Discussion in 'Misc. Films' started by Carmine Falcone, Oct 31, 2005.
...how can you even call that garbage...the dude bares a striking resemblence to Hopkins.
They need to stop making movies about Hannibal Lector, Silence of the Lambs was great, Hannibal was total garbage, didn't see the remake of Red Dragon though.
Gaspard Ulliel from A Very Long Engagement ! Didn't see that one coming !
Damn, I thought this thread was about the great band Fine Young Cannabals
I've said it before and I'll say it again...
Let the character die.
Harris is *****ifiying his character. The only way the Doctor should appear on the screen again is in a movie about Will Graham catching that killer in Minnesota.
I think this could be good because I always wanted to see his back story.
This looks to go the route of American Psycho 2.
*scoops up barf and drinks it to get bad taste left by Young Hannibal out of mouth*
Silence of the Lambs was the best!!Hannible was terrible!!...red Dragon was good but couldve been better....um Young Hannible looks scary(and not in a good way)
What movie is this btw?
Really, I enjoyed Manhunter more than Red Dragon. The acting on a whole wasn't as good, but the story was truer to the book.
I wholeheartedly agree, Matt. The Lecter character gets worse with every outing and Hopkins has taken him to cartoonish levels (Ridley Scott didn't help matters much, either), but Harris is the one I blame most of all. He's taken the impact out of the character and this latest stunt of a "Young Hannibal" doesn't help one bit.
Theyve made another one!? ...I had no clue was it a straight to video?
Me, too. I found Manhunter to be much creepier overall than Red Dragon. Fiennes did a good job as the Tooth Fairy, but I just felt that he was miscast. He wasn't as physically imposing as the character is described as in the book, and he wasn't nearly as creepy as he should have been. The guy who portrayed the character in Manhunter was a big guy, but he wasn't muscular like the Tooth Fairy is described by Harris in the book, but he was absolutely creepy as all hell. All in all, I felt neither movie really captured the essence of the book, but Manhunter came closer.
He really reminded me of the latter-day Freddy Frueger in the Hannibal movie.
I might get strung up for saying this too, but I kinda liked the Will Graham character from Manhunter better as well. I felt Norton was too....subdued I guess. I felt this obsession in Manhunter, but Norton just kinda seemed like he was there. Probably my least favorite Norton role I've ever seen.
Nope, I felt the exact same way. William Petersen was outstanding as Graham in Manhunter. He really reflected how tortured he was by his "gift" of being able to think exactly like these monsters in order to capture them and the toll it took on him. The subtleties and little nuances of things that he did as that character really brought Graham to life and made his pain in being able to do what he did yet be unable to do anything but fixate on it really palpable. Norton, on the other hand, totally phoned the role in. He's one of my favorite actors working today, but I thought he was so bland and ineffectual in that film.
I think story-wise Red dragon was the best but I agree the book was so much better than the film
but Ive never heard of manhunter yet.
Yeah, completely cartoonish. Of course, the combination of a cartoonish story from Harris (flesh eating pigs? Come on!), over the top stylization and direction from Scott and and Hopkins going Grade B Horror Monster didn't help matters. Hopkins kept up the over-the-top approach to the character in "Red Dragon" too, which felt oddly out of place since the rest of the movie was somewhat more subdued.
So what we get to see him eating people? *sigh* a backstory on hannibal, im bored just typing this out man....
I really don't. I don't want to see cheesey motives, that justify what Lecter did. It just takes away from the character.
no he doesnt..at all.
Exactly. Part of what made Lecter so interesting was that we really knew nothing about him.
I think the offhand references to what a monster Hannibal Lector really was, and the third-party recounts of his horrific acts rather than seeing them first hand are what make the character's mystique so powerful. Having him run around, covered in blood in "Hannibal" ruined all that. In "Silence Of The Lambs", the little bit of what we got to see of Hannibal in action actually killing was subdued and minimalistic like it was just a natural part of and extension of who he was. It also showed off his intellectual capacity in the way he escaped from the holding cell they had him in. It was effective and built the intrigue and mystique about what makes him so dangerous even more. In "Hannibal" he was more like a vicious dog when he killed and a romantic figure with Starling than the cool, calculating, efficient killer that he was portrayed as in the first book. Harris ruined him and Scott made it worse.