Directed by:
Michael MannScreenplay:
Michael MannCinematography:
Dante SpinottiComposer:
Michel RubiniCast:
William Petersen, Kim Greist, Joan Allen, Brian Cox, Dennis Farina, Tom Noonan, Stephen Lang, Frankie Faison, Garcelle Beauvais, David Allen Brooks (more)VOD (3)
Plots(1)
Witness the birth of evil. This eerie, very intense (New York) thriller from writer-director Michael Mann (Heat, The Insider) first introduced the world to the cunning, unforgettable serial killer named Hannibal. Joan Allen and Stephen Lang co-star in this dark locomotive ofa film (Los Angeles Times) that promises to keep viewers riveted (Time)!Former FBI profiler Will Graham (William Petersen, CSI ) reluctantly returns to his old job to track a horrific serial killer known as the 'tooth Fairy. But in order to get into the mind of this maniac, Graham must face another: Hannibal, the imprisoned psychiatrist whose own insanity almost cost Graham his life and whose insights into the Tooth Fairy could prove as dangerous as the killer himself. (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Reviews (4)
An atmospheric thriller already with Mann’s signature clearly evident. It shines through a lot, mainly at the end. Peterson isn’t bad at all and Brian Cox is just great. His Hannibal Lector manages to attract all attention to himself in minimal space. He is a more than talented rival to Hopkins, even though not a word about “food" is said. And, as usual with Mann, the music is first class.
()
One book, two almost identical adaptations and lengths, but such different experiences. Mann’s version has William Petersen, Joan Allen and a much (but really much) better filmed scene with the tiger on its side. But it’s only a “Mann classic" in the scenes with silent panoramas of the rainy, nighttime city and at moments when the action is embellished with just the right songs. But it’s all slowed down by scenes that drag on unnecessarily, when they should have finished on the cutting room floor, and also zero suspense. Ratner’s version on the other hand has Hollywood parameters. So slightly (but not much) better tempo, attractive production design, sort of signs of suspense, the intro scene and the excellent casting of absolutely all roles apart from those mentioned above. So both movies made it into the “good movie" bracket, but not an inch higher. P.S.: Review copied intentionally.
()
The entire series of films based on Harris's books about serial killers suffers from comparisons with The Silence of the Lambs, which set the bar too high and showed what a proper atmospheric thriller should be. Manhunter partially escaped this because it was the first film in the series and therefore not burdened by fan expectations. Out of the five films in total, I rank it second to last after Hannibal Rising, which falls into the category of stupid films, whereas Manhunter falls into the category of bloodless films without atmosphere, which are mediocre in every respect. However, this film also loses out to Ratner's later version, not only because of the presence or absence of Hopkins in the role of the legendary Dr. Lecter. Manhunter has overall weaker villains because their insanity is more obvious. Red Dragon had truly top-notch actors who gave their characters ambiguity, especially Ralph Fiennes who excelled in the lead role in the remake. Manhunter is marked by the quasi-aesthetics of the 80s, and it is characteristic that the investigator's partner was played by a model and not an A-list actress. the film drags on and has overall routine direction. Overall impression: 45%.
()
The first adaptation of Thomas Harris's book, and I have to say, I feel it's a better adaptation than later ones, where attention was again focused on the captivating Anthony Hopkins. This time, Michael Mann didn't emphasize Lecter as much, although he and his psychological intrigues are still present. Brian Cox in this role isn't bad, but he's not Anthony Hopkins. The character of the Red Dragon himself, portrayed by Tom Noonan, is much more interesting. He's the right kind of lunatic that you can despise. The police work is depicted fairly well here, but the film itself doesn't completely dazzle; instead, it pleasantly evokes the period and a certain nostalgia.
()