Avaliações de usuários

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.

I'm starting to think that I may be one of the only people who saw this film when it was originally theatrically released! Years after that, as a freshman in college, I was managing a video store when a woman came in looking for the recently released `Silence of the Lambs.' She said she knew William Petersen from childhood and told me that he was in THE first Hannibal the Cannibal movie. Having not read the novel or seen the movie for a while, I never related the two before that. But I specifically remembered `Manhunter' for its creepy killer, spectacular use of Iron Butterfly, and the strange & frightening notion (for then) of FBI profiling. These three details alone speak volumes for the film's acting, style and writing. The irony of forcing oneself to share the same maniacal thoughts as a killer in order to catch them is the stuff of nightmares. Since reconnecting with `Manhunter' back then, I've remained a constant fan of the film.

But the film suffers today in several ways. First off, any comparison to `Silence of the Lambs' is going to come up short. `Silence' is simply a better film – a classic of the highest caliber that will continue to sustain itself with the passage of time. Those already acquainted with Jonathan Demme's world will probably have a hard time accepting `Manhunter.' But audiences should judge the film on its own merits, and recognize that unlike `Red Dragon' it was not designed to resemble an established world of a classic movie – which is both a curse and an advantage for both films. I recently saw `Red Dragon,' by the way, and loved it. Walking out, I found myself asking whether I liked it better than `Manhunter.' These comparisons can get very silly because not only am I basing my impressions on a book, but also a previously filmed version and a closely related `sequel.' Best method: let each stand alone, THEN decide if either was successful. Both films succeed for similar and different reasons.

The approach of `Manhunter' is much more cold and observational than `Red Dragon.' This style (often concerned with widely symmetrical composition), like Kubrick's, can greatly benefit the story if used properly. I really liked it here. The neatness and sterility of the 80s décor also works perfectly in this format, providing a nice contrast to the horrors sometimes contained within its walls.

As for the music, it has not aged well. The synthesized stuff in the first hour is effective at times (especially when it's just a single, sustained note a la John Carpenter, or those bits that sound like `Blade Runner'), and the inclusion of In-a-Gadda-da-Vida is inspired, but the electronic balladry during Dolarhyde's romance is simply awful and detract from the scenes. Obviously, the danger of using such modern music is that it can become outdated and cheesy very quick. Is it just me, or does this especially seem true of 80s music? Given Michael Mann's career, he clearly wouldn't agree. I guess one never knows. The Tangerine Dream score for `Risky Business' or Phillip Glass' for `Thin Blue Line,' for example, still hold up remarkably well from this period.

The performances, however, are still wonderful. Petersen (whom I've heard didn't like the job he did) reaches just the right blend of seeming haunted, detached, morose, and as Dolarhyde describes him, purposeful. Dennis Farina, himself a former Chicago cop, exudes realistic authority as Jack Crawford. Tom Noonan obtains a disturbing childlike innocence and deliberation in his terror. And Brian Cox…poor guy, will always be compared to Anthony Hopkins. It's unfair because he gives us a Lecter that is different, to be sure, but intelligent in a way that, to me, is more realistic, intriguing and ultimately frightening. Hopkins' Hannibal is so supremely horrible that he's practically supernatural at this point, not unlike Dracula or the Wolfman. I enjoy all of that too, but just on a different level.

8/10

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.

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.

The thing about this film is that it contains characters, notably Hannibal Lecter, before they became household names. In "Red Dragon", Lector is a minor character (it's even spelled "Lecktor" here, and he only has about three scenes in the movie, and they are effective enough, because he's not the key character.)

Obviously, the character was expanded in "Silence of the Lambs" and its sequel "Hannibal", prequels, "Red Dragon" (based on the same source novel) and "Hannibal Rising" so people watching this film wanting more Hannibal, and wanting Anthony Hopkins to play him.

Watch this movie pretending none of those other films ever existed, and that Hopkins never played the role, and you'll enjoy the film.

William Peterson (who later went on playing a very similar character in "CSI") delivers as a profiler who gets too close to his work, just getting burned by the insanity he has to try to comprehend without being swallowed up by it. Dennis Farina (Law and Order, amongst other things) plays Jack Crawford, an FBI agent who balances his friend's sanity versus the need to stop a maniac. These are the important characters in the film, and it's about them. The remake "Red Dragon" shoe-horns Lector into the film where he doesn't need to be, really.

The scenes with the Dollarhyde character are truly uncomfortable to watch, which is the point, I guess, particularly when he seduces the blind girl and then wants to kill her in a jealous rage. It's very effective.

Okay, we have to look at it, Brian Cox as "Hannibal Lecktor", not to be confused with "Hannibal Lecter", played by Sir Anthony Hopkins and having become a pop-culture icon. Cox is very effective. His "Lecktor" is not possessed of super-human powers. He's just a very clever psychopath. He's effective for his role in the plot, compared to the way he gets portrayed in the sequels and prequels and remake.

In short, check your preconceptions at the door, and you'll enjoy this film.

Mann is a brilliant writer/director, and unfortunately he was a little to head of his time on this film.

I was a teenager when this movie was originally released, and it seriously disturbed me as a kid. Seeing a serial killer in a movie was rare enough in the mid-eighties, but to show the thoughts of a serial killer basically, putting the audience in the frame of mind was just so far from anything else at the time. So watching it was disturbing, which I think for people who missed this, they had that experience with Silence Of The Lambs. So that is the division of the reviews I see here. If you saw this when it original came out then it almost certainly left a big impact, and likely you realize how important and groundbreaking this film was. Which is exactly what reviews seem to say if they like the film. If you saw it years after first seeing Silence Of The Lambs, the impact, for many reasons, cinematography was based on a much lower budget, production levels in general were lower, and seeing it after seeing all the films that ere inspired by it, loses that sense of originality and that is going to decrease your experience of the film. But as many have said, this film, being first in many ways deserves the same level of acclaim that has gone on to Silence Of The Lambs. It had only a small box office unfortunately. I think as the studio was actually scared of pushing it at the time, it was so different than anything they had seen the time, and the subject was so dark. If they had I think it would have been hugely well received.

Overall because of budget, and having this movie as a template, Silence Of The Lambs is a superior film, but that is because the director had this movie to understand how to make a movie of this genre, and Michael Mann was basically creating it with his film. And some have said Tom Noonan was better than Anthony Hopkins, but I actually think they are equal, and i give props for Demme and Hopkins not going for the same feel as Noonan's a and Mann's portrayal, so bravo to both as they are the two most important films in the genre in my opinion.

Do i recommend seeing it now, if you haven't seen it yet, then yes, but only if you keep in mind that you are seeing a movie that has been copied many times since, if anything at all feels cliche, trust me, it was as far from it when it first came out. And so that is hard to do, but if you can do that, you likely will start to get how important a film this was.

A very serious, and conveniently photogenic, FBI man named Will Graham (William Petersen) takes a personal interest in catching a serial killer. It's an average thriller.

The first half is quite good as Graham, recovering from psychological trauma of a previous case, learns about the current killer, called the "tooth fairy"; consults with other cops; and gathers forensic evidence. He interviews Hannibal Lecktor (Brian Cox) in prison, to see if Lecktor can help him psychoanalyze the tooth fairy. There is a subtle sense of alienation about all the characters, trapped in their urban environments. Glass and windows play into this motif.

Unfortunately, the second half is terrible. It's like it was written by an amateur scriptwriter. While the first half focuses on Graham, the second half alternates between Graham and the tooth fairy, presenting a choppy, back-and-forth plot structure. Further, the killer is introduced too abruptly, and scenes generally lack effective transitions.

We never learn much about the killer's motivation. The "lunar cycle" theme is not explained, nor are we given much explanation about the "red dragon". Various geographic locations seem arbitrary. The appearance of the killer, especially when he's first introduced, is laughable. And the film's ending is preposterous and silly.

The film has a distinctive 1980s look and feel, with its fashions, slow-motion camera shots, and music track. Except for the killer, casting is acceptable. Acting ranges from acceptable to below average. Joan Allen gives a really nice performance.

If the second half had maintained the quality of the first half, this film would have been quite good. As is, "Manhunter" is an average cop movie, wherein the villain is a kind of stereotyped, and rather typical, bogeyman.

I agree with all of the reviews that I read. I, too, feel that Brian Cox was far more convincing and the whole film being color bare forces us to pay attention to the actors. The music, most of which I already heard, was so compelling that I bought the soundtrack. Of course, Will Peterson is outstanding. I couldn't wait to watch CSI when I found out he was cast as the lead. I always tell people who say they liked Red Dragon to watch Manhunter, then tell me which do they like best. Manhunter, naturally.

Manhunter is a 1980's time capsule. Filming techniques, style, lighting, score, it is unmistakably a film of its time. In both mood and visuals, it evoked Ridley Scott's 1982 Blade Runner and I wonder how much influence there was, if any.

William Peterson gives a fantastic performance as Will Graham, a former FBI profiler, trying to recover from the trauma of his last case, which put the infamous Hannibal Lecktor behind bars. We see Graham quite easily convinced to leave his family in Florida and return to the grimy and frightening world of FBI serial killer profiling, to help his desperate former boss catch a dangerous new threat.

Despite the many police procedural cliches, Michael Mann directs a thoroughly captivating serial killer film. Manhunter is filled with unsettling angles, and long, slow zoom-ins. Conversations often take place face on, in particular those between Graham and Lector creating discomfort and disorientation.

William Peterson's performance is intense and brooding. He plays Graham as deeply invested and highly disturbed; a man still struggling to put his life and his relationships back together. Combined with Mann's directing, the audience is given a dark and threatening tone.

Given the various re-imagined versions of the Hannibal Lecktor universe it's hard to imagine this film outside of that context. But Manhunter is a really impressive standalone serial killer thriller, that I think works best in isolation.

Retired FBI specialist Will Graham is lured back into action to track a serial killer who is killing families, seemingly linked into the lunar cycle. In the process it opens up some old mental wounds that were born out during his last action out in the field...

Before the gargantuan success of Silence of the Lambs, where the name Hannibal the Cannibal moved into pop culture, and before director Michael Mann became a named auteur often referenced with relish by hungry film students; there was Manhunter, Michael Mann's brilliant adaptation of Thomas Harris' equally brilliant psychological thriller, Red Dragon. It feels a bit redundant now, years later, writing about Mann's use of styles to bear out mood and psychological states, his framing devices, his commitment to his craft, but after revisiting the film on Blu-ray, I find myself once again simultaneously invigorated and unnerved by the magnificence of Manhunter. Visually, thematically and narratively it remains a clinical piece of cinema, a probing study of madness that dares to put a serial killer and the man hunting him in the same psychological body, asking us, as well as William Petersen's FBI agent Will Graham, to empathise with Tom Noonan's troubled Tooth Fairy killer. Here's a thing, too, Francis Dolarhyde (The Tooth Fairy) is a functioning member of society, he is quite frankly a man who could be working in a shop near you! This is no reclusive psychopath such as, well, Buffalo Bill, Dolarhyde is presented to us in such a way as we are given insight into this damaged mind, he is fleshed out as a person, we get to know him and his motivational problems.

Dream much, Will?

Mann and his team are not about over the top or camp performances, gore is kept to a premium, the real horror is shown in aftermath sequences, conversations and harmless photographs, but still it's a nightmarish world. Suspense is wrung out slowly by way of the characterisations. Will has to become the killer, and it's dangerous, he knows so because he has done it before, when capturing Dr. Hannibal Lecktor. Needing to pick up the scent again, to recover the mindset, Will has to go see the good doctor who has a penchant for fine wines and human offal. These scenes showcase Mann at his deadliest, a bright white cell filmed off kilter, each frame switch showing either Lecktor or Graham behind bars, they are one. When Lecktor taunts Will about them being alike, Mann understands this and visually brings it out. Dolarhyde's living abode is murky in colour tones and furnished garishly, and with mirrors, paintings and a lunar landscape, yet when Dolarhyde is accompanied by Joan Allen's blind Reba, where he feels he is finally finding acceptance, this house is seen at ease because of the characterisations. Switch to the finale and it's a walled monstrosity matching that of a killer tipped back over the edge. Brilliant stuff.

If one does what God does enough times, one will become as God is.

Lecktor, soon to be back as the source material Lecter in the film versions that follow, is actually not in the film that much. Brian Cox (chilling, calculating, frightening and intelligent) as Lecktor gets under ten minutes of screen time, but that's enough, the character's presence is felt throughout the picture in a number of ways. The Lecktor angle is very relative to film's success, but very much it's one strand of a compelling whole, I realise now that Mann has deliberately kept us wanting more of him visually. Noonan is truly scary, he lived away from the rest of the cast during filming, with Mann's joyous encouragement, the end result is one of the best and most complex serial killer characterisations ever. Lang scores high as weasel paparazzi, Allen is heart achingly effective without patronising blind people and Farina is a huge presence as Jack Crawford, Will's friend and boss who coaxes Will back into the fray knowing full well that Will's mind might not make it back with him. But it's Petersen's movie all the way. His subsequent non film career has given ammunition to his knockers that he is no great actor. Rubbish, with this and To Live and Die in L.A. he gave two of the best crime film portrayals of the 80s. He immerses himself in Will Graham, so much so he wasn't able to shake the character off long after filming had wrapped. There's a scene in a supermarket where Will is explaining to his son about his dark place, where "the ugliest thoughts in the world" live, a stunning sequence of acting and a showcase for Petersen's undoubted talents.

Newcomers to the film and Mann's work in general, could do no worse than spend the ten minutes it takes to watch the Dante Spinotti feature on the disc. Apart from saving me the time to write about Mann's visual flourishes, it gives one an idea of just how key a director and cinematographer partnership is in a film such as this. The audio is crisp, which keeps alive the perfect in tone soundtrack and eerie scoring strains of Rubini and The Reds. Some say that the music of Manhunter is dated? I say that if it sits at one with the tonal shifts and thematics of a story then that surely can never be viewed as dated. And that's the case here in Manhunter. The director's cut is included as part of the package but the transfer is appalling, and for the sake of one cut scene that happens post the Dolarhyde/Graham face off, there's really not much to the DC version anyway. The theatrical cut is perfect, brilliantly realised on Blu-ray to birth a true visual neo-noir masterpiece. 10/10

This was the first look at Hannibal Lechter, but it really didn't have the impact of "Silence Of The Lambs" and the two subsequent movies also dealing with Lechter. Those - "Hannibal" and "Red Dragon" (a re-make of this movie) - all had Anthony Hopkins as the famous criminal. Hopkins "take" on the character was so memorable, so riveting that he made it his own. In this movie, Lechter is not memorable. Few people could tell you who played him in this film. The answer: Brian Cox.

That's not to say it's a bad film. It isn't, but it's no great shakes, either. The first half is very suspenseful but the second half of the movie is disappointing. It is interesting to look back now and see a young Bill Peterson in the lead. I am used to seeing the CSI television star as a more mature "Gil Grissom."

I watched this movie back in the '80s before I knew Petersen, Cox, Hopkins and the rest.....and it was better. Sorry to say, the other films have simply eclipsed this effort.

Manhunter is the best 'serial killer' genre film I've seen to date. It covers the 'serial killer' phenomenon from all possible angles - from the killings themselves and the motives of the killer, to the manhunt and the effects it has on the agents tracking the killer. Each of these four angles could themselves be the sole premise for such a film and it's to Mann's credit that he not only manages to deal with each of these angles in a substantive manner but also skilfully weaves them together into a coherent story.

The film moves at a steady pace and, while always conveying the urgency of the characters' actions, it never feels rushed. The process of tracking the killer is shown to us in meticulous detail right down to the unspoken rivalry and/or contempt that the different branches of the law enforcement system have for each other. And it's this last point that touches on that which makes Manhunter so clever and in my opinion better than the book itself.

Everything important in Manhunter is subtly hinted at so it's left up to the audience to infer: Graham's ability to track serial killers (he's half-way there himself); relatedly, Graham's motives for choosing Lounds to lure the killer (whether he was aware of them or not); Dolarhyde's disgust/insecurity at his own physical appearance (and the root of his desire to kill). This is the true brilliance of Manhunter. Rather than force-feeding the audience, Mann recognises that the characters in this film are driven by their ability or inability to deal with their own psyches. The subject matter is therefore subjective and should never be clear-cut enough so that it can be explained in black and white.

For those who say that there was too much focus on Graham and that the book focused mainly on the tooth-fairy, I will remind you of the film's title and to recognise the differences between this title and the book's. Mann quite rightly went his own way with the film. I've always felt that there's very little artistic merit in reproducing a book in film form - that's one step up from listening to a book read out on a tape.

While on the subject of reproducing the book in film form, I'm unfortunately obliged to mention the more recent Red Dragon film. I noted that this far inferior film actually has a higher rating than Manhunter and it makes me laugh that a film so formulaic, coarse, and obvious (on all levels) should be held in higher esteem. But I suppose it stands to reason that if babies like drinking formula they want the same thing from their films.

Manhunter is not just a technical masterclass in direction and writing but also in acting. Each character is fully drawn out by the actors and they each relate to the different characters in consistently different ways. Peterson has never been better as the introspective lead investigator who innately empathises with these killers and so understands how their profound insecurities can lead to murder. The progression of his character throughout the film is believable and quite expertly conveys to us his desperate attempt to separate himself from 'his man'. Farina is, as always, brilliant and as much as I'm a fan of Scott Glenn, the former's Jack Crawford is the grittier and more hard-edged. With every glance and eye-movement, Farina brings to bear his first-hand knowledge of what it is to be a cop doing his job under time pressure.

Standing out from this excellent ensemble is of course Brian Cox as Lecktor. While there is some merit to Anthony Hopkin's unfortunately more renowned portrayal of the same character, his is undeniably a caricature of a serial killer and, therefore, not realistic at all. A serial killer must appear to be, by definition,a very normal person - that's how he manages to kill a 'series' of people as opposed to just one and then being caught! My problem with Hopkin's Lecktor is that he is quite clearly not fully there in the head and so even the rawest recruit from the FBI down to the Cub Scouts would be able to pick him out as suspect no. 1. Cox gives us something entirely different. His Lecktor is smart, charming, and beneath the surface empty, devoid of sentiment and compassion. Again, it's to Mann's, and the actor's credit that, by the time his three scenes are done with, we have an implicit feeling as to what may be driving this Lecktor as well as an uncomfortable liking for him.

Three stand-out sequences to look for: 1) the 'walk-through' of the tooth-fairy's letter through the forensic process. Not a quick, flashy cut in sight. Instead we have a patient almost soothing series of scenes that convey exactly what the different forensic specialists do better than any film before it or since (yes, they each have their own departments and there is not one indication that Jimmy Price and co. carry a gun, let alone go tracking down the killers themselves!). 2) Graham's visit with Lecktor. A dream-like sequence where the two play the best mental game of chess I can remember seeing in a film. 3) Dollarhyde encountering Reba. Michael Mann at his best shows us in three scenes how the fantasy-driven psychosis of a serial killer can be shattered to the point that the real person beneath is partially and briefly exposed.

File under 'Masterclass'.

With "Hannibal Lecktor" (Brian Cox) now safely behind bars, the traumatised profiler "Graham" (William Petersen) might be looking forward to a well earned-retirement. Thing is, the "Tooth Fairy" has other plans as he embarks on a killing spree that causes his erstwhile FBI boss "Crawford" (Dennis Farina) to seek his help. These murders are truly gruesome with entire families killed, inside their own homes, on nights with a full moon. With the next one of those due very soon, "Graham" has to enlist the help of his former tormentor - whose help is never as straightforward as he might like - to see if they can establish some patterns and preempt more slaughter. Meantime, we are introduced to "Dollarhyde" (Tom Noonan) who's about eight foot tall and maybe not the most stable of photographers we are ever going to meet. It's possible that he might succumb to the more calming influence of the lovingly blind "Reba" (Joan Allen) but with the pressures mounting you wouldn't want to bet on that. Is there a connection? As with Thomas Harris's "Red Dragon" book, the audience is aware of far more than the pursuers and that works well here as we see "Graham" try to work from a blank canvas, and with an insane convict, to track down a man who has left virtually nothing for them to go on. Petersen holds this together quite well and the cleverly cast Cox, well he always comes across as an actor who'd be quite prepared to eat the competition. I found the ending just a little rushed, but the jigsaw is well presented and the jeopardy effectively increased throughout this quite chilling adaptation. Honestly - I didn't much care for the intrusively synthesised score - just a little too much "Miami Vice" for me - but this is a solid and at times quite gripping story of imbalance and mania that I did quite enjoy.

Fans of the popular TV show Miami Vice will already be well familiar with this pastiche of pastel and neon fused, slow burn stylized action made famous by director Michael Mann. It feels like this movie was made in the same sets as that other offering, but ups the ante when retired FBI profiler Will Graham steps back into the saddle to catch a mysterious killer subbed the Tooth Fairy. What could be first rate dramatic acting is overshadowed by the aforementioned exercise in stylistic excess, with a pumping MTV rock score. That said, the visuals crafted by cameraman Dante Spinetti are always interesting and the characters well drawn enough to maintain the drama. It's not exactly a great film, but does enough right to appeal to fans of 1980s cinema, abs definitely worth watching for fans of crime drama and the Hannibal series.

I can only surmise that the detractors of this film are under 25, the new generation of cinema-goers who need all the ultra-violence and gore to make a film "complete". This is quite simply, one of the best films of all time. Tom Noonan is amazing and absolutely masterful in his portrayal of Dollarhyde, and even comes across as sensual, when he is obviously deriving sexual satisfaction watching Reba fondle the sleeping tiger. One of the sexiest scenes ever, by the way. This is what I think people who don't "get" this film are missing, the little nuances, such as his look of sexual ecstasy watching Reba with the tiger, you can see he is imagining himself in the tigers position, being the recipient of loving caresses. And his awkwardness when Reba finally makes love to him, its all these things that you actually have to engage your brain to understand, thats where people just don't understand this film. The music is incredible, especially Shriekbacks "This Big Hush", where Dollarhyde is in bed with Reba, is just inspired. William Petersen was born to play Will Graham, the tormented retired forensic cop, brought out of retirement by the Tooth Fairy's slayings of whole families. Brian Cox's portrayal of LECKTOR is superb, playing the "straight man" to Hopkins "over the top" campness. I cant understand why Cox didn't play the proper Lecktor role in the subsequent films. But thats what people don't get-its not about Lecktor. Its not about Red Dragon. It is BASED on the novel Red Dragon, which is why it doesn't follow the book ad verbatim. Don't watch this as a prequel or sequel, watch it on its own merit as one of the best films ever made.

The Visual!!! It is too powerful in Manhunter, my first encounter with acclaimed director Michael Mann. Colors, film-noir aesthetic, shot compositions and camera movements, they all are not only stunning to look at but also creat such a staggering mood and moved me beyond any word can describe. My tension, excitement were at their highest the whole time beacuse of how great the storytelling was and I haven't felt like that in a while with movies

I don't think I can continue this review without mentioning it's predecessor The Silence of the Lambs because I kept comparing Brian Cox's Lecktor to Anthony Hopkins's Lecter, William Petersen's Will Graham to Jodie Foster's Clarice Starling, Tom Noonan's Francis Dollarhyde to Buffalo Bill throughout the movie. They are really different from one another, it just that the whole plot structure and characters between the two are kind of similar that I can't help but do it. All the performances here are really fantastic with Noonan in the seat of antagonist standout.

While not unsettling as TSL, Manhunter is a great crime thriller movie and a unique film in it's own ways. The two are on a par with one another.

Unfamiliar with this film as I was, I found it fascinating to see an earlier incarnation of Hannibal Lecter, played reasonably well here by Brian Cox, even if he had a little less to do than Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs. This is another film where the character provides expert psychological opinions to an FBI agent trying to track down a fellow serial killer, this one the so-called Tooth Fairy (Tom Noonan). The police procedural aspects, with the forensic work ala CSI and the FBI agent trying to get in the mind of the killer, made for a satisfying thriller. Noonan is creepy and menacing in his scenes with victims, which was impressive given how restrained Michael Mann was in showing violence. Less successful was the acting from William Peterson as the lead FBI agent (guilty of occasional overacting) and that of Kim Greist as his wife (guilty of having little acting talent whatsoever). The scenes between the two of them were complete filler, full of cliches and badly performed. The heavy 80's synth score also left a lot to be desired, but Iron Butterfly's In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida was a nice rocker for the final scene. Overall, it's got some rough edges, but it's worth checking out.

P.s. I also smiled seeing Chris Elliott of the Late Show with David Letterman fame, however briefly.

Quote: "God's terrific. He dropped a church roof on 34 of his worshippers last Wednesday night in Texas as they were groveling through a hymn to His Majesty. Don't you think that felt good?"

This film is shot -- quite deliberately I'm sure -- as a surrealist nightmare.

This film is often compared with "Silence of the Lambs", but it is not a good comparison. "Manhunter" is more focused on the FBI specialist who's trying to hunt down a psychopath it's less theatrical than "Silence" but just as visceral. You might think the plot is exactly the same... and, it is in a sense (substitute the main FBI agent, Will, for Clarise, for instance), but the direction and focus is very different. I found this far more unpleasant and real. Both are excellent movies, but this captures psychopathy more accurately.

The scenes with Hannibal Lecter are clearly designed to be unpleasant, as are many other scenes. You can see Michael Mann's obsession with white throughout the film -- it's unsettling, in the way that an insane asylum would be.

A brilliant film. But not a fun watch.

This one comes out in the 80's when Hannibal Lektor was unknown to the world. The movie seems boring in beginning but it stand to its ground soon after. Michael Mann has made it stylish in his own way with reference to the screenplay and the background score as well as music. The environment is always gripping to the theme. William has done a good job as Graham and is efficient in depicting the characteristics of the character. The role of Hannibal is very less and its not able to create the impact upto the mark. Its nice but not great. The character of Dollarhyde is rather more promising. On whole the movie is not great but its good and worth watch. The thrills are adequate as per the time it was released. Go for it if you like crime thrillers.

I'm big fan of this movie. At the time of its release it didn't have a lot of star power, so it's impressive that it succeeds in spite of that. All of the actors were perfectly cast.

There's a lot of realism in this film. It doesn't try to tell a story with expensive actors and special effects. It brings you in with a great storyline, engrossing score and brilliant use of colors and visuals.

This movie holds up very well and is an all time classic.

Atmospheric and cool cinematography with vibes in abundance, it is once again a Michael mann movie.

70 years and 80s fashion colliding in all kinds of clothing , neon lights glimping on the Wet streets all of the colors on the walls and backgrounds and so white rooms that ite eyeIdamaging it is so atmospheric and nice to watch, it's it's the atmosphere with the first shot ,people on the beach just beautifulley made.

I really enjoy how much detail they put into the Mechanics of being at detective looking for magnifying glass looking at the smallest fat DNA and just all the imaginative ways they do it all of the cameras and technical stuff have some clicks as some real detail to the it is really good to look at.

All of the characters smoking and having Vibe to them. It is just so nice which is good because I think the characters are fine, but the villain is bad got the serial killer is so bad. It's I think it's acting like he has autism. I don't know it was just a part of the times to do that.

I think the villain and his relationship is kind of weak and I would have nothing against them just dropping it and focusing on the main character going into the murders mind to figure out. What is going on.

I enjoyed my time with the movie even if the plot is good, but it's not what I'm returning to because of that it is mostly for the cinematography and the vibes.

For the life of me I cannot comprehend what people see in this movie and why anyone sane could think it was better than Silence of the Lambs!! I first saw this in 1986 and I hated it. After Silence and Hannibal, they put this on DVD and I actually bought the 2 disc set (its now on eBay). I still hate it. The movie is slow, boring, and drawn out. The dialogue is cheesy and the acting is terrible, just terrible. William Petersen couldn't be more melodramatic and overacting if he tried. Brian Cox is unimpressive as Hannibal Lecter (Lecktor? as they call him in this one). Joan Allen, usually always perfect in her roles is unimpressive and insignificant character-wise. In all, this tripe plays like a bad made-for-TV film meets Miami Vice. But then again, Michael Mann directed Miami Vice, so there you go. The ABSOLUTE worst thing is the awful music score and the GODAWFUL songs!!The score does not fit the tone of the film, using InAGaddaDaVida to torture Joan Allen tortures the viewer more and that Heartbeat song at the end by Red7 is puke-inducing. As for the DVD release...BAD editing, the dialog misses the mouths of the actor worse than in Godzilla movies, the grainy picture quality is worse than VHS,etc, etc. There is no salvaging this in any form. I love films of every genre and movies are my life and I've seen thousands of films in my 31 years and this was and still is one of the worst pieces of cinematic garbage I have ever wasted 2 hours on (4 since I've seen it twice). Yecch.

This will no doubt elicit howls of outrage, but I have always thought that Mr. Cox's portrayal of Hannibal Lector to be far superior to that of Mr Hopkins'. Mr Cox portrays Lector as someone coldly intellectual, almost reptilian and inhuman, while Mr Hopkins gives a performance that always brings to mind that of Ernest Thesiger as Dr. Pretorius in Bride of Frankenstein". Mind you, I really enjoy Ernest Thesiger as Dr. Pretorius; I'm just saying that the charming, witty and OH! so urbane serial killer has been done to death, and had been even when "Silence Of The Lambs" came out. Rent this video if you want to see how it's supposed to be done.