|
Coming in late, but after much deliberation I chose Manhunter because of course I did. It wasn't quite as easy as some of you put it just because there are indeed some things that Red Dragon does better. Most of them involving Fiennes, which is ironic considering how much I like Tom Noonan's performance. (A while back Rue Morgue interviewed him as part of a retrospective on Monster Squad, and he started getting very defensive and vaguely threatening when they suggested he was best known for playing monsters. He insisted his characters were not, but rather tragic characters) But at the same time, scenes mentioned earlier like the eating of the painting, or the manifesto scene (do you see?!) are so chilling. And for some reason I keep seeing the tiger scene as it plays out in Red Dragon as how it does in Manhunter, because my brain is stupid. I do think the more rustic, New England style for the Chilton Center works better, just in my opinion. It is true however that most of the cast are poorly chosen. Emily Watson for instance, does not do a very good job of playing blind. At the same time, when it comes to casting and things like that, I end up being spoiled by the fact that I have for the most part a third set in the tv series. Like with Hannibal himself, I think Mikkelson and Cox are pretty close, but getting to see the former out and about and acting like a psychologist (and a good one by my measure) as well as doing all he can to play with the people he thinks is below him edges the tv version just a touch. Cox's version chills to the bone and feels like a pure evil sociopath in the casual way he does things like get Graham's address for someone else to kill him. Hopkins' portrayal is more like some sort of well, action movie villain, with his aire of sophistication crossed with his open antagonism towards everyone makes him harder to take seriously. It's funny that in the TV series Eddie Izzard plays a character that believes he is the killer that Hannibal really is, and he plays himself like a parody of Hopkins portrayal, sometimes even quoting him, and sometimes having trouble with his American accent just like him. He's a copycat of the movie portrayal. In the same vein I have trouble choosing between Peterson and Dancy as Graham. They're like two different animals in their portrayals, both excellent. Jack Crawford on the other hand, as much as I like Dennis Farina, Lawrence Fishburn brings an anger to the role that the others are all missing, where everyone under him is afraid when they hear him raise his voice, you don't get that with the other three interpretations. But you know what? I think I like Phillip Seymore Hoffman best as Freddie Lounds. He just seems sleazier and more of a spineless worm than the other two versions. Oh, and one more thing, the thing about it being cheap for NBC to produce? That statement was mostly wrong. See the show is made independently, and NBC has a deal to air it. It was the last show to be announced of any for television for the 2014 season, because it had not that great ratings, but then again it was NBC on a Thursday. However, the show's high class style draws in high class viewers, which draw in high class advertisers, which are concerned less about ratings and more about spendings. On top of that, the show's quality was undeniable, and it was said that there were no less than three other companies with interest in the show (Including Amazon, who snagged the streaming rights) and if NBC had bailed on Hannibal, a bidding war would start the moment they were out the door.
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 16:33 |
|
|
Choco1980 posted:Coming in late, but after much deliberation I chose Manhunter because of course I did. It wasn't quite as easy as some of you put it just because there are indeed some things that Red Dragon does better. Most of them involving Fiennes, which is ironic considering how much I like Tom Noonan's performance. (A while back Rue Morgue interviewed him as part of a retrospective on Monster Squad, and he started getting very defensive and vaguely threatening when they suggested he was best known for playing monsters. He insisted his characters were not, but rather tragic characters) But at the same time, scenes mentioned earlier like the eating of the painting, or the manifesto scene (do you see?!) are so chilling. And for some reason I keep seeing the tiger scene as it plays out in Red Dragon as how it does in Manhunter, because my brain is stupid. I do think the more rustic, New England style for the Chilton Center works better, just in my opinion. I'll admit that Fiennes' "ant in the afterbirth" scene is probably the better of the two, but the tiger scene, really? The scene out of Manhunter manages to be sensual without being too obvious about it. You can tell that Dollarhyde is experiencing something different than Reba in that scene. When Watson's Reba honks the tiger's dick in Red Dragon, I was  at how hamfisted it was. It's like Ratner was going "just in case you don't get it, the tiger is about sex".
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Just learned this today, but Manhunter and Red Dragon were both shot by the same cinematographer, Dante Spinotti, which is interesting when a big part of this discussion is about how different the photography of each movie is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
This thread made me watch all the movies. Hannibal Rising is still total drek, but man, Hannibal (2001) is REEEAAAALLLL good. I somehow never saw it until now. Manhunter/Silence/Hannibal go great together. You see a smooth spectrum from hyper-procedural ur-CSI Manhunter to the borderline surreal theatricality of Hannibal. Like compare the handwriting sequence midway through Manhunter to the somelier scene in Hannibal at about the same point. Plus that scene at the end of Hannibal, that really was a flawless mix of practical and CG. It's also another adaptation of this stuff that, like Manhunter, and Silence of the Lambs, I feel is superior to the book it's based on. This thread also got me to finally start watching the tv series which is total ownage. Fans of Manhunter especially will love it. You can tell that the creators have a really firm grasp of what worked in each of those first three films. It's also much better shot than the typical crime series. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
I think the Hannibal movie is great and it's worth listening to Ridley's commentary. "To the people asking why the Italians speak English, gently caress off!" And when you think about it the budget was really small. Anthony Hopkins was making 10-15 million, Julianne Moore 4 million, and the script writers David Mamet and Steve Zailian must have taken a few million. It was really only a $30 million movie after the salaries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
I love that this guy: is the same as this guy: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
That picture reminded me, if you haven't watched "To Live and Die in LA" go watch it right the gently caress now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Bung Harmer posted:That picture reminded me, if you haven't watched "To Live and Die in LA" go watch it right the gently caress now. Weird I felt like I'd rather be watching a good movie while viewing Avatar too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
The movie as a whole was lame, but any scene with Colonel Badass, Hero of the Universe was well worth watching.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
I don't have the director's commentary, so I don't know if it was addressed in there, but is there a reason why the climax of the film (the In a Gadda da Vida scene) was shot so weirdly compared to the rest of the film? By which I mean slow-motion shots, double takes, bizarre jumps and so on and so forth. I mean I assume it was intended, but it's just really, really odd.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Chucat posted:I don't have the director's commentary, so I don't know if it was addressed in there, but is there a reason why the climax of the film (the In a Gadda da Vida scene) was shot so weirdly compared to the rest of the film? By which I mean slow-motion shots, double takes, bizarre jumps and so on and so forth. I mean I assume it was intended, but it's just really, really odd. It's typical of how Mann would film people getting shot at the time. You can see the same shift in Thief, in both movies the shooting is less about the shooting and more about the shooter's outlook changing in some way. You can see shades of this in Miami Vice and even subtly towards the end of Last of the Mohicans. With Manhunter though, the making of mentions how this scene specifically was edited and re-shot to the point where Noonan and Peterson were like falling asleep and getting stuck in the pile of fake blood/spilled condiments because Mann was so meticulous about it. It works though, William Peterson jumping through that window right as the organ part ends will always be like the coolest thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
While I don't love Red Dragon, I have to say I enjoyed it more than Manhunter. I saw them both around five years ago and barely remember any part of Manhunter while a few scenes of Red Dragon have stuck with me. None of the actors in Manhunter do it for me. William Petersen is blah. Tom Noonan is not scary at all to me and not really sympathetic either. He is one of the reasons I disliked House of the Devil. He just seems like a dorky middle school shop teacher. Possibly a non-violent pedophile. I never got Brian Cox. Whenever I see him in a movie it seems like he is never really acting but just running through his lines in an exasperated way like he wants to get this poo poo over with. Every line he says seems to be punctuated with a huff or a sigh. The only exception I can think of is Supertroopers where it looked like he was having a blast. Troy was just ridiculous. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1IfNoxhcfs I know I am going to be raked over the coals for these opinions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
While I usually love Brian Cox, I have to agree with you that he was pretty ridiculous in Troy. Nobody was doing their best work there though, aside from maybe Eric Bana who is consistent as hell in everything he's in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Oh yeah Troy has some legendarily bad content in it. I think I liked Brian Cox more in Manhunt than I did in any recent thing he's been in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xCzc-C9kP8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A086l8Ibe2Q
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Deadwood was after Manhunt, his V.O. in the Killzone games is better besides.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Deadwood was after Manhunt, his V.O. in the Killzone games is better besides. This is the part where I admit that I never saw Deadwood, sorry folks.  Most of the Killzone VA is a joke though come on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:This is the part where I admit that I never saw Deadwood, sorry folks. Surely you jest. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LVWS3aCaGQ Running around with propaganda speakers listening to Cox as Space Hitler was a highlight of the multiplayer. The real problem here is not having seen Deadwood.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Running around with propaganda speakers listening to Cox as Space Hitler was a highlight of the multiplayer. The real problem here is not having seen Deadwood. I never played Killzone 2 either. Just the original which I disliked, tried KZ3 and 4 for a bit. Maybe he's just amazing in KZ2 because he didn't leave much of an impact to me in 1 and 3.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:I never played Killzone 2 either. I apologize for getting on this. The reason that Cox's Lecktor sighs is because he plays up the "doctor" aspect of the character, an emotionally flat, permanently exasperated man who has to suffer buffoons all day. His conversation on the phone later with the secretary is a good tip to how much he enjoys manipulating people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
It's true, note how much more focused and passionate Cox's Lecktor is during his phone conversation with Graham towards the end of the film. After Graham cuts off everyone else out of his life for a bit Lecktor really gets into it and it's where that awesome "God is a champ" dialogue comes out. He's got his feet up, is very relaxed and happy to discuss something he loves. He's playing up how smart he is in the first conversation, refers to everyone else who visits him as charlatans from cornfield university or something, I love it. It's a great scene too because one of the first things Lecktor says is to Graham is to not attempt to make appeals to his intellectual vanity. He wavers a bit while delivering this line, which is great because I think at that point Lecktor has already decided he's going to help Graham because he HAS TO KNOW what's going on and HAS TO BE SMART. That insanity (along with eating people of course) is his disadvantage. It's great because while Graham loses control and has to suddenly leave, he's in charge of the conversation for most of the scene.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
I think it's in the director's commentary or a DVD extra that Cox explains that what he has learned about evil people is that evil is not having "something extra" inside you (like the presence of an evil force), but rather it is the absence of something normal people have -- it's like having a hole in your soul. So he played Lecktor just like he was a normal guy except that he lacked something vital. Hence the nonchalance, feet up, banality-of-evil thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
It's in lock step with Mann's mania for research.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:It's true, note how much more focused and passionate Cox's Lecktor is during his phone conversation with Graham towards the end of the film. After Graham cuts off everyone else out of his life for a bit Lecktor really gets into it and it's where that awesome "God is a champ" dialogue comes out. He's got his feet up, is very relaxed and happy to discuss something he loves. This scene is a really interesting one to compare between the two versions. Peterson's Graham appears to me to get the better of Lecter much more clearly than Norton's, and that's probably due to Cox's more subtle performance. When Graham tells Lecter that he's insane, and that's why he was caught, you can see Cox seething whereas Hopkins kinda just takes it on the chin. It really is the ultimate insult for Lecter, Graham is saying that he didn't do anything special, Lecter caught himself basically.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Exactly. Lecktor is incredibly intelligent and dangerous but he isn't a Cluemaster.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Holy poo poo Hannibal is an incredible show. Anyone who likes Manhunter needs to watch it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
I'm not a huge fan of Hugh Dancy or Laurence Fishburne and "THIS IS MY DESIGN" makes me giggle every time, but the cinematography's wonderful, and so is Mads Mikkelsen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
Keanu Grieves posted:I'm not a huge fan of Hugh Dancy or Laurence Fishburne and "THIS IS MY DESIGN" makes me giggle every time, but the cinematography's wonderful, and so is Mads Mikkelsen. I think it's given Fishburne is best work in years. It's a largely melancholy performance. He's always reliable as an actor but he really nails some scenes in this (The stuff in Season 1 about his Wife for example). As for Dancy, it takes a while to vibe with his character, but it makes more sense when it's considered that he has Aspergers. Add that to his other issues anyway and I think the performance works. But then I think Season 2 has seen a change in that and seeing him act more confident has given a new side to the character.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 11:56
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:I think it's given Fishburne is best work in years. It's a largely melancholy performance. He's always reliable as an actor but he really nails some scenes in this (The stuff in Season 1 about his Wife for example).
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
I might check back in on it once they get to the Red Dragon material but what I saw of the Hannibal TV show was pretty bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:I might check back in on it once they get to the Red Dragon material but what I saw of the Hannibal TV show was pretty bad. Hannibal may be the best show on TV right now. /one of the biggest TV snobs on the forum
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
Darko posted:Hannibal may be the best show on TV right now. I mean I don't watch much TV and I very much believe that there's much worse stuff out there than Hannibal, but the four hours I gave to it were very unrewarding. I kinda liked the music (composed by the guy from Redd Kross, weirdly enough) and the cinematography was fairly pretty when they weren't doing that godawful "Graham visualizes the murder scene" poo poo but that's all I can really grant it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Hannibal is also one of my top contenders for best show airing. Keep watching. It should have grabbed you by those four episodes* so I can't promise it will have some grand plot moment that does catch you, but hopefully something inside you will just click where the show just... works and your consciousness merges with the show to become one (okay no guarantees on that either, but its good). Its just a beautiful show that fully embraces the visual medium unlike any other show before it, and uses that imagery as the primary (but not sole) driver of emotion, conflict, and truth. Somehow it manages to have this (so often loathed) murderer-of-week format for the first season yet succeeded by tossing notions of verisimilitude out the window and embracing this constant dreamscape. Paradoxically, this dream of ours creeps forward with beatiful horrors--murders each more implausible, elegant, and captivating than the ones before it--yet the show grounds us into accepting this hyperreality through its absurd attention to detail in all areas... more broad to narrow... the mannerisms of a killer confused into accepting the personality of another, the reflection of a light on a freshly blooded knife, the smell of cancer on a man's breath. These 'truths' we likely do not even know as true make it more real than anything. There are many other reasons to watch this show far less pretentious sounding than everything I wrote that also contribute to my love for the show, but that is what I consider the soul behind it and reason for its devoted following, whether viewers are conscious of it or not. Unlike most other shows designed primarily to be consumed, Hannibal is like a wine, meant to be experienced. Plus, I think I understand and share a lot of your tastes based on the horror megathread, so I suspect your really would dig it if you kept going. *if it was specifically episode 4 (the one with molly shannon) where you ruled the show out do not be disappointed... that was the episode Bryan Fuller--not the network--pulled from originally airing (using a flimsy excuse of general violence by children depicted after sandy hook) most likely because it did not fit his design for the show based on its exclusion from the DVD screeners for critics sent out months before leaving it out in favor of the fifth episode.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
I liked Manhunter MUCH more than Red Dragon. I really really wanted to love Red Dragon when it came out in theaters, I love everyone in the cast and I love the Thomas Harris story and character universe. By all rights, just due to the cast, Red Dragon should be the better film but I felt it was not. I guess it's a personal taste thing, but I thought Noonan's scene with the captive Lounds was far more effective and very scary. Even though I really enjoyed Hopkins in SOTL, I much preferred Cox's version in Manhunter to Hopkins' "chewing the scenery and mailing it in for the check" version in Red Dragon. I agree there are some cheesy elements in Manhunter, the 80's Simply Red soundtrack doesn't age that well and the climactic Iron Butterfly sequence seems a bit off to me, but I thought Manhunter was overall much more effective.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
EvilTobaccoExec posted:*if it was specifically episode 4 (the one with molly shannon) where you ruled the show out do not be disappointed... that was the episode Bryan Fuller--not the network--pulled from originally airing (using a flimsy excuse of general violence by children depicted after sandy hook) most likely because it did not fit his design for the show based on its exclusion from the DVD screeners for critics sent out months before leaving it out in favor of the fifth episode. Nah I just thought basically all of it was corny, dull and stupid. If there was any specific show-breaking moment, it came at the very first scene of the very first episode with that whole crime-scene-mental-replay poo poo. And then they proceeded to repeat that crap in every episode. To bring it back to the thread topic, look at how much better Manhunter pulled that material off without having to resort to wobbly CSI-style gimmickry. Hell, even Red Dragon did it better. And it doesn't help that Hugh Dancy is just awful. Even Mads couldn't save it for me, possibly because I watched The Hunt around the same time and got a reminder of what it looks like when he really knocks it out of the park with some interesting material. Show's just not for me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
It took me a few episodes to click into Hannibal's wavelength - I'd say about six episodes or so. The show has such a different feel from Manhunter or Silence, it takes a while for it to really establish what its own vibe is. For the first part of the season Will Graham's mental issues feel really overplayed, particularly when compared to something like Manhunter - and it feels like a mistake. But as the season progresses it becomes more and more clear how Hannibal as a show is going for a completely different tone & style, and once you settle into that Will's portrayal makes a lot more sense. I actually agree that Fishburne's performance in season one was a little mishandled. They're trying to play with the angry police chief archetype, and they kind of force him into that role too clumsily. He'd yell at the crew and it would feel false. It wasn't a consistent thing, but it would pop up now and then throughout the season.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Nah I just thought basically all of it was corny, dull and stupid. It seems that way for everyone because they're comparing it to Manhunter, etc. But then, as it continues, you get a feel for the exact rhythm the show is going for, which is a bit different from any of the other portrayals. Its the "closest" to Hannibal in overall operatic tone, but even still, a completely different type of approach. I was just "ok" on the show until the end run of the first season, but then it picked up in steam (and the style clicked on all gears) and it has just been getting better since. It kind of reminds me of Spartacus in that manner. Thinking it was a silly TOO-over the top 300 ripoff in the pilot, comparing it to the film all of the time to the negative, giving it a small chance out of boredom, the series picks up in the second half of the first season (really the 4th episode) and then got better since (as I settled into the overall style of the show, which was quite a bit different from what would be expected). Fishburne is excellent in season 2. In season 1, the only chance he had to shine were in scenes with his wife, really, in which he was excellent (probably due to real life chemistry).
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
EvilTobaccoExec posted:Somehow it manages to have this (so often loathed) murderer-of-week format for the first season yet succeeded by tossing notions of verisimilitude out the window and embracing this constant dreamscape. I also think they kind of botched Hannibal taking Abigail under his wing after she killed the one victim's brother. That whole situation felt incredibly unconvincing and plot-convenient. Still good enough to forgive the missteps, though I guess I sort of wish it were closer to my expectations going into it, which is more on me than the show itself. I suppose for thread relevance, Manhunter > Red Dragon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:I liked Manhunter MUCH more than Red Dragon. I really really wanted to love Red Dragon when it came out in theaters, I love everyone in the cast and I love the Thomas Harris story and character universe. By all rights, just due to the cast, Red Dragon should be the better film but I felt it was not. I was the same way with wanting to love Red Dragon. I was pretty much underwhelmed and bored by it when I first saw it at the movie theater. It has such a great cast, though, and source material, and there had already been an awesome movie made out of it years ago that didn't have a fraction of the star power, so I thought that maybe I just wasn't in a good mood to be at a movie theater the day I watched it. I figured I'd give it a second chance and rented it when it was first released on video and it was just as dull and bad at home as it was in the theater.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
EvilTobaccoExec posted:*if it was specifically episode 4 (the one with molly shannon) where you ruled the show out do not be disappointed... that was the episode Bryan Fuller--not the network--pulled from originally airing (using a flimsy excuse of general violence by children depicted after sandy hook) most likely because it did not fit his design for the show based on its exclusion from the DVD screeners for critics sent out months before leaving it out in favor of the fifth episode.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 16:33 |
|
|
I've watched every episode of Hannibal, but I'm still unsure why I'm compelled to do so. Mads is really good, Dancy acts like Hopkins which is kind of cool. The problem is that the show is ridiculous. Now I'm not talking about the fantastical elements like a killer who uses bodies to grow mushrooms, or a killer who puts a woman in a horse, and then a bird inside the woman that flies out during her autopsy . I can suspend my belief for all that stuff, but I can't believe in a world where a guy deals with his attempted murder by composing a new piece on his harpsichord. Or dialogue like "I find trout to be a very Nietzchean fish", or "As a doctor I believe in the right to die, but as a philosopher I could not allow it". Now, many of my problems with the show can be traced back to the source material. Thomas Harris' novels aren't exactly up for winning any Really Good Book awards. Fuller isn't interested in following the source material to a Tea, but for whatever reason he does follow some insanely dumb things. In the book, the character of Mason Verger is a child molester who collects the tears of his victims and puts them in martinis. In the TV show, Mason Verger rapes his sister and collects her tears for his martini. In my own opinion, this is some really stupid poo poo. I also dislike the idea of the super genius killer who is supposed to be scary because they take in fine art. Going to the opera is a red flag that someone is hosed up. But yeah, the show looks really good. The sound design is often great, but lately it has been pretty poor. Last week had what I would suspect to be an Oboe. This week it sounded like someone dropped a drum kit down the stairs. It'd have to be a very long stair case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 00:07
|
|
