolishes ANY sense of true mystery in the doc. The Lector I know from SOTL and Hannibal would never help such a person, in SOTL, you get to see Lector explain EXACTLY what buffalo bill is and his mind state, unfortunately, in this movie, Lector is more like, wow I have a FAN! A key element in a movie like this is a character you can relate to or you have some kind of sense of understanding or sympathy. Lets face it, "The Tooth Fairy" in this movie is a cliche, and cliches dont tend to extract pure emotion... Will Graham is your typical chEEZy macho 80s male. He expresses very little emotion and the parts where he does it is just cornball.. For god sakes, he is talking to the serial killer like this when he is at an absent-crime scene "HEY, I BET YOU SAT AND WATCHED THEM FROM THAT TREE? DIDNT YOU? YOU SICK BASTARD". Its so corny, you know when you see a film.. and you WANT to like it, but your almost in tears at the pure laughable feel of this movie? Word of advice: only see this movie if you really feel you MUST. Otherwise, avoid it like the plague. The movie bombed on release, the only reason it gets this attention is because of the other two fantastic films and the Lector relation.

Rating:
Summary: In a word... Brilliant!
Review: I saw this in the eighties when it first hit video. Having read the source material it came from, RED DRAGON, I was prepared for a lot. But what I got was more than I was prepared for, what I got was that rarest of oddities, a movie that is actually superior to the book it came from.

Michael Mann very much streamlined Thomas Harris' RED DRAGON, and made it uniquely his. Junking and revamping portions of RED DRAGON that, let's be honest now, did not work. Particularly the ending. A lot of people disparaged the changes, I thank god for them. Mann took a good, but uneven book, and turned it into one of the most visually powerful and addictive movies I have ever seen. And yes it is very much of the eighties, of its time and place, very much a frenetic, muscled pace, but I see that as its strength not its shortcomming. It is very much of the school and time of Miami Vice and MTV, but if that's all you see you see too little, it is more.

It is of the school of Truffaut and Melville, more than DePalma. It is one of the most European American movies ever made. It mixes a somber, brooding, languid, sunset tinged french noir sensability with this jarring American energy, to create a movie that is both brutal and beautiful, brilliant and base.

Now to the raging debate. To the question of the hour. Is it better than Silence of the Lambs? Like others let me say the performances by William Petersen as Graham and Brian Cox as Hannibal, are the definitive performances. I've seen both of them in other things, but here is where their demons took them furthest.

I like Silence of the Lambs. Saw it on the big screen, and it was powerful filmmaking. We jumped in all the right places. No doubt about it, it's one of the best thrillers of the 90s.

It doesn't hold a candle to Manhunter.

A great movie is one that you never get sick of, that can not just stand up to repeated viewings, but a movie you want to view often. Outside of classics made in the golden age of hollywood, very few modern movies make this cut. Very few modern movies say anything. Very few are ones you want to spend valuable hours of your life rewatching.

Manhunter is one of those few. Highest Recommendation. If you're a fan of Film Noir, French New Wave, and more textured, stylized thrillers you just might agree. Try it for yourself.

Rating:
Summary: Review on Manhunter, the gripping adventure for Will Graham.
Review: First of all I would like to say that in many reviews that I've seen for The Silence of the Lambs and Manhunter, many people have spelled Dr. LECTOR's name wrong. Many people spell it with a "k" and that is not the correct spelling even though it is spelled that way in Manhunter in one of the headlines in "the Tattler". Now to really understand this movie you have to read the book it is based on, The Red Dragon, novel written by Thomas Harris. There were many parts that were unbelievably different from the book in the movie. This is why I give this movie 3 stars. That's what it deserves and I do understand that it was in the early eighties but they didn't have to change (for example) Will Graham's son's name from Willy to Kevin. That's pretty rediculous and there were many more minor things that had no reason to be changed. Dr. Lector's cell should be the one that he had in Silence of the Lambs and it looked nothing like the way Thomas Harris described it to be. In Silence of the Lambs, they did a remarkable job with his cell. Anyway I didn't write this review to critisize the movie and I don't want people to see this review and not want the movie because it is a good one. But take my advice and read the book, Red Dragon, before you see the movie. You can purchase it here on Amazon.com. Thankyou.

Rating:
Summary: "LAMB" CHOPS
Review: IS THIS MOVIE SUPERIOR TO "SILENCE OF THE LAMBS" LIKE MANY SAY? ALMOST, THERE ARE JUST TWO FLAWS. FIRST OFF, I WILL ADMIT THAT THIS MOVIE IS GREAT AND THAT THE ADDAPTION IS GREAT, BUT FOR THOSE WHO READ THE BOOK (BY THE WAY THIS MOVIE IS BASED OFF THE BOOK "RED DRAGON")KNOW THAT THE BOOK HAD STORIES OF THE KILLER'S PAST AND GOT MORE IN DEPTH WITH THE KILLER. ALSO, THE ENDING IN THE BOOK WAS BETTER THAN THE MOVIE, BUT I STILL ENJOYED THE MOVIE'S ENDING. AND SECOND, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE THINKING, BUT BRIAN COX IS HORRIBLE AT PORTRAYING THE ROLE OF HANNIBAL LECTER. NOW I KNOW I'M USED TO HOPKINS PLAYING LECTER, SO I GAVE THE GUY I CHANCE, BUT I MEAN WHOAH! THIS GUY WAS BEYOND [BAD]! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING CREEPY OR CREATIVE ABOUT HIM, UNLIKE HOPKINS WHO CAN MAKE YOU SHIVER JUST BY UTTERING THE WORD "CLARICE". ANYWAY, THIS MOVIE IS STILL AN EXCELLENT WATCH AND HAS A GREAT STORY. I'M SURE ALL OF THE "SOTL" AND "HANNIBAL" FANS WILL ENJOY THIS MOVIE. GOOD THING LECTER IS IN THIS MOVIE FOR ABOUT 2 SCENES ONLY! OY VEY!