What's your fave 'Hannibal' flick?

[LivingLegendGaryColeman 0]

I loved Hannibal in Bad Company... wait a second...

 

but seriously, this may be off topic and sound pretty dumb, but I've never actually seen a Hannibal Lector movie. It seems like I am missing out, as I hear they are really good, I just have never been too huge into "bloody/gory" movies... I don't mind them as much lately. So someone that hasn't seen one, should they start in order of release, i.e. Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal then Red Dragon, or in order of story which I believe is Red Dragon, Lambs, Hannibal?

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

Silence of the Lambs is far and away the best. Best script without a doubt, best actors and performances, best story...it's a really great psychological thriller. The first time I saw it I wasn't too impressed, but I revisited it a few months later and could safely call it one of the best-crafted films I've ever seen. Hopkins' shtick wasn't tired by this point; it was cold, chilling, and not at all the sort of self-parody that you can see in the sequels. This one also does a great job of handling the parallel storylines and really keeping a tight focus on Starling, who's one of the great modern heroines.

 

That said, even though Hannibal is kinda retarded, I still think it's a load of fun. Everyone except for Julianne Moore is hamming it up like crazy, the violence is grand guignol operatic type silliness, and the lighting is gorgeous. Red Dragon was also fun, but took itself a lot more seriously and suffered. The editing into the shot of the flaming wheelchair might be one of my biggest laugh-out-loud moments of last year.

[Guest HellSpawn]

Silence of the Lambs, all the way.

 

Red Dragon / Manhunter.

 

and last and absolutely least...

Hannibal.

 

OMG, Hannibal IMO is just the biggest piece of crap I've seen, it was Anthony Hopkins playing "Dr. Giggles", they made a gore movie disguissed as high class horror.

 

What a bunch of crap.

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

CHUD, that's a laughable statement.

Why, because you disagree with it?

 

Move along.

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

CHUD, that's a laughable statement.

Why, because you disagree with it?

 

Move along.

Way to counterpoint.

[Guest Lil Naitch]

Red Dragon- by far the best in the series, IMO

SOTL- Classic cinema, beautiful film

Hannibal- I thought it was ok, but I didn't like the ending, in the movie, or especially the book.

never saw Manhunter, though I remember it being on Ch. 11 years ago.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

CHUD, that's a laughable statement.

Why, because you disagree with it?

 

Move along.

C.H.U.D. you really suck at this whole "movie debate" thing.

 

 

How about actually arguing the points?

 

 

Nice try, slappy.

[Yuna_Firerose 0]

So someone that hasn't seen one, should they start in order of release, i.e. Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal then Red Dragon, or in order of story which I believe is Red Dragon, Lambs, Hannibal?

In my opinion, you should watch in order of release.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

So someone that hasn't seen one, should they start in order of release, i.e. Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal then Red Dragon, or in order of story which I believe is Red Dragon, Lambs, Hannibal?

In my opinion, you should watch in order of release.

Yuna, it's actually better if they're watched in chronological order simply because of how events in Red Dragon/Manhunter are mentioned in SotL.

 

 

1. Red Dragon

2. Silence of the Lambs

3. Hannibal

 

 

Or you could be smart and just watch SotL and Manhunter! The choice is yours!

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

CHUD, that's a laughable statement.

Why, because you disagree with it?

 

Move along.

C.H.U.D. you really suck at this whole "movie debate" thing.

 

 

How about actually arguing the points?

 

 

Nice try, slappy.

Why? What would it prove? You've already made yourself sound like an idiot, I don't have to add to that. You like Manhunter and hate Red Dragon. Yes, yes, I understand. Good for you.

 

Move along.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

CHUD, that's a laughable statement.

Why, because you disagree with it?

 

Move along.

C.H.U.D. you really suck at this whole "movie debate" thing.

 

 

How about actually arguing the points?

 

 

Nice try, slappy.

Why? What would it prove? You've already made yourself sound like an idiot, I don't have to add to that. You like Manhunter and hate Red Dragon. Yes, yes, I understand. Good for you.

 

Move along.

No, you made yourself look like an immature whiner (Read IDRM's post) at least I had rational thoughts.

 

 

Move along slappy, you're not in my league.

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

No, you made yourself look like an immature whiner (Read IDRM's post) at least I had rational thoughts.

 

 

Move along slappy, you're not in my league.

Yes, of course. You use phrases like "That's a laughable statement" and "slappy". You're right, I'm not in your league. I couldn't drop that far down the ladder.

 

Zing!

 

Move along.

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

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.

 

I do like Manhunter, but I think it was a slightly above average thriller at best. Mann's Miami Vice obssessed directing style is was over the top here with his choice of music and over use of bright colours. I agree that this film is about Will Graham and Francis Dollarhyde, but the Lecter character is important, and they could have used it him more in this film in an effective manner, but I can see why they focused on the lead and the villain. I felt that this film had NO suspense whatsoever, and with the exception of the casting of Tom Noonan as Dollarhyde, I found the casting to be fairly weak. I think Petersen is a wooden actor, and Mann did nothing to change that. Also, I felt the action sequence at the end with Graham busting through the window to "Ina Goda Davida" was very silly. At the other end, the scene where Dollarhyde takes McClane to see the tiger was an incredible scene. One of my favourites.

 

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.

 

I enjoyed Red Dragon about as much as Manhunter, but for different reasons. I felt it "belonged" more in the Hannibal trilogy, for obvious reasons, mostly bringing in Hopkins as Lecter. Yes, they focus on him MUCH more, but I still the Lecter character is a good one, and important, so that didn't bother me. I didn't have a problem with the pacing, or the style (although it was rather vanilla). Sure Manhunter had a lot of style, but I think it had way too much, and most of it was cheese. Besides, style doesn't make a movie. People dump on Rattner because he is a generic, vanilla director, and that's fine. I agree for the most part, but I think he did a good job directing certain scenes (specifically Dollarhyde explaining the Dragon myth to Lounds and the house burning scene at the end). I agree that Fiennes gave the best performance in the film, but I didn't have a problem with anyone else either. Rattner obviously isn't a director known for getting the best from his actors, but I don't think Mann broke any ground in getting great performances in Manhunter either.

 

So in closing, I enjoy both films, although I think they both have their faults. I do prefer Red Dragon, but I don't dislike Manhunter and actually own both on DVD.

 

There, happy now "Slappy"? Don't bother me with crap about "not in the same league", because then I have to crush you.

[Guest El Satanico]

I liked the performances in Manhunter more than in Red Dragon.

 

I like Ed Norton, but he just didn't do anything for me as Will Graham. Norton didn't look like he was a FBI agent that could get into the mind of a killer. William Peterson's Will Graham was much better and his wooden acting style actually helped his performance here. He looked and acted like a FBI agent that could replay the murder scenes in his mind and get into the mind of a serial killer. He had the "his mind is as screwed up as the killer" vibe that Norton didn't have.

 

I also perferred Tom Noonan's portrayal of Francis DollarHyde to Ralph Fiennes' portrayal. Noonan gave the character a creepiness that wasn't really in Fiennes' character. Fiennes did a good job of making the character seem completely insane but there was really nothing "scary" about him. Also the fact that Fiennes didn't look weird, ugly or deformed hurts a character that has issues with people finding him ugly.

 

I liked Brian Cox's Hannibal, but would've liked seeing his part slightly extended. That's not to say I didn't like Hopkins' Hannibal, but his portrayal is very different so I can't really compare them.

 

 

While I did enjoy the Manhunter Indagaddavida ending, the ending to Red Dragon was better despite having less style. The ending of Red Dragon was more suspenseful.

 

 

Both movies are "paint by numbers" serial killer thrillers. I don't have a problem with either movie, but I slightly prefer Manhunter because of what I see as better performances.