IMDb > Manhunter (1986) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Manhunter
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Manhunter More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 43:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 426 reviews in total 

191 out of 253 people found the following review useful:

Pretty Good!

Author: tony-clifton from Edmonton, Canada
21 April 2003

I have a problem with a lot of people's review of "Manhunter". Every single bad review that criticizes Cox or Noonan invariably mentions the movie "Red Dragon" in the same breath. How about being a little objective?

On its own as the original Hannibal Lecter movie, Manhunter is a good movie. Cox plays Lecter convincingly, and you can read from other reviewers who praised his work shows that with a little objectivity we can see an alternative representation of Lecter. It is true, as one other reviewer says, Hopkins acts Lecter, Cox *IS* Lecter. Cox never seems to be acting, he really plays the part with mystery and ambiguity not like the distinctly maniacal Lecter that Hopkins portrays.

Cox plays a true psychopath - one devoid of feelings, and yet a consummate actor. Some of the world's best actors are in fact psychopaths. A psychopath is not necessarily a killer - a psychopath is simply someone who does not feel for other human beings, which is often why the psychopath killers of this world were in fact convincing actors - for example Geoffrey Dahmer and Charles Manson.

So when we analyze the profiles of true psychopathic serial killers, we can quite clearly see that Cox plays the better Lecter than Hopkins. We can see Cox is devoid of compassion, and yet acts like a normal person. Hopkins on the other hand, never passes the creepy stage - he is too creepy and doesn't have the "acting" ability of a true psychopath to mask that image from the public eye. Cox shows that he could blend into normality without being caught.

And therein lies the problem with the negative reviews. We read countless negative reviews of this movie bemoaning the fact that Cox is not as creepy as Hopkins - but my dears, that is exactly why Cox plays the better Lecter!

Was the above review useful to you?

163 out of 214 people found the following review useful:

Blasphemous opinion

Author: kevin-186 from Iowa
1 December 2002

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

111 out of 125 people found the following review useful:

A positive review!

Author: Kris Didymus from London, England
15 October 2001

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

86 out of 104 people found the following review useful:

What? No Tattoos?!

8/10
Author: billymac72 from Chicago, IL
14 October 2002

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

Was the above review useful to you?

88 out of 120 people found the following review useful:

are you all crazy?

10/10
Author: judithlaib2000 from United Kingdom
25 April 2006

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

45 out of 51 people found the following review useful:

Basically the most underrated thriller of all time.

8/10
Author: Jusgure from United States
21 June 2005

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

41 out of 50 people found the following review useful:

Imperfect but absorbing

Author: kryloman from New York
11 May 2000

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I've read 'Red Dragon' many, many times, and it is one of my favorite novels ever...and, as is, is virtually unfilmable. The centerpiece of the book is a long, detailed flashback detailing the motives (and practically the entire life) of the killer; it's the kind of thing you can get away with in print, but in a movie it'd stop the story dead. And so, alas, it's completely absent here. Too much background material is jettisoned in the translation and too much time is spent on Will Graham, the policeman in pursuit, for this to come close to the brilliant novel it's based on, but it's honestly about as good a movie as could have been made from this material.

The best thing about this is the acting: William Petersen is occasionally a little wooden as Graham (and no one, really, could stand there and talk to himself in lines that were silent thoughts in the book) but appropriately haggard and obsessed. Kim Griest, one of the best near-forgotten actresses of the eighties, captures the character of Graham's wife perfectly, and Tom Noonan is fascinating and frightening in equal measures as the Red Dragon (no mean feat, when we never really find out why he's doing what he's doing). Joan Allen does a good turn as a blind woman he falls in love with, in a relationship so obviously doomed that it causes suspense just by existing. Dennis Farina is his usual solid self as Petersen's superior. Altogether, the cast does its best to convey characterizations with the minimum of information the film actually has, and do very well.

The film itself is about as stylish and eighties-era as you'd expect from Michael Mann, and in the 'Miami Vice' style leans on using songs (rather than a score) for some big moments, but while it's dated it's not gratuitous, and everything fits pretty well. It's a bit low-budget, but at times this makes it harsher and more frightening than it might have been; now that this has been remade as a more expensive, slicker production, it's easier to see that sometimes less is more. Don't look for nearly as compelling or rich a story as in the novel, but if pure atmosphere does it for you, this will do it for you.

Was the above review useful to you?

36 out of 45 people found the following review useful:

Suspenseful and fun

Author: justmjw from Covington, KY USA
26 November 2002

As I watched Manhunter the first time I kept thinking something about it seemed familiar. From the credits I discovered it was from Red Dragon by Thomas Harris, a book I had read.

William Peterson plays the enigmatic FBI agent Will Graham, who has left the job after almost being killed by Hannibal Lechter, but who is now coaxed back to help catch a killer who is murdering whole families in different locations in the United States.

I enjoyed Brian Cox as Lechter. He displays the "normal" quality of Lechter which allowed him to go undetected for so long before being arrested and receiving the moniker, "Hannibal the Cannibal". Perhaps because I saw Manhunter before Silence of the Lambs, I prefer Cox to Anthony Hopkins in the role.

The Freddy Lounds character is the stereotypical reporter you love to hate. He's in Graham's face and as obnoxious as they come. You almost root for something bad to happen to him.

Tom Noonan is delightful as the quiet Francis Dolarhyde. He's the loner that no one notices. I pitied him, then I feared him.

I recommend this film for those who enjoy suspense with a bit of a horror twist. It's not a horror film, but some of the elements are there. There is also a good soundtrack.

Was the above review useful to you?

46 out of 68 people found the following review useful:

Scarier than "Lambs" ...

9/10
Author: ericjg623 from Twin Cities
19 November 2001

This movie is basically the prequel to "Silence of the Lambs". It received nowhere near as much attention, nor any Academy Awards, but nonetheless, as a purely scary movie, it is the better of the two. Hannibal Lecter isn't as memorable, nor as well acted, but he's more real, more frightening. Unlike in SOTL, he is a direct threat to the principal good guy, in that he nearly killed FBI agent Will Graham and drove him to near madness. Graham is the man responsible for capturing Lecter, but to do so, he had to get further inside Lecter's head than is safe for sane humans, and throughout the film we fear that he, in pursuit of a new serial killer, is in grave danger of losing his sanity in the process.

To add to the terror, Lecter is playing his mind games, while supposedly helping Graham, he is also secretly in cahoots with the killer, known only as the "tooth fairy". Aside from dealing with the physical and psychological dangers presented by Lecter, Graham must also try to reconstruct the mindset of the killer, and this provides the real drama of this film. He is a man on the edge, he's been through psychological hell thanks to Lecter and wants nothing more than to live in peace with his wife and son, but when his old boss Jack Crawford enlists his help, showing him photos of the murdered families, he cannot refuse. And throughout the entire film we are drawn into his struggle, the battle between his unique genius for seeing into the minds of psychotic serial killers versus his desire to maintain his sanity, protect his family, and simply lead a normal life. As such, Graham is a far more compelling character than was Jodie Foster's Agent Starling. Although this movie has its flaws (chiefly, a "Miami Vice" like reliance on its music soundtrack) it is a genuinely frightening psychological thriller that is definitely more scary than its more famous and critically acclaimed successor.

Was the above review useful to you?

33 out of 48 people found the following review useful:

Hannibal unglamorized

Author: davidmccollum
30 November 2002

This film reminds me of a deglamorized verison of the Hannibal films. IMO it has a more realistic view to it. Instead of the likable and friendly Ed Norton, we have the moody and intense William Petersen playing Will Graham. Brian Cox's Hannibal is just as clever as Anthony Hopkins' but not as charismatic. Thus, that makes him more realistic, instead of superhuman, like the character later becomes. Instead of a spooky dark basement prison as in Slience or Hannibal, we have an austure white cell. Ralph Fiennes' Dolarhyde is quiet to the point of being a mute and almost semi retarded almost. I can't see how the girl would be attacted to him (even if she is blind). Tom Noonhan's Dolarhyde is more amible and friendly. He actually speaks in a friendly voice, at times even being a normal person. Even the ending is more realistic. Instead of having a supspense full thilling end, it ends rather anti-climaticly...but thus is life.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 43:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history