francomega
ene 2001 se unió
Te damos la bienvenida a nuevo perfil
Nuestras actualizaciones aún están en desarrollo. Si bien la versión anterior de el perfil ya no está disponible, estamos trabajando activamente en mejoras, ¡y algunas de las funciones que faltan regresarán pronto! Mantente al tanto para su regreso. Mientras tanto, el análisis de calificaciones sigue disponible en nuestras aplicaciones para iOS y Android, en la página de perfil. Para ver la distribución de tus calificaciones por año y género, consulta nuestra nueva Guía de ayuda.
Distintivos2
Para saber cómo ganar distintivos, ve a página de ayuda de distintivos.
Reseñas2
Clasificación de francomega
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 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.
I came away from "Hannibal" with the distinct feeling that something was missing. I knew I had not hated the film, and in fact, quite enjoyed the scenes in Italy. However, the rest came up short.
The blame no doubt falls on Thomas Harris, whose novel destroyed the wonderful, somewhat magical, characters he created in Silence. That predecessor remains a cultural milestone because Lecter and Starling embody evil and good and we can feel the tension of their struggle. In Hannibal, the lines are blurred. Lecter becomes a comical villain, your typical one-liner spouting Hollywood lovable bad guy. Granted, Hopkins does it better than most, but the menace he exuded in Silence is missing.
As for Clarice, Moore does a good job, as she does in everything she is in. However, it's the character that has changed. Sure, 10 years have passed, but that does not excuse the disloyalty Harris shows for Starling. Foster turned down the role for that very reason and it is obvious why. I cannot believe she has the record for most people killed in the line of duty. The precedence is just not there.
As for the much hyped gore-it was just another marketing tool. The exposed brain scene is played for comedic effect and a sense of terror is never felt. The fact that Lecter kills deplorable characters only lessens his own. The Lecter of Silence was a ruthless, maniacal savage, not subject to standard interpretations of morality. In Hannibal, Lecter is no longer a boogeyman, but an unorthodox, misunderstood hero.
As much as we all wanted it, this movie should not have been made. The ending of Silence was perfect, and should have left us hungry for more, forever.
The blame no doubt falls on Thomas Harris, whose novel destroyed the wonderful, somewhat magical, characters he created in Silence. That predecessor remains a cultural milestone because Lecter and Starling embody evil and good and we can feel the tension of their struggle. In Hannibal, the lines are blurred. Lecter becomes a comical villain, your typical one-liner spouting Hollywood lovable bad guy. Granted, Hopkins does it better than most, but the menace he exuded in Silence is missing.
As for Clarice, Moore does a good job, as she does in everything she is in. However, it's the character that has changed. Sure, 10 years have passed, but that does not excuse the disloyalty Harris shows for Starling. Foster turned down the role for that very reason and it is obvious why. I cannot believe she has the record for most people killed in the line of duty. The precedence is just not there.
As for the much hyped gore-it was just another marketing tool. The exposed brain scene is played for comedic effect and a sense of terror is never felt. The fact that Lecter kills deplorable characters only lessens his own. The Lecter of Silence was a ruthless, maniacal savage, not subject to standard interpretations of morality. In Hannibal, Lecter is no longer a boogeyman, but an unorthodox, misunderstood hero.
As much as we all wanted it, this movie should not have been made. The ending of Silence was perfect, and should have left us hungry for more, forever.