El sabueso

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!

How many times have we heard "The film isn't as good as the book"? Let's face it. What film IS?! Red Dragon was a masterpiece and so is Manhunter.

To appreciate that there are two issues. Firstly, the film was created in 1986. It's stylised and looks slightly dated. The soundtrack is excellent but again very 1980's. Secondly, Red Dragon was not an easy book to write a screenplay for. There is way too much information that made the book so enthralling to squeeze in to 2 hours.

The cinematography, in particular the clever use of light and colours, is breathtaking. The choice of locations was also very deliberate. The scene where Will is running out of the building after speaking to Hannibal Lecter. They chose a building with a long spiral ramp down. The ramp is white, clinical. Running down the ramp is like those dreams where the bad man is chasing you and you can't get away. Will runs his heart out but doesn't get very far.

I agree that Cox plays a different Lecter but then the book wasn't about Lecter. There was some mention made but Lecter in this film is very much a Cameo appearance. The way in which Will goes about catching the killer is every bit as clever as Starling's methods, if not more so. In addition, we are treated to the thoughts, the inner monologue, the frustration and triumph of a hunter.

Make no mistake, if you expect an up-to-date movie as good in every respect as the book, you'll be disappointed. If you're sensible and expect nothing more than 2 hours quality entertainment you'll enjoy this one.

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.

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.

Besides the fact that it was released without much hoopla in 1986, and that it was recently remade(the same exact movie except for the end) as Red Dragon, Manhunter is undoubtedly the most overlooked movie of the past 20 years. The plot is tremendous, Mann's direction is outstanding, and the acting(especially Noonan) is equally amazing. What Mann realized while making this film is that a thriller was not just meant to shock and disgust the audience but to develop the characters carefully so that there is an even greater sense of anticipation for the climax of the movie than there otherwise would be. Recent thrillers are clearly lacking in the character development that made movies like Manhunter and Silence of the Lambs so good. Its a shame that Red Dragon had to be made, since it is basically a strait ripoff of Manhunter except for a different ending which is much worse than the original and way too predictable. Anyone who thinks Red Dragon was a good movie should watch Manhunter and compare the two. If you try this you'll see that there is no comparison. Tom Noonan's performance alone is worth the watch.