What's your fave 'Hannibal' flick?

[Yuna_Firerose 0]

Red Dragon was the one that pulled me into the series [Damn Hopkins and damn Norton for being so great], Hopkins just freakin' OWNED in Silence of the Lambs [the scene where he pulled off the face mask was just scary to me because I didn't expect it...plus I was watching it in the dark], and I loved the scenes with him and Foster. But, personally, I must say my faveorite was Hannibal. I guess it's because he plays such a big role in it, and the underlying romantic tones between the characters Hannibal and Starling is really interesting.

 

I'm curious as to what everyone's fave is.

[TheOriginalOrangeGoblin 0]

Despite the backlash for it, I agree with you Hannibal ism y fav too. Don't even know why but I really liekd it.

[Guest Lethargic]

1. Manhunter - To me serial killer movies should be dark, cheap and crappy looking. So Manhunter being made in the 80's fits that. It's not glossy and shiney like Lambs and other modern day serial killer movies. It comes off way more realistic to me. Same reason I prefer Confessions of a Serial Killer over Henry. Not that Henry is bright and shiney, but Confessions is so much cheaper and darker that it feels like you're really watching a serial killer's home movie or something. Manhunter is kinda like that to me. Lecter isn't over the top and it's way more gritty than any of the others. Plus it has creepy 80's synth music which is always friggin scary.

 

2. Hannibal - People complain about it but I enjoyed it simply because it didn't follow up Lambs by doing ANOTHER Lambs. It took the movie into an entire different direction. It would've been so easy for everybody involved to just say hey, let's redo Lambs, but they didn't do that. They did something original and different and risky. I enjoy the movie for taking that risk and not trying to be a clone of a succesful movie. I'll also take Julianne Moore over Jodie Foster any time.

 

3. Lambs - It's an OK movie. But that's about it. I don't understand the hype it gets. It's pretty much a run of the mill modern day hollywood serial killer movie to me. I don't think it's bad or anything. I just don't get why it's such an all-time classic.

 

4. Red Dragon - A total piece of shit. This is a glorious example of why I say directors are more important than actors. 4 great actors appear in this movie and they all SUCK in it because they're being directed by a hack loser. Fienes is the only one that was kinda good. Norton, Hopkins and Kietel seem to sleepwalk through the entire thing. Norton's performance was so damn bad that I couldn't help but laugh at many parts. I just couldn't believe how bad it was. He blew me away. Plus it's EXACTLY what Hannibal wasn't. This wasn't made to be good or entertaining, this was made simply to make money and for no other reason. Everybody involved just saw an easy payday and took it. No risk involved with this movie, just money. Not only did they say hey, let's do another Lambs...they remade Manhunter. Take Manhunter, edit out all the suspense, minus the talent and slap on a tired Hollywood cliche filled climax and you get Red Dragon. I went into this movie expecting it to be bad, but hoping for it to be good. What I got was very, very far beyond my expectations. If I sat down and made a top ten list of movies I hate, this would make the list.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Wow, couldn't disagree with that more. SOTL completely blows away the rest of the series, with Lecter being the key factor. He was by no means a hero in the movie, but no one can tell me they didn't smile at the end of that when he sees Chilton getting off the plane. Jodie Foster played her role very well, especially the final scene in the basement. The overall look to the movie was wonderful.

 

Yuna, if you like Hannibal that much, read the book, as the book is approximately 328942374892712637891234 times better than the way it was executed in the movie.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

1. Manhunter's only weakness is that every set looks like it was from Miami Vice. That is the only reason SOTL is better.

 

2. Hannibal was so over-the-top in it's violence quotient that I can't take it seriously, I laugh at it.

[Guest kane3212321]

Manhunter was really good, but the end was really bad. I mean jumping through a window all guns blazing rubbish is a bit far fetched.

[Guest Youth N Asia]

I would say Manhunter. But it almost seems to be the trendy thing to pick the least known these days.

 

Seriously, I like Silent the best, then Manhunter, then that shitter Hannibal. I still need to see Red Dragon...might download it

[TheOriginalOrangeGoblin 0]

1. Manhunter's only weakness is that every set looks like it was from Miami Vice. That is the only reason SOTL is better.

 

2. Hannibal was so over-the-top in it's violence quotient that I can't take it seriously, I laugh at it.

Am I the only who didn't mind the the violence in Hannibal?

[Guest Youth N Asia]

I don't mind the violence. But they seemed to overdue that cause they didn't have a strong story.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

SOTL, Red Dragon, Hannibal.

 

Never saw Manhunter -- I'll live...

[Guest Mad Dog]

I prefer Red Dragon to Manhunter b/c it stayed closer to the book. None of that jumping through the window crap at the end.

 

I would recommend reading all the books as they blow all the movies out of the water.

[Guest Crazy Dan]

1. SOTL - Creepy and intense. The performances are what made the movie.

 

2. Red Dragon - Closer to the book than Manhunter, and I thought Ed Norton did a good job. It was a solid movie. And the Tooth Fairy is more menancing and dangerous. You honestly get a feeling of insanity, which was also missing in Manhunter.

 

3. Manhunter- after watching Red Dragon, it was obvious that this movie left out some key elements (like Lector's capture and the ending) But the guy who did Lector was solid and creepy, but not as good as Hopkin's character. I also didn't think of the Tooth Fairy as that dangerous..

 

4. Hannibal - This movie was not very good. This had feeling it that was written just for the sake of making a sequel, and not a story that was written in inspiration. Also not getting Jody Foster back also hurt it, although Moore tries valienty in the Sterling role. If Moore had been the orignal Steerling role, then it would have worked more.

[Guest Anglesault]

Hannibal was a terrible movie. SotL all the way.

[Guest Crucifixio Jones]

1. Silence of the Lambs - Not really the best, but it just managed to edge Manhunter in a few key and vital areas

 

2. Manhunter - would be number one if Michael Mann wasn't so heavy on his Miami Vice thing thereby dating the movie and the ending is kinda crappy.

 

3. Red Dragon - I don't see how this would be the movie that would pull someone into the series seeing as how it was the last one. You're telling me that you skipped all the previous ones and saw this first?

 

4. Hannibal - Violence for the sake of violence and a piece of shit.

[Yuna_Firerose 0]

Yuna, if you like Hannibal that much, read the book, as the book is approximately 328942374892712637891234 times better than the way it was executed in the movie.

Yeah, I'm going to try and find the book to read it. Just curious, are all three movies made from one book?

 

Why the hate for 'Hannibal'? Perhaps the violence was a bit over the top, but the thing that drew me in was Moore and Hopkins. Like Francis and Reba in Red Dragon, Lecter and Starling are two characters that you want to see get together....but you know it's impossible.

[Guest Anglesault]

The new Clarise was also a big problem.

[Guest ArkhamGlobe]

Manhunter all the way.

[Guest Lethargic]

I wish I knew what was so violent about Hannibal. When it came out, I only wanted to see it because all I heard was that it was really violent. I wasn't a fan of Lambs so I didn't care about that. But all the hype about the violence suckered me into it. I ended up walking out of it liking the movie but really scratching my head about this supposed violence. I guess if all you've seen is Piglet's Big Movie, Hannibal might be violent but I don't see how else it could be considered that way.

 

Of course I don't get the weeping over the end of Manhunter either. The ending to that movie is one my favorite movie moments ever. I could watch the whole Innagodadivivdadavdada part over and over and over again. I always hated that song until then. Now it scares the piss out of me every time I hear it.

[Guest Downhome]

SOtL

 

Red Dragon

 

Hannibal

 

Red Dragon

[Guest Crucifixio Jones]

the thing that drew me in was Moore and Hopkins. Like Francis and Reba in Red Dragon, Lecter and Starling are two characters that you want to see get together....but you know it's impossible.

 

The romance aspect didn't interest me but it doesn't surprise me in the least that a female was into this development. And I think you may be the ONLY person on Earth who wanted Francis and Reba to hook up.

[Yuna_Firerose 0]

Well, actually I didn't want them to hook up. I just meant that those were also two characters that could get together, if Francis wasn't insane and all that. Well....at least that's what the director's said in their commentary. In fact, they mentioned how Francis was the heart of the story.

 

Norton's performance was so damn bad that I couldn't help but laugh at many parts.

How was his performance bad? He was the second reason that got me interested in the movie.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I wish I knew what was so violent about Hannibal. When it came out, I only wanted to see it because all I heard was that it was really violent. I wasn't a fan of Lambs so I didn't care about that. But all the hype about the violence suckered me into it. I ended up walking out of it liking the movie but really scratching my head about this supposed violence. I guess if all you've seen is Piglet's Big Movie, Hannibal might be violent but I don't see how else it could be considered that way.

 

Of course I don't get the weeping over the end of Manhunter either. The ending to that movie is one my favorite movie moments ever. I could watch the whole Innagodadivivdadavdada part over and over and over again. I always hated that song until then. Now it scares the piss out of me every time I hear it.

I'm no facist when it comes to violence, but you have to be seriously retarded to not think Hannibal is a violent film.

[Guest Lethargic]

I wish I knew what was so violent about Hannibal.  When it came out, I only wanted to see it because all I heard was that it was really violent.  I wasn't a fan of Lambs so I didn't care about that.  But all the hype about the violence suckered me into it.  I ended up walking out of it liking the movie but really scratching my head about this supposed violence.  I guess if all you've seen is Piglet's Big Movie, Hannibal might be violent but I don't see how else it could be considered that way.

 

Of course I don't get the weeping over the end of Manhunter either.  The ending to that movie is one my favorite movie moments ever.  I could watch the whole Innagodadivivdadavdada part over and over and over again.  I always hated that song until then.  Now it scares the piss out of me every time I hear it.

I'm no facist when it comes to violence, but you have to be seriously retarded to not think Hannibal is a violent film.

Well, what was violent? All I remember is the brain scene and that's it. And the brain scene was SOOOO fake looking and SOOO over the top that it was just funny not gory or violent. It reminded me of a looney toon cartoon where Bugs feeds Elmer his own brain. I don't think it was any more violent than Lambs was. He chewed a cops face off in Lambs but nobody says anything about that movie being violent. What's so special about Hannibal?

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

I don't even consider Manhunter a "Hannibal" film. I think of it more of a thriller from the 80's, and nothing more. If it weren't for SOTL, no one would give two shits about Manhunter. I like the film, but I don't consider it part of the series, Red Dragon pushed it aside, and it will soon be forgotten except by it's fans.

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

Manhunter by far. I love the 80s flavor, jumping through the window, all that crap, love it.

I also consider Red Dragon to be the best of the books, cause I don't find Hannibal to be that strong of a character unless he's in a background role.

Hannibal (book and movie) I find to be complete shit.

[Guest Crucifixio Jones]

Well, actually I didn't want them to hook up. I just meant that those were also two characters that could get together, if Francis wasn't insane and all that.

 

Well your initial post made me think that you actually wanted Francis and Reba to get together. In fact, they did, so it's not even a what if scenario. But your post also made me assume that you meant that you wanted to characters to get together AS THEY ARE in the movie, not under your own special set of circumstances...i.e. if Francis weren't insane. If that's how you're gonna play it than any two characters could "hook up."

 

CHUD, Manhunter has already been forgotten by everyone except its fans and to be honest it wasn't known or remembered by anyone other than its fans in the first place.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I don't even consider Manhunter a "Hannibal" film. I think of it more of a thriller from the 80's, and nothing more. If it weren't for SOTL, no one would give two shits about Manhunter. I like the film, but I don't consider it part of the series, Red Dragon pushed it aside, and it will soon be forgotten except by it's fans.

CHUD, that's a laughable statement.

 

 

Manhunter was, and still is a great example of a police thriller that I think suffers from being tacked on to the Hannibal mythos. It exhibits great suspense, casting, and intellegence. Unlike in Red Dragon Hannibal is used only as a supporting character (as he should be) and not allowed to steal the movie.

 

 

Red Dragon is an absolute dreck compared to Manhunter, it has no style, the pacing is all wrong, and every performance excpet Finnes is just lackluster. It's obvious the Brett Rattner has noi skill for challenging great actors, while Michael Mann can get the best out of average actors time and time again.

 

 

The Hannibal capture scene is truly unecessary and is just more evidence of Rattner letting Lector run away with the movie because it'll gross a higher box office. It's Will Graham's story and the movie never allows us to see that.

 

 

Manhunter > Red Dragon

[Guest Lethargic]

Red Dragon reminded me a lot of the new Star Wars movies. No life. No personality, no charisma, no spark. That's what you get from a director that can't direct actors. Ed Norton's performance was EXACTLY like Neeson's in Phantom Menace. Boring and non-chalant. He just walked around, mumbled out the lines with no conviction and no emotion and then the movie ended. There was nothing there. No life in his character at all. He never captures the essence of the character like Peterson did in Manhunter, which of course was directed by a good director. This whole movie is just exactly what is wrong with Hollywood. The movie was totally unneccassary but somebody saw a chance to squeeze a few more million out of Hopkin's Lecter character and they did it. Like Zsasz said, the whole movie has no style. That's because it's just a 2 hour commercial instead of a movie. It's made simply to get a good opening weekend and then vanish and everybody involved acts like it. Hell, you may not like Manhunter's 80 style but it at least HAS style. It HAS a look. Red Dragon looks exactly like ever other thriller in the last 10 years. You take Bone Collector, Murder by Numbers, The Watcher, Blood Work or Copycat and add in Hopkin's over the top Lecter character and you get Red Dragon.

[Guest ArkhamGlobe]

I'm pretty much in total agreement about Red Dragon being little more than a paint by numbers serial killer movie, in almost every single way, especially in it's look (both films were shot by Dante Spinotti, in a funny bit of trivia). The only thing in Red Dragon that stood out to me was Ralph Fiennes' performance. And I much prefer Brian Cox's performance as Lecter in Manhunter to Hopkins' in Red Dragon. I thought Hopkins was excellent in Silence of the Lambs, but in the following films I felt that the character has turned more and more into a cartoon. I didn't mind it in Hannibal, as I felt it fit with the films over the top grand guignol tone, but in a straight thriller like Red Dragon it gets pretty bothersome.

[Yuna_Firerose 0]

Since this has turned into a Red Dragon vs Manhunter, I figured I'd post an essay, or whatever it is I found, about the topic.

 

'Manhunter' vs. 'Red Dragon', IMHO...

 

 

The first time I saw 'Manhunter' was at university. We'd threaded the film reels on wrongly and no one noticed until the credits started to run one third into the film.

 

I'm a very big fan of Michael Mann. I loved 'Miami Vice' from the moment I laid eyes on it. 'Heat' and 'LA Takedown' are incredible films. 'LA Takedown' has in it the most heartbreaking piece of music ever written, by Tim Truman.

 

But I'm also a fan of Thomas Harris. And 'Manhunter' simply isn't even close to the novel 'Red Dragon' on which it was supposed to be set.

 

Since seeing the remake, 'Red Dragon', very recently, I've bought and watched 'Manhunter', this time in the right order! I've read many arguments on the internet about which one's better. Only one, to my surprise, has so far said that 'Red Dragon' is the superior film.

 

I can't understand this.

 

Soundtrack, so important to 'Miami Vice', overpowers the film. Expansive sunsets and elegant settings detract from the plot and the almost completely expressionless acting.

 

'Red Dragon' may introduce the much-loved cannibal, Dr Hannibal Lecter, but the novel is about Will Graham, his constant fight with his own nature, and his inability to get over the injuries - both physical and mental - inflicted upon him by the two serial killers he has previously caught.

 

A good comparison is the (only) interview between Graham and Lecter in 'Manhunter', and the (first) interview between them in 'Red Dragon'. The scenes are played out word for word, scripts practically the same in both films, but the execution is wildly different.

 

William Petersen and Brian Cox race through the scene with no more chemistry than a children's science toy. Norton and Hopkins have a chemistry between them that seems to ignite their scenes together. Petersen's playing a cop, Norton's playing an unwilling protégé.

 

At the end of the scene in 'Manhunter', their conversation is cut short when Lecter asks Graham how he caught him. Petersen's Graham runs for it, where are Norton's character stops, and finally turns, acknowledging the past friendship created between them by the new scenes added to the start of the 2002 movie.

 

Edward Norton brings to the screen a heart-wrenching portrayal of a highly intelligent yet tortured man. In his eyes is written everything - from his agony at Crawford's emotional blackmail with the photographs of the two families at the start, to his almost desperate need to accept Lecter's help in coping with the scars and fears he's been left with.

 

William Petersen did a good job with the material and the setting he worked with. But he looked to be simply going through the motions, and rising to the challenge of Mann's need for 'art deco' shots (for example, the extraordinarily long run from the prison after speaking to Lecter).

 

Cox, who has accused the remake of being 'Hollywood greed', had one scene and one phone call to prove himself as Dr Lecter.

 

We're used to Anthony Hopkins' classy portrayal of the forensic psychologist turned cannibal. Cox's Lecter is just another loon.

 

'Red Dragon' obviously has more of a part for Hannibal Lecter than the actual novel does. It brings him into sharp focus, and in turn, brings his relationship with Will Graham to the forefront. Not just another killer, in 'Red Dragon', Graham has been working closely with Lecter for several months if not longer when the doctor tries to kill him. He's been betrayed, as he tells Riba at the end,

 

"You didn't draw a freak, you drew a man with a freak on his back."

"I should have known...."

"Oh no, sometimes you don't, trust me, I've been there myself."

 

Norton does a stunning job of putting the fear and pain in his eyes, in his expressions and reactions, and puts his strength into coping. It's an incredible piece of acting, compared to which, Petersen is simply going through the motions.

 

Tom Noonan as Dolarhyde is simply weird. And when he bit off Lounds' tongue, he wasn't biting, he was kissing. Despite spending much of his screen time naked, or maybe because of it, Ralph Fiennes does an amazing job of making the audience see and understand his struggle with the dragon, and his fight against its control of him.

 

Ted Tally, writing the screenplay, and Brett Ratner, directing, give us a more disturbing, personal view of these characters and of their demons.

 

I will say this, although it got his name wrong, 'Manhunter' did have Dr Bloom in it. I'd have loved to have seen 'Red Dragon' deal with him and with his close friendship with Will. At least that way, Lecter might not have come over as the only one to give a damn about Graham's mental state.

 

As for the supporting cast, both Stephen Lang and Philip Seymour Hoffman were great as Freddy Lounds, but in 'Manhunter', I counted no less than eight 'Miami Vice' cast and extras, and then spotted Bonnie Timmerman's name listed as Casting Director. It did screen like a long episode of 'Miami Vice', and with Don Johnson at the helm it would have been a stunner.

 

But 'Red Dragon' is a complex book, and most of Thomas Harris' plot seems to have been replaced in 'Manhunter' with sunsets, shots of white and glass buildings, and a very dodgy soundtrack. So much is either missing or wrong - Dolarhyde's saving relationship with Riba McClane, his eating the painting, his transformation into the dragon, the old folks' home he was supposed to live in. Why did they change Dr Alan Bloom's name to Sidney?! And the ending, although not completely loyal to the novel in the 'Red Dragon' remake, is utterly unrecognisable and very predictable in 'Manhunter'.

 

I do have one unanswered question. In the novel, Molly's son is called Willy and Will Graham is not his father. In 'Manhunter', he is Will's son, but he's called Kevin. In 'Red Dragon', he is still the son, but he's called Josh. What's with this?

 

Anyway, questions aside, to summarise, I'm a big fan of Edward Norton, I love Anthony Hopkins, I sing praises to Michael Mann. But I intensely dislike 'Manhunter'.

 

And I have it on video if anyone needs a copy....

 

elfin

Nov 2002

 

Site: http://www.sundive.co.uk/reddragon/essay.htm