A lot of people feel that Brian Cox was a better Hannibal "Lektor" than Hopkins....
But is that actually true?
No. I like Cox as an actor, but as Lecter is written in the book, I prefer Hopkins.
And what of the film itself?
It really is a solid film. As a fan of the novel, I'm upset that there's quite a bit that gets cut, but the main story is there, and it really works. Very well shot, the acting is great, and that scene with In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida? Genius!
This or Red Dragon for you?
That's a difficult question. RED DRAGON is a much better looking film, better paced, and keeps more of the novel in, although it only hints at Dolarhyde's back story. But that's more than MANHUNTER does. Fiennes is so much better as Dolarhyde, and again, I prefer Hopkins. I actually prefer Petersen to Norton as Will Graham, and Farina makes a better Crawford than Keitel (I would have rather seen Glenn come back for the role, but such is life). Both films are quite enjoyable, but if I had to pick one, I would go RED DRAGON, only because the story is more intact.
