G
Guestx
Guest
Just got done watching Manhunter and Red Dragon back-to-back. It was my first time watching Manhunter; I had seen Red Dragon a few times before, though the last time was several years ago.
For anyone who doesn't know, both films are adaptations of the same book, Thomas Harris's Red Dragon:
It's really interesting to watch them together because, even though they essentially tell the same story, they do it in such different ways that it shows just how much these really are two very different films.
Manhunter, which was directed by Michael Mann for anyone who happens to be unaware of that fact, feels stylish in the way that Michael Mann's films often do, with an emphasis on modern architecture, a contemporary soundtrack, and characters who are too cool for school. But it also feels stripped down, simplifies the story, and almost feels like an independent film in a lot of ways.
Red Dragon, directed by Brett Ratner, feels more like a straightforward Hollywood film, but I don't really mean that in a bad way. It feels much bigger budgeted than Manhunter does, features a more prestigious cast, opts for a classical score rather than a cutting edge soundtrack, and chooses to go deeper in to nearly every aspect of the story. And while I enjoyed both films, I think it's this "going deeper" that helps to push Red Dragon above Manhunter for me, as the film does a better job of exploring Francis Dolarhyde's traumatic childhood and his relationship with Reba, and better explains Dolarhyde's idea of transformation. The Lecter character also gets much more screentime in Red Dragon than he does in Manhunter as well.
Then we have the casting for Red Dragon and, while Manhunter also features a great cast, I think that Edward Norton, Anthony Hopkins, Harvey Keitel, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Emily Watson and Ralph Fiennes is an untouchable lineup. We could argue who does a better job as Will Graham--Norton or Petersen--or a better job as Lecter--Hopkins or Cox--but I think that Fiennes really steals the show and, while Tom Noonan was sufficiently creepy, Fiennes brings Dolarhyde to life in a way that is equal parts terrifying and sympathetic, and the guy just has a ton of screen presence.
Both films are very good though, and I would recommend both. Mann of course is a bad ass and Ratner proves here that, at his best, he's not really the hack director that he's often accused of being.
But enough of my opinion. What do you guys think? Manhunter vs Red Dragon: Who wins and why?
For anyone who doesn't know, both films are adaptations of the same book, Thomas Harris's Red Dragon:
It's really interesting to watch them together because, even though they essentially tell the same story, they do it in such different ways that it shows just how much these really are two very different films.
Manhunter, which was directed by Michael Mann for anyone who happens to be unaware of that fact, feels stylish in the way that Michael Mann's films often do, with an emphasis on modern architecture, a contemporary soundtrack, and characters who are too cool for school. But it also feels stripped down, simplifies the story, and almost feels like an independent film in a lot of ways.
Red Dragon, directed by Brett Ratner, feels more like a straightforward Hollywood film, but I don't really mean that in a bad way. It feels much bigger budgeted than Manhunter does, features a more prestigious cast, opts for a classical score rather than a cutting edge soundtrack, and chooses to go deeper in to nearly every aspect of the story. And while I enjoyed both films, I think it's this "going deeper" that helps to push Red Dragon above Manhunter for me, as the film does a better job of exploring Francis Dolarhyde's traumatic childhood and his relationship with Reba, and better explains Dolarhyde's idea of transformation. The Lecter character also gets much more screentime in Red Dragon than he does in Manhunter as well.
Then we have the casting for Red Dragon and, while Manhunter also features a great cast, I think that Edward Norton, Anthony Hopkins, Harvey Keitel, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Emily Watson and Ralph Fiennes is an untouchable lineup. We could argue who does a better job as Will Graham--Norton or Petersen--or a better job as Lecter--Hopkins or Cox--but I think that Fiennes really steals the show and, while Tom Noonan was sufficiently creepy, Fiennes brings Dolarhyde to life in a way that is equal parts terrifying and sympathetic, and the guy just has a ton of screen presence.
Both films are very good though, and I would recommend both. Mann of course is a bad ass and Ratner proves here that, at his best, he's not really the hack director that he's often accused of being.
But enough of my opinion. What do you guys think? Manhunter vs Red Dragon: Who wins and why?
Last edited by a moderator:
