The Hannibal Lecter Series

I would have to go with Silence of the Lambs.

I agree Red Dragon did not need to be made whatsoever, but they did a decent job with it. Manhunter is fine, except the heavy synth score does get on my nerves in certain scenes. Sometimes it seems so loud that it just pulls you out of the action.

Hannibal was abysmal. Nothing more to add.

Behind the Mask could be good, if done properly. But seriously, change the name. That title is about as lame as the VH1 specials that it lifted the name from.

MANHUNTER. Cox's Lecktor is scarier and more real, Petersen's performance is haunting and intense, and Noonan and Allen's scenes are exceptionally creepy.

HANNIBAL is a fine giallo/comedy. I adore it, and think it's very underrated.

SILENCE is a fine movie, but I feel Hopkins performance is a bit too pantomime villain for me, although Foster and Glenn are excellent, and it has an amazing score.

MANHUNTER: A sharp thriller, I know a lot of folks find it dated now but I like seeing Mann's MIAMI VICE vibe shine through. Cox was good but wasn't given much to do. Noonan, Joan Allen, Dennis Farina, and Stephen Lang all give great supporting performances. I still laugh when Chris Elliot shows up at one of the FBI briefings.

SILENCE OF THE LAMBS: Easily the best. Hopkins and Foster deserve all of their praise but why not a trophy for Ted Levine? Scarier than Lecter by a long shot. "Oh, wait, was she a great big fat woman?"

HANNIBAL: No point in being as serious as LAMBS. Make Lecter the hero and keep the audience laughing. It worked for me. Ray Liotta and Gary Oldman are a dream combo of evil. That dinner table scene is still one of the most "half funny/half horrifying" scenes I've witnessed at a movie.

RED DRAGON: It just goes to show you, lose Chris Tucker and maybe you can make a decent film. Norton is not as good as Petersen but he did fine. I'll take Fiennes by a hair over Noonan. I liked the bigger Lecter role for Hopkins because, much like Arnold and the Terminator, you can really see the joy the actor has in revisiting their landmark character. I also appreciated the bridge to SILENCE at the end.

I'm not sure about a young Lecter film. It seems a bit forced. Is it going to be based on a book? Or is it just being written for the screen?

Silence, easily. I still can't sit through Manhunter -- it's like an 80s cop show come to life, with a terribly cliché villain. Without having read the book, I can say that Red Dragon told the story better, though the bridge to SOTL was painfully forced. Might as well have had Chilton walk up with a census worker and offer Lecter a bottle of Chianti. Hannibal is underrated, I think, though the loss of Jodie Foster is still painfully evident.

Thanks gumble, I guess I'll wait to hear more about the people involved before passing more judgement on the idea. Seems like a cash in but so did HANNIBAL and RED DRAGON and I enjoyed both of those.

I still think Tim Roth would make a terrific younger Hannibal.

Silence was a classic.

Red Dragon had a far better story, the film was decent. I'm a sucker for Norton.

Manhunter was more of a detective film and more Graham's story.

Hannibal was okay.

I just wanted to point out that Thomas Harris is supposed to be writing a novel to go along with the movie. Also, the original title was going to be The Lecter Variations. Much better, since it was a reference to The Goldberg Variations, which is one of Lecter's favorite music pieces. In fact, it's the music playing when he kills the guards in Silence of the Lambs.

Of those four... Manhunter, easily. I wouldn't consider it a Lecter film, though (despite the character's inclusion).

I have to go with Manhunter, it was a tough choice because Silence of the Lambs has been a favorite of mine for a good long while but there is just something about the characters and Michael Mann's style that makes Manhunter stick with me more.

Hannibal and Red Dragon were both kind of mediocre, I don't have high expectations for the prequel.

Nothing turns me on more than a scared Jodie Foster...mmmmm....

I'm in a minority here, but I like Red Dragon quite a bit more than its predecessor. Just a solid movie all around, and I think it's gonna age a lot better than Manhunter has. Manhunter was fine in and of itself, though.

My order:
Silence of the Lambs
Red Dragon
Manhunter
Hannibal (I think we can mostly agree on this one's placement in the Lecter saga.)

Just 'cause I feel like sharing, I found the Criterion Silence DVD for 12 bucks at a game store today. Thanks, God!

I absolutely hated Manhunter when I first saw it, but over the years is has grown on me and became my favorite of the series.

Even though I wish they would redo the soundtrack...

Everytime I watch Manhunter, I always have this feeling that William Shatner's going to show up as TJ Hooker and save the day.

Then he looks into the camera and exclaims, "Well, where are my bitches?"

I would rank them as so...

1) MANHUNTER - Still the most compelling serial killer (Tom Noonan as Francis Dollarhyde) of the bunch.
2) SILENCE OF THE LAMBS - Gave the genre an infusion of class and elegance. Fantastic performances.
3) HANNIBAL - A fascinating/frustrating departure, hobbled by the absence of Jodie Foster. Some delicious gore.

To me, RED DRAGON does not exist. I wasn't opposed to a remake of the first film with Hopkins back as Lecter. But with the disasterous casting of Edward Norton as Graham and Brett Ratner as "director", it was doomed to fail. And fail it did.

Gotta go with Lambs.

I really like them all, but I'll buck the trend and say I prefer "Hannibal". Its a sequel that wisely just goes complete against what people wanted, and I have to respect that, especially when they do it so well. Lack of chemistry between Moore and Hopkins?? Well, duh.

That's most of the point, this Frankenstein monster approach to Hannibal, making him the hero that audiences secretly sort of saw him as, and then pushing him to be as grotesque and gory as people could or couldn't take. Hans Zimmer has a fantastic score, Ridley Scott is at his stylish best, and I thik Hopkins is much better this time around for all the reasons mainstream audiences didn't.

He's Hannibal on the loose, not a caged animal, not wild-eyed and desperate. He's the sophisticated psychopath. And I think there is some great diaogue he's given at the opera, and especially when he pins down Moore in the kitchen.

Talking slyly about Clarice and he in regards to the opera:
"Could he, daily feel a stab of hunger for her, and find nourishment in the very sight of her? I think so. But could she see through the bars of his plight, and love him in return...?

And in the kitchen:
"Would you ever say to me, 'stop. If you love me, you'll stop'?"
-"Not in a million years."
"Not in a million years? That's my girl."

Hannibal loves Clarice for her virtues, for all the reasons she will never be with a man like him. He's a great character made greater in this film, and with extremely entertaining supporting turns by Oldman and Liotta, I think its a verygood film too often written off as "boring". The other films are, in the end, cop thrillers. This is the only one with the stones to really delve into Hannibal and make that the focus.

I absolutely love The Silence of the Lambs. Hannibal is also a solid and interesting sequel. Manhunter is pretty good, but not the near classic that a lot to make it out to be. I suspect that has more to do with it being a Michael Mann film than with the film's own merits. As for Red Dragon? I like it the less than Silence and Hannibal, but probably more than Manhunter. Sorry people. I think Red Dragon is a wrongfully maligned film, mostly because of the fact that it is directed by Brett Ratner. Sure Ratner has made some crap, but Red Dragon is his best by a long shot and is a good film. I don't care what anyone says.

Also, I have almost zero interest in "Hannibal: Behind The Mask". It seems to be no more than just a money grab by the studio and Harris, and it will take quite a bit to convince me otherwise. The title is horrible too; it sounds like a TV documentary or a DVD featurette. They should go back to calling it "The Lecter Variations".

Silence of the Lambs is my favorite of the 4, but I'll go with those who think Hannibal is underrated. It's a breath of fresh air, a sly "fuck you" from Harris to the people that were rooting for Hanibal in Lambs. Ridley is in on the joke, and revels in the macabre humor of it all. In the book, much of the story is about taste (taste in art, food etc), an aspect that is there only as subtext in the film.

Also, Red Dragon is the best of the books. The difference between a great filmmaker (Mann) and a completely mediocre one (Ratner) shows in their respective adaptation. I'll agree that Manhunter has dated somewhat, it's still a much better film than Red Dragon.

Then why participate in a message forum?

The more I think about it, the more I like HANNIBAL and the more I hate RED DRAGON, and not just because of Ratner. I think the casting, for the most part, is atrocious. And it's amazing to see both MANHUNTER and RED DRAGON shot by the same cinematographer (Dante Spinotti), and yet how the original is so much more striking and bold (whether it's dated or not) and how the remake is so incredibly lifeless and bland -- and not in a cold, post-mortem Jonathan Demme-kind-of-way either. RED DRAGON is absolute crap.

My positive feelings for SILENCE and MANHUNTER remain unchanged.

Manhunter. Closest to the book, which is Harris's best.

Man, I can't believe, thinking back, what a letdown Hannibal the book was. We waited years for it. I have no interest in the 4th Lecter book.

Funny because give or take a few scenes, Red Dragon was closest to the book.

In terms of plot Red Dragon may be marginally closer, but in terms of character, Petersen's Graham is the only one who nails Graham's character. No happy sail into the sunset for him.

Lambs by a mile. Manhunter just has too much fat. The other two don't even qualify for consideration.

I think a lot of people like Cox's Hannibal more simply due to the size of his role. It's easier to be a realistically creepy guy when you only have ten minutes of screentime. Hopkins had to carry his movie and he succeeded. He had to be more than sinister and scary. He also had to be likable. Cox's Hannibal required only some creepy banter with a guy whose opinion of him doesn't change (unlike Clarice's) and to charm a stranger on the phone.
It's an unfair comparison.

I definitely do agree that Petersen nailed the character of Graham better than Norton.

Hannibal is one of my favourite movies. I love the balance between high culture, lurid gore and camp comedy.
Julianne Moore is my most beloved of all actresses so I prefer her Clarice to Fosters, even though I love Silence of the Lambs.
I'm the same as Thompson when it comes to Manhunter- i hated it when i first saw it but subsequent viewings have converted me.
Red Dragon isn't worthy of discussion.

I go with Buffalo Bill. It's a close call but he was just disturbing, and pretty funny.

Behind the Mask is going to be based on the Harris book, which I think was developed in tandem with the movie. Book comes out end of the year.

Mason Verger takes the cake for me. Magnificently horrifying makeup job, and Oldman gives him just the perfect grotesque, twisted sense of humor. They've all been varying degrees of over-the-top, and I respect the way they just made Verger even worse. Him being this maimed, horridly disfigured table scraps of Hannibal is just a pretty chilling concept.