Hunter

Having finally seen MANHUNTER, I am left wondering why anyone ever felt the need to remake it - RED DRAGON is a fine flick, with a fine cast, but it feels exceptionally pale given what a tremendous source it was drawing from; scene for scene, line for line at some points.

So much threat, such a pervading sense of menace; the character work, and the direction, the wonderful soundtrack - it hums along, and there's no place to stop to catch your breath. I really adored this, and if you're looking for a really engrossing thriller, and I mean thriller, this movie delivers.

I have a problem with a lot of people's review of "Manhunter". Every single bad review that criticizes Cox or Noonan invariably mentions the movie "Red Dragon" in the same breath. How about being a little objective?

On its own as the original Hannibal Lecter movie, Manhunter is a good movie. Cox plays Lecter convincingly, and you can read from other reviewers who praised his work shows that with a little objectivity we can see an alternative representation of Lecter. It is true, as one other reviewer says, Hopkins acts Lecter, Cox *IS* Lecter. Cox never seems to be acting, he really plays the part with mystery and ambiguity not like the distinctly maniacal Lecter that Hopkins portrays.

Cox plays a true psychopath - one devoid of feelings, and yet a consummate actor. Some of the world's best actors are in fact psychopaths. A psychopath is not necessarily a killer - a psychopath is simply someone who does not feel for other human beings, which is often why the psychopath killers of this world were in fact convincing actors - for example Geoffrey Dahmer and Charles Manson.

So when we analyze the profiles of true psychopathic serial killers, we can quite clearly see that Cox plays the better Lecter than Hopkins. We can see Cox is devoid of compassion, and yet acts like a normal person. Hopkins on the other hand, never passes the creepy stage - he is too creepy and doesn't have the "acting" ability of a true psychopath to mask that image from the public eye. Cox shows that he could blend into normality without being caught.

And therein lies the problem with the negative reviews. We read countless negative reviews of this movie bemoaning the fact that Cox is not as creepy as Hopkins - but my dears, that is exactly why Cox plays the better Lecter!

Dull and mundane title for such a fine film. I had some problem with the third victim in that the discrepancies between that and meticulously worked out modus operandi of the killer from earlier atrocities seemed glaring, never mind where he was likely to be on this night of the full moon. But never mind, the film is scary, very worrying and stunningly designed and shot with a decent central performance from William Petersen. He seems laid back and almost carefree but this is inevitable alongside the frightening performances of his past and present nemesis. The former is holed up in a terrifyingly all white cell and the latter lurking largely and taunting freely. Even though I had reservations about the final scenes these are very well executed and though I remembered little from my video viewing many years ago, that hand running through the tiger's fur was clearly burned into my subconscious. Great!

The bulk of comments concerning this film center on the debate of its superiority/inferiority versus Silence of the Lambs. That line of criticism does not do justice to either movie.

Besides the Thomas Harris link, there is no connection between them at all. Sure, there are shared character names, most notably Dr. Lecter, but not shared characters. Cox's and Hopkins' interpretations of the infamous cannibal could not be any more different. Whose is better? That's irrelevant here. What is relevant is Manhunter's success as a stand-alone feature film.

Michael Mann's film is standard serial killer fare, which is not necessarily a bad thing. What separates it from its cinematic brethren is its style and class. It's easy to follow a hunter-prey storyline. What isn't easy is to provide the audience with well-rounded characters who convey that grey moral ground of real life. In that respect, Manhunter is a success. From the FBI agent teetering on the edge to the killer struggling with his emotions, Mann weaves a complex story that takes a step above the genre.

The movie is definitely of the 80s. Timelessness is the top determining factor of a film's "classic" status. Whether or not Manhunter stands the test of time is yet to be seen. The music is already dated, but not to the point of impeding the story. Fortunately, it has not suffered the same fate as the now campy reruns of Miami Vice.

Manhunter is not a great movie. It is an above average genre film aided by a stellar cast and crew. Take it for what it is and enjoy an underappreciated thriller.

This film reminds me of a deglamorized verison of the Hannibal films. IMO it has a more realistic view to it. Instead of the likable and friendly Ed Norton, we have the moody and intense William Petersen playing Will Graham. Brian Cox's Hannibal is just as clever as Anthony Hopkins' but not as charismatic. Thus, that makes him more realistic, instead of superhuman, like the character later becomes. Instead of a spooky dark basement prison as in Slience or Hannibal, we have an austure white cell. Ralph Fiennes' Dolarhyde is quiet to the point of being a mute and almost semi retarded almost. I can't see how the girl would be attacted to him (even if she is blind). Tom Noonhan's Dolarhyde is more amible and friendly. He actually speaks in a friendly voice, at times even being a normal person. Even the ending is more realistic. Instead of having a supspense full thilling end, it ends rather anti-climaticly...but thus is life.