I love how this is the most realistic portrayal of Lecter. He feels like a real life psychopath. I still adore Hopkins's supervillain and Mikkelsen's "Satan on earth," but this one just feels like a real serial killer. Like a Bundy or a Dahmer.
It doesn't have the subtly of Hopkins' performance, but even Hopkins was never as good as he was in The Silence Of The Lambs. That performance was the apex. If Red Dragon had a better director, then I think it could've been a masterpiece. The overall material and cast is what made it good, but a director like Jonathan Demme could've brought more out of the material like he did with The Silence Of The Lambs. Hannibal and Hannibal Rising were just cash grabs that should've never been written
*Hisses at a woman through plexy glass with subtlety as he talks about eating people Yeah, Hopkins really nailed the subtlety. More like goofy edgelord with the cliche cheesy Kubrick inspired malicious expression. Cox's Hannibal feels more like an Ed Kemper. A fella you could sit down and have dinner with and not expect him to bludgeon you to death.
The best novel in the World and I have decided to marathon read both “the Red Dragon”, and “the Silence of the Lambs. I have only read them once years ago while back. “Hannibal” is an amazing novel as well but nowhere near as phenomenal as the first 2 imo. 🀄️
I love how the three main actors who've played Hannibal each bring their own interpretation to the character, and they're all so good I can't decide which one is my favorite.
@@giorgig4828 if you consider that many (most?) serial killers are able to kill so many, because they gain people's trust, then B-Cox was acting properly here
One little thing I always loved about this scene is the way Lecter perks up and pays close attention when Will mentions reading his article. It shows how Lecter's inner narcissism comes out when someone brings up his work, how eager he is to hear what someone else thinks of him and how, in isolation, he craves recognition and positive reinforcement. It's a small little thing that demonstrates how the psychopath inside Lecter is always there, lurking just below the surface. While Anthony Hopkins' portrayal is terrifying in its own right, I've always loved the more nuanced, relaxed approach that Brian Cox took with the character, making him seem less like a man-shaped serpent and more like a genuine psychopath who's constantly having to adjust and readjust his act to appear normal.
Cox honestly deserves more credit. Hopkins was definitely born for the role but Cox brings an understated, more realistic tone to the character. Certainly not an easy portrayal but both actors certainly add to it immensely.
Hopkins is the popular choice, but Cox is amazing and deserves a lot more credit for this. Ulliel was interesting but a bit bland, and Mikkelsen adds an elegance and sexuality to the role.
@@ShadowSonic2 Peterson did it the best of anyone. In Manhunter there's a feeling that Will Graham really could go off the deep end and turn into that which he hunts, just as in the original book. Graham in the show just seems mildly neurotic and OCD, whereas Norton in Red Dragon is just bland and ineffectual-seeming af. Peterson is the only time Will Graham has been done right.
@@zufgh I think sone said it best: Norton was too bland, the TV version came off as someone who was ALREADY crazy but Peterson got it right. These Hannibal movies apparently mess up their actors for real. The guy who played Crawford on Silence of the Lambs broke down crying while studying for the role and Petersen had a breakdown doing Manhunter.
After watching this a cazillion times, I notice the first line "that's the same atrocious aftershave you wore in court..." . The sense of smell a true hunter's first tool followed by immediate psychological attack. He is chilling.
Also: "You haven't threatened to take my books away yet". Will doesn't even bother to deny that was the next move.... Cox and this location are by far the most realistic, amd my personal favorite. But Hopkins is the most fun to watch.
You wouldn’t have many experiences in prison, locked up in this way, and time is measured in experiences, in a way, as anyone who has been hospitalised or unemployed will understand. For Lecter not much time has passed.
I must have seen this film a dozen times, and only noticed now how he enters the room like he's entering the cage of a dangerous wild animal in captivity.
Cox is the one you meet without even realising the presence of the monster, until, just out of a sudden, he attacks you and beats or knifes you to death.
@Jock McSporran I'm really terribly sorry about that man, I hope you're doing okay despite that sort of adversity. I guess the difference is that Lecter here has no reason to hide, but you can still see ghosts of his charming facade
I've always felt that Anthony Hopkins as Lecter was a very Dracula-like character who revels in his own villainy. Cox's Lecktor just seems....eccentric. We all know eccentric people in our lives, who just seem a little off, but otherwise can be somewhat charming and personable. That's why he's scary. There's a monster behind that face.
@Jock McSporran I have noticed I have the same ability being an empath. I can feel the intent of another person even with barely having gotten to know them.
Hopkins' Lector does what he does because because he gets off on it. Cox's Lecktor does what he does...because he's BORED. This is what makes Cox's take infinitely more terrifying.
Then, to round it out, why Mikkelsen's Hannibal does what he does is almost a mystery, which frightens me quite a bit as well. Like, he does it so he can eat people. He does it to those he finds discourteous, he does it because he can get away with it, but Mads Hannibal isn't particularly Machiavellian like Hopkins Hannibal is, and he's not as straightforwardly disturbed like Cox's Lecktor. There is something deep inside each of these portrayals that makes them so riveting.
@@drewhammond5203 I've always thought that Mikkelsen's Hannibal does it for one overarching reason: Because he *CAN.* Which you're right is probably the scariest reason of all.
@Cameron Monaghan No doubt. Brian Cox speaks quite openly regarding the tole Hannibal Lector took on him! That in itself has got to pique your interest in what could have been.
I love how Manhunter has the feel of law enforcement being focused on the agents perspective rather than Hannibal Lecter’s. It’s the best of the entire series.
I figure I'll leave my two cents here. The reason why I prefer this version of Hannibal to any other is because of how close to normal Brian Cox plays it. Anthony Hopkins' Lector is so clearly deranged in every moment there's no way that anyone would feel comfortable enough to let him in. Cox on the other hand has such a calm demeanor that it's almost hard to see the atrocities the character has committed. There's a hint of animalistic "evil" but it's only at the periphery. Something's wrong but it's not something that one can easily put their finger on. You *know* he's furious and that he hates Will, but you don't *see* it. It's terrifying how he draws the audience in never letting on that he's ready to kill at any moment.
Very eloquently put; especially his evil existing at the periphery. He doesn't resonate with it quite the way that Hopkins does but rather imperceptibly chills the room until you find yourself unconsciously rubbing your arms.
Cox has the demeanor of an apex predator, such as a Siberian tiger, in the way he announces his awareness of Graham simply by remembering his aftershave from a court proceedings three years before. Then when he turns and sits up, starring at Will does the real terror set in. Tigers, like most predators, can look very fixedly at their prey for a long time before beginning the fatal rush attack. Tigers are also known to maintain serious grudges against those who’ve injured or attacked them. There are records of Amur tigers requiring the efforts of hundreds of soldiers to kill them, and only after they have completely destroyed the cabins of the original hunter who may have wounded them. In India, both tigers and leopards have wracked up death tolls of hundreds before finally being killed by a massive hunting party . Hannibal is like one of these predators ; Graham is definitely not smarter than him: he just had him at a disadvantage- he is insane. ( Great line ! )
@@molly0000000s hopkins is incredibly charismatic and almost "absorbable" for the viewer. he's playing a psycho, but one can absolutely tell that he's having fun with the role, while laughing on the inside. there is something jokeresque about it - and this is ok I suppose. it is entertaining. cox on the other hand, is unsettling and chilling to the bone. you can feel the sadistic and malicious vibe that he's giving off and you just want to get the hell out of there. his disgust, disdain and hatred for the human race are literally boiling underneath his placid and intellectual demeanor, yet he remains so inhuman and cold. I'll always vote for this lecter.
This sequence alone is visually so well designed. It's like Michael Mann being David Fincher-esque perfectionnist even before David Fincher made movies.
Fincher & Chris Nolan were both heavily influenced by Mann. The Dark Knight is Nolan's version of Manhunter & Heat. Fincher's Zodiac owes a ton to Manhunter, down to casting Brian as Melvin Belli
Manhunter seems more in the style of Stanley Kubrick to me, especially the visuals - lots of clean white with occasional lurid colours. Kubrick was also famously a perfectionist, to asburd levels. Sadly it may have had an effect on Shelley Duvalls mental health.
@@DoubleMonoLR The Shelley Duvall's trauma thing has been dismantled. Yes, Kubrick was a perfectionist primadonna pain to work with, but her mental issues had nothing to do with the film and he didn't ABUSE her or something, I think she stated that herself at some point.
If you watch carefully this scene, you can not miss the asbolute tension between both men. The line between reason and insanity is almost constantly about to get crossed by the two characters. Both opponents know each other inside out and play with one another, setting multiple traps. Both are extremely clever and articulated, but in the end, as Will put it, Lector lost it because he was... mad! Also, look at the blending of binary colors: the killer is dressed in overall whites, while the "good guy" wears dark clothes. And the gentle, ethereal soundtrack seems totally off from the brutal psychological violence that both men swim in. All these things tend to blur the line between good and evil. This is pure perfection!
I've sometimes wondered if the all-white cell was designed to make you flash back to the blood-spattered, all-white bedroom in the Leeds house. The first several times I watched this, I found that I was getting inexplicably tense when the camera was panning across Lecter's cell...then it hit me.
Love how this performance is so different, but not inferior. It's a completely different take, and it works just as well, only as a more grounded character.
When I was younger, I used to feel really bad for Brian Cox. Not only was he replaced as Hannibal Lecter in the sequel, but his replacement is the one everyone thinks of when they think of that character. To top it off, they remake his movie using his replacement. Then I found out that Brian Cox was offered the part in Silence of the Lambs, but he turned it down because he thought the movie was going to flop. LOL
@@JayRiemenschneider Jeremy Irons and Sean Connery. Irons turned it down because it felt too much like the role that won him HIS Oscar, and Connery turned it down because he has a history of turning down great roles.
"Dream much, Will?" That line really gave (and still gives) me the chills. I always liked this movie better than any of the Hopkins or other versions. Maybe it's because I saw this movie first, but I feel that Cox was note-perfect as Lecktor and Petersen was similarly good as Graham. Hopkins' portrayal was too over-the-top for my taste. Surprised and pleased to see some others feel the same way.
Personally I saw Manhunter well after The silence of the lambs, and I definitely preferred Manhunter. There was no specific reason for me, just a combination of things.
I think Cox vs. Hopkins is kind of apples and oranges. Both are great performances, but with different tones (and certainly under the influence of different directorial styles). Bottom line for me: I'm grateful we have both of them.
Saw Silence of the Lambs first but Manhunter before Red Dragon. Silence is probably the best due to how artistically creative it is. But it's what let Red Dragon down, that film needed Lector too much it makes Graham seem like an incompetent detective
Hopkins' performance in Silence of the Lambs was an acting masterclass. Granted he didn't bring the same intensity to Hannibal or Red Dragon, but those films had lots of issues. As good as Cox is here he can't touch that performance.
TLADILA is just a great cop movie. Peterson, Dafoe, Pankow and Tuturro PLUS on of the best car chases ever. And Wang Chung's soundtrack was PERFECT for the movie.
This version of Lecter scares me way more due to that one scene in the grocery store. that's where Graham is telling his kid how due to his hyper empathy he tried to play out Lecter's thoughts in his own mind and that they were some of the most 'ugliest' thoughts ever.
Brian's Lecter is truly the former Psychiatrist. You can tell he is constantly scheming and formulating things in his head with little effort. He can read people so easily with his level of expertise and delight's in watching people squirm for his opinion.
As much as I love Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs, Brian Cox absolutely blew me away!! If he was asked to reprise his role in Silence of the Lambs, his performance still would have worked! He's a fast-talking bully with a morbid sense of humor and weird facial expressions that represent that of an actual psychopathic serial killer, like Ted Bundy. Speaking of facial expressions, here's my favorite difference: Hopkins's Lecter stare captivates you and you can't look away. You find yourself intrigued by his charm and soft-spoken words. Cox's Lecter stare is absolutely terrifying! As soon as he stares you down, you don't want to be anywhere near him. When he asks Will Graham if he's ever seen blood in the moonlight, that is the scariest Lecter stare EVER!! It's hard for me to choose one over the other, as they are both very great!
This film is unique. In this scene the score is perfectly used, it brings up the idea of the fragile the mind can be, and how Dr. Lecktor plays with that, taking Graham to the places he wants to take him, installing the fear and the shame in his mind. Plus the color palette used, the shadow of Graham when we see Dr. Lecktor, provides much more darkness to the scene, plus the dialogue wich is great too. Michael Mann is definitely the man.
This variation of Will and Hannibal feels more like Holmes and Moriarty. These two are both sides of the same coin, but Will always keeps a distinct line between them. They speak in verbal chess. Will is almost as insane as Hannibal but his family keeps him grounded in reality. The fine line between the hero and the villain with the former always at risk of following down to their nemesis’ level. Cox and Peterson really work well off of one another and the framing suggests that the two of them are locked in eternal combat with each other in the same cage. This scene works beautifully.
I like how he judges Will's hands from accross the cell. Denzel Washington does a simiar bit in one of the Equalizer franchise. This is one of my favorite movies growing up. My older boys may be old enough to see it now.
Cox nailed it without the « scary eyes » mimicks of Hopkins. Just a super-intelligent madman who wants to get inside your head. Rapid responses, just amazing wits.Bravo Coxie.
I love how this movie portrays Will Graham as a man of near supernatural power, as if that's what it would take to actually capture Lecter (LeCkToR whatever) because the Doctor would outmatch any opponent in terms of intellect.
I like Brian Cox's Lecktor. He's not a snake eyed, slavering monster like Anthony Hopkin's good Dr., he's disarmingly genial. If THIS Dr Lecktor was your tutor on campus, you'd think he was a gas. You'd trust him. And that's what makes him scary. Like all the best horror, it's what you don't see that counts.
@@fionnbarrcasey5247 respectfully disagree. It's not about "as good as", it's about personal preference. I watch Manhunter at least once a year, partly because of Brian Cox's turn as Lecktor, but also because of the awesome soundtrack, and the brilliant cinematography. You prefer Hopkins. Fair play, you have your reasons. I haven't watched Silence of the Lambs for over ten years. Doesn't mean it's a bad film. Just means it's not one of my favourites. One might as well say "Queen aren't as good as Elton John". Who on earth could quantify merit between the two? What you like, you like. In an age where thousands are being wiped out by coronavirus, I'm not about to butt heads with a total stranger, because they prefer one excellent actor over another.
@@bigvalvader4341 Agree with you 100%. Hopkins seemed to try a little too hard to creep out whomever he was face to face with whereas Cox didn't seem to give a rat's ass. He knew they knew he was a monster, he didn't have to act like one to amuse them or amuse himself which is what Hopkins seemed to be doing with his Lector.
Michael Mann did an excellent job directing this scene. One great aspect is the quick pacing of Will and Lecter’s back-and-forth. This obviously isn’t the first time they’ve conversed in this cell, so there’s no time wasted on either trying to figure each other out. They already know each other, so Lecter goes right into twisting Will’s vulnerable mind, and Will knows he can’t really compete (hence why he breaks down so quickly when Lecter says the two of them are just alike). Another great touch is how in each shot of the men, the prison bars are always present. Lecter is locked in the literal prison, Will in the prison of his mind. Lecter may not be able to get out of his cell, but he can still do terrible things as though he were free. Will, however, is trapped in his fragile state of mind even though he’s “free”. A wonderful example of psychological storytelling!
“2nd raters the lot”….it’s interesting to see Lecter perk up talking to Will and to hear him say he’s glad to see him. He knows the gift Will has and it comes naturally to him, a gift that puts him on the same level with Lecter who he himself is a product of circumstances and education….with a touch of narcissist sociopath…..is like a splinter in the mind to Lecter. These characters are so brilliantly written it makes one wonder if it’s artistic ability on the writers behalf or is it rooted much deeper in the writer himself, the writers own thoughts, wants, needs slumbering so close beneath the surface….how I’d love to get them on my couch.
Me too! I'll always love Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs, but I think that if Cox reprised his role in that movie, it still would have worked!!
Hopkins made a villain fit for a horror film. Cox made a villain fit for the real world. Cunning, frank, honest, educated, probing, brilliant; the sort of person you'd open up to about how you think your father never loved you. In other words, Hopkins played a villain to entice generations of audiences. And Cox played a serial killer. To the letter. Both succeeded in their purpose; Hopkins is tense and creepy every second he's on screen, in an obvious film... but one of the two genuinely scares me, and it's not the one with a fixation on lambs.
Cox has got a twinkle in his eye, a sense of humour, and that makes the portrayal more believable somehow. Someone on Lector's intellectual plane would understand humour, what with it being integral to human nature.
Hopkins played the rôle with humour as well. His cheeky wink at agent Starling. His playful “okey dokey” And who could forget, “love the suit” ??? However, Brian Cox is the more approachable Lektor. Hopkins can be a frightful (!) ham. He tried too hard to be sinister. Peterson was born to play Will Graham. He reused a lot of Graham’s social awkwardness in CSI. A highly intelligent and focussed man. But with character flaws and an unease with relationships. We see this in Peterson’s performance when he interacts with his young son. He clearly loves the boy. But he finds it hard to connect with him. Also, the boy looks nothing like him. Is this mis-casting? Or was it deliberate?
Cox as Lektor seems to feel his cage more than Hopkins or Mikkelsen. The delivery of his questions seem to probe more eagerly, like he doesn't get to see people often, whereas Hopkins probes so he can get a clearer picture of what he already knows and Mikkelsen probes because he knows already and is curious to see how you squirm. Mads is my favorite but it's great to see each approach.
What’s so great about this scene is that Lector’s incredible sense of smell immediately signifies him as a predator. It’s like sitting face to face with a bengal tiger or a silverback gorilla, knowing that the only thing keeping you from being torn to pieces is a relatively thin row of metal bars.
What I like about this one, is that he has a sort of realistic charm to him. Out of all the Lecters, he's the one I feel as the most analytically convincing. Something in his eyes, he just seems to be able to look right through someone.
Ya comparing them is like comparing a play to a movie. Some consider one over the other, but they're different mediums altogether. Different standards. I got started on the Hopkins movies, but I love all of Hannibal's portrayals on film. Even Rising.
I always liked this version of Hannibal Lecter more than Anthony Hopkins'. This is what real insanity looks like. It's not standing weirdly, sniffing the air like a rat, making weird nom nom noises and talking about fava beans.
Much better, he really gets across how he's just barely holding himself together, and doesn't have the indulgent line readings of Norton that border on arrogance.
I love this portrayal of Will. I love the Will character in this movie. William Peterson brings a quiet sweetness to the role. Ed Norton's take was bland in the extreme.
@@velveetaslingshot I love Norton as an actor, but I think Will is a very complex, fascinating character, and this didn't come across in the Red Dragon movie.
Yeah this portrayal was a bit better imo. The biggest advantage in this movie was Dolarhyde, guy was perfect. Fiennes was a really poor choice, as was the over the top Psycho rip off aspect.
It’s really *strange* to see him having to deal with someone from a disadvantageous position, where there are things which he does not know and is unable to learn or discover without great difficulty, hence all of his intrusive questions, probing around for any areas of potential weakness - it’s also truly striking, visually, by comparison to have this Lektor be in an actual CAGE, as opposed to the glassed-in fish tank-type habitat we usually think of him being in, like the reptile house at The Zoo. This one far more resembles something like a Lion’s Cage.
Say anything about Anthony Hopkins but this guy... Look at how Graham struggles to remain calm. You can even cut a slice of the atmosphere with a knife, that's how thick it is.
Fun Fact: When Brian Cox was playing Hannibal Lecktor in Manhunter, Anthony Hopkins was performing as King Lear on stage. When Anthony Hopkins was playing Hannibal Lector in Silence of the Lambs, Brian Cox was performing as King Lear on stage.
Am I the only one who thinks this is a better Lector? Not as impactful on screen as Hopkins, but this is the real behavior of a psychopath. Direct, charming, courteous.
As one of the biggest Anthony Hopkins fans, I totally agree with you. Great actor, but I've always thought Silence of the Lambs is one of the most overrated films in history. His Lector was chewing scenery. Cox's version feels like a complete psychopath detached of real human emotion.
In my top 5, for so many reasons but the argument in the hotel room with Crawford and Graham just before the final piece of the puzzle falls into place.....cinema gold.
@@dagnabbit6187 Absolutely. I read the novel *Red Dragon* and after *Will* gets *Dr. Lecter's* card, he burns it and washes his hands immediately. Which is an interesting detail that I wish that they put in the movie.
I like the layout of this cell as opposed to the one they kept Lecktor in in Silence of the Lambs and Red Dragon. It's got that clean white clinical feel to it whereas the SOTL and RD cell looked dark, dingy and medieval. It felt as though Lecktor was being held in someone's wine cellar.
The basement prison was set in the old Allegheny County jail in downtown Pittsburgh, Pa, Lecter's single cell (in SOTL) was in the upstairs floor of Soldiers and Sailors Hall, also in Pittsburgh.
I also love how michael mann used the presence of cage bar to show us that Will Graham is like alter ego of Hannibal lecter who is trying to suppress his madness.
@@luislizard2626 He's not actually a cannibal in this version. They merged him with Garret Jacob Hobbs, the other serial killer Will had caught in the book, prior to the story, and made Hannibal a killer of college girls. Hannibal wasn't established as a cannibal until The Silence of the Lambs (the novel), which only came out after this movie. In the Red Dragon novel, the exact nature of Hannibals' crimes are not established.
@@jonathancampbell5231 "It happened a year before Molly met Graham, and it very nearly killed him. Dr. Lecter, known in the tabloids as "Hannibal the Cannibal," was the second psychopath Graham had caught." - Red Dragon
Hopkins awesome, but too enthusiastic creepy to be a realistic psychopath. Cox hit the realism on the nail, was never excessively creepy when it didn't suit him
I still prefer Hopkins, very tricky, smart, and enjoyable to watch as he plays with the investigator. No offense to the actor, but he looked just like an average 80's thug.
@@Medroizz That's why he looks so much more dangerous. He's dissimulated. A rough-looking person with taste, education and a sense of humor, but with a lurking capacity for senseless violence. A guy like that could actually blend into society, unlike that weird-looking Lecter from Silence of the Lambs.
The way he uses the gum wrapper to non-chalantly tweak the phone to get the operator and tell her that he has no use of his arms and then asks the main switchboard for Dr. Blume's receptionist's name before telling the nighttime secretary to flip through the rolodex to acquire Graham's home address while he chews the gum without a second thought. So casual, so insane. I don't know, the all-white cell makes the scene much more scary to me. Brian Cox easily gives Anthony Hopkins a run for his money.
You know what tells you that this is a great scene? Both versions are enthralling in their own way. Red Dragon is more about the mental sparring between Lecter and Graham. Whereas this one is really stolen and sold by Cox's portrayal. You know why Hopkins creeps you out in Red Dragon, mainly thanks to it being a sequel, so the scene had to draw on something else to be its most effective. This one, you're not really sure what it is. Some faint sense is telling you, "something isn't right here" and that comes from both Cox and Petersen's performances here. Truly brilliant scene in any interpretation!
yeah, more believable of a serial killer.....open, candid but removed. they describe their evil deeds very matter of fact and they speak how you would like to be spoken too
Hopkins' Lecter was the creepy kind of scary. Brian's is real life physically intimidating scary. Like the kind of man who could kick a man unalive outside a pub on a sunday afternoon.
I’ve come to prefer this ‘realistic’ original take on Lecter (‘Lecktor’); the white cell and uniform, the subtle ‘water drips’, almost crystalline background music, and Lecter’s / Lecktor’s lack of any silly ‘scary’ verbal or physical affectations. He just speaks, and reacts to speech, quite normally, reasonably. He _seems_ normal, and yet here he is in this maximum security jail facility . . .
"Do you have any problems, Will?" "No." "No... of course you don't. *scoff*" I love how Lecter has Will figured out as soon as they start talking, same as he does with Clarice later, but since Will is an experienced FBI agent used to dealing with this sort of mind game bullshit, he doesn't play ball or let Lecter toy with him, and gets what he wants with a single visit. Starling is a badass for sure, but her inexperience as a mere cadet shows with just how much she lets Lecter get inside her head. Even after Crawford explicitly warned her, she wasn't quite ready for it. Will of course has conceptually the opposite problem, he gets too far into the heads of his perps. Excellent contrast there.
I'm 46. I grew up on these films and books. And I much prefer the feel, writing, acting and story of the show. Mads is the best portrayal even if he doesn't fit the character in the books.
Mads could've been good or great, who knows. But the material was just so freakin ridiculous and the characters were so over the top silly. The story needs plausibility. The show was almost a cartoon.
Mads fits the character in the books, the only thing is that in the books Lecter NEVER kills women and despises men, he is a misandrist. But in the show he hurts women all the time and is very gay towards Will for whatever reason... the show is just fanfiction.
All in all, this scene has a much more realistic 'prison feel' quality to it. The bright lights, white walls, ect. This actor did a wonderful performance as well as Hopkins in the other movies
There's quite a bit of debate about which depiction of Dr. Hannibal Lecter is the best. One could even call it a commotion. I don't think we could ever resolve this issue, if it is one. However, can we take a moment to appreciate this portrayal of Will Graham? I feel like this one (by William Petersen) is exquisite. His portrayal is true to the books; Will is conflicted with his potentially being a psychopath, one unable to truly connect with people, and delighting in besting another human being, to the point of taking their life. It almost makes him relatable, in his inability to relate with anyone. There is something dead or inanimate inside of him, and he seeks to explain and dispell it throughout the movie [Spoilers] such as when he calls Lecter later on, and seeks out the family he saved. He seeks to understand his own deficiency before it becomes an insanity. Which becomes a thing Lecter has long recognized, and manipulates. It is so exciting and interesting:)
Petersen's Graham is arguably the best in my opinion. As you say, his portrayal is true to Novel!Graham. He perfectly encapsulates the man walking a fine line, a man whose strong emphatic talents are a double-edged sword.
Unsettling real. You can imagine him out in society doing well and impressing people. Grinning people's respect and trust while also killing in secret. He feels very dangerous
It's so weird to see a young Brian Cox. Modern film quality shows us in almost timeless fashion how we, as humans age and transform right before our eyes.
Brian Cox is a brilliant actor and portrays a realistic psychopath, charming and constantly trying to manipulate, however unnoticed, but it's not scary. It might be hard to imagine any other Hannibal Lecter than Anthony Hopkins, as it is with Jodie Foster as his counterpart, particularly if they made your first impression of the Dr. Lecter setting. Though it's not very realistic, the dungeon scene with stone walls and plexiglas is a hundred times more creepy and intens than it would be in a white prison cell with bars. No wonder they wanted to find another solution making Silence Of The Lambs. It was production designer Kristi Zea who finally came up with the plexi idea, and it's hard to realize that she really had to fight to get it through, knowing in hindsight what a stroke of genius it was, helping Hopkins and Foster to improvise such a genuin act, one of the most recognized in film history. The final key was air holes, and in comparison, this scene from Manhunter comes nowhere near. That's how important production design can be.
Yeah I and others disagree, Cox was fantastic and unnerving, maybe not in the Dracula kind of way, like hopkins, but still, Manhunter is probably my favourite "Hannibal" film.
I haven't seen Manhunter; I love Red Dragon (book and film), but man does this guy deserve more recognition. I love that this is the exact same source material and yet such a radically different interpretation. It just goes to show that when we read we have a self-imposed interpretation of the story, makes me wonder how I would have visualized Lecter if I'd read the books first
I love how this is the most realistic portrayal of Lecter. He feels like a real life psychopath. I still adore Hopkins's supervillain and Mikkelsen's "Satan on earth," but this one just feels like a real serial killer. Like a Bundy or a Dahmer.
I agree with that entirely.
It doesn't have the subtly of Hopkins' performance, but even Hopkins was never as good as he was in The Silence Of The Lambs. That performance was the apex. If Red Dragon had a better director, then I think it could've been a masterpiece. The overall material and cast is what made it good, but a director like Jonathan Demme could've brought more out of the material like he did with The Silence Of The Lambs. Hannibal and Hannibal Rising were just cash grabs that should've never been written
*Hisses at a woman through plexy glass with subtlety as he talks about eating people
Yeah, Hopkins really nailed the subtlety. More like goofy edgelord with the cliche cheesy Kubrick inspired malicious expression. Cox's Hannibal feels more like an Ed Kemper. A fella you could sit down and have dinner with and not expect him to bludgeon you to death.
what about gaspard uliel?
donnchadh mcgrath don’t even bring him to the conversation, bro.
'Did you get my card?' 'Yes, thank you.' In the novel, Will takes the card out to the yard, burns it, and washes his hands before touching Molly.
Frickin knew it, he lied in the Movie
The best novel in the World and I have decided to marathon read both “the Red Dragon”, and “the Silence of the Lambs. I have only read them once years ago while back.
“Hannibal” is an amazing novel as well but nowhere near as phenomenal as the first 2 imo. 🀄️
I love how the three main actors who've played Hannibal each bring their own interpretation to the character, and they're all so good I can't decide which one is my favorite.
Everything from them made a fine addiction to the collection
I think all of them are amazing in their own way, but Anthony Hopkins will always be my favorite.
Mads fuckin killed it but I gotta agree that Anthony Hopkins is the GOAT.
Four actors, not three.
@@theinfochannel8512 oh ya I forgot about the kid. But he ain't ever gunna be on Anthony's or Mads' level.
_"Dream much, Will?"_
An absolutely chilling performance from Brian Cox.
He really is the guy who could be right next door.
Meh, absolutely unmemorable because he acts like a guy next door
@@giorgig4828 lol I hope that was sarcastic.. 😃
@@giorgig4828 so do most real life serial killers
@@giorgig4828 if you consider that many (most?) serial killers are able to kill so many, because they gain people's trust, then B-Cox was acting properly here
Exactly.
One little thing I always loved about this scene is the way Lecter perks up and pays close attention when Will mentions reading his article. It shows how Lecter's inner narcissism comes out when someone brings up his work, how eager he is to hear what someone else thinks of him and how, in isolation, he craves recognition and positive reinforcement. It's a small little thing that demonstrates how the psychopath inside Lecter is always there, lurking just below the surface. While Anthony Hopkins' portrayal is terrifying in its own right, I've always loved the more nuanced, relaxed approach that Brian Cox took with the character, making him seem less like a man-shaped serpent and more like a genuine psychopath who's constantly having to adjust and readjust his act to appear normal.
His face lights up upon hearing that, up till then it's a stone mask...
Well said.
It captures the spirit of the book a lot more, which is a foxtrot between two geniuses trying to get the upper hand
Takes one to know ok ne
@@greenbitch421 Um... okay?
The crazy thing about Cox is that he appears so normal. So when Will says “you’re insane”, it catches you totally off guard
Is he really mad
@@l21n18yes obviously
The way Will delivered the line without a second thought, only to give a look to think about what he just said....
@@l21n18si, a Lecter no le gustó aquello
@@SuperWonderwall1Tacos
Cox honestly deserves more credit. Hopkins was definitely born for the role but Cox brings an understated, more realistic tone to the character. Certainly not an easy portrayal but both actors certainly add to it immensely.
I thought Hopkins was too hammy. I suspect he was told to do that because people would think thats what psychopaths are like.
Brian Cox is one of the most underrated actors in the business.
Both actors?. .there are 4 to date.
Hopkins is the popular choice, but Cox is amazing and deserves a lot more credit for this. Ulliel was interesting but a bit bland, and Mikkelsen adds an elegance and sexuality to the role.
@@krel3358 def agree. Hopkins plays the Hollywood psychopath. Cox gets down to business.
Any portrayal I've seen of Will Graham is consistent - he's tense and a bit socially awkward, but he's very direct of what he wants regardless.
This guy did it better than Ed Norton did.
@@ShadowSonic2 Peterson did it the best of anyone. In Manhunter there's a feeling that Will Graham really could go off the deep end and turn into that which he hunts, just as in the original book. Graham in the show just seems mildly neurotic and OCD, whereas Norton in Red Dragon is just bland and ineffectual-seeming af. Peterson is the only time Will Graham has been done right.
@@zufgh I think sone said it best: Norton was too bland, the TV version came off as someone who was ALREADY crazy but Peterson got it right.
These Hannibal movies apparently mess up their actors for real. The guy who played Crawford on Silence of the Lambs broke down crying while studying for the role and Petersen had a breakdown doing Manhunter.
Hopkins brought a creepiness,mikkelson brought intrigue.. Norton brought interesting and dancy was someone u rooted for!!
Ed Norton is a great actor, but he sucked as Will Graham.
After watching this a cazillion times, I notice the first line "that's the same atrocious aftershave you wore in court..." . The sense of smell a true hunter's first tool followed by immediate psychological attack. He is chilling.
Also: "You haven't threatened to take my books away yet". Will doesn't even bother to deny that was the next move.... Cox and this location are by far the most realistic, amd my personal favorite.
But Hopkins is the most fun to watch.
You wouldn’t have many experiences in prison, locked up in this way, and time is measured in experiences, in a way, as anyone who has been hospitalised or unemployed will understand. For Lecter not much time has passed.
"Do you have any problems Will?"
Damn, he starts in right away.
"I have BIG PROBLEMS Mr lektor"
"Goodness that sure is crap, sorry"
"solve crimes by staring at nudity"
"right on it, chief"
LOLz
William Petersen does an excellent job of just barely containing his residual fear of Lecktor.
Well that and the fact he almost killed him sam
I must have seen this film a dozen times, and only noticed now how he enters the room like he's entering the cage of a dangerous wild animal in captivity.
When you defeat your adversary, but he still haunts you.
fear of the lector in himself. he bested lektor
Its not so much his fear OF lector but fear of HOW HE CAUGHT lector that scares Graham
Hopkins is the monster you have nightmares about
Cox is the one you *meet*
Cox is the one you meet without even realising the presence of the monster, until, just out of a sudden, he attacks you and beats or knifes you to death.
@Jock McSporran I'm really terribly sorry about that man, I hope you're doing okay despite that sort of adversity. I guess the difference is that Lecter here has no reason to hide, but you can still see ghosts of his charming facade
I've always felt that Anthony Hopkins as Lecter was a very Dracula-like character who revels in his own villainy.
Cox's Lecktor just seems....eccentric. We all know eccentric people in our lives, who just seem a little off, but otherwise can be somewhat charming and personable.
That's why he's scary. There's a monster behind that face.
@Jock McSporran I have noticed I have the same ability being an empath.
I can feel the intent of another person even with barely having gotten to know them.
Mikkelsen is the one you have nightmares about
The fact that this scene is identical to the one in Red Dragon suggests that they were both very loyal to the original text. Very cool to see
Same cinematographer.
@@kengruz669 The dialog is very similar in the book as well.
Not identical. U call urself a layman?
@@mikemcgrath6150 That dialogue is in the extended cut of this scene
Manhunter scene is 10/10, red dragon is like a 7
Hopkins' Lector does what he does because because he gets off on it. Cox's Lecktor does what he does...because he's BORED. This is what makes Cox's take infinitely more terrifying.
That's a really good point.
Then, to round it out, why Mikkelsen's Hannibal does what he does is almost a mystery, which frightens me quite a bit as well.
Like, he does it so he can eat people. He does it to those he finds discourteous, he does it because he can get away with it, but Mads Hannibal isn't particularly Machiavellian like Hopkins Hannibal is, and he's not as straightforwardly disturbed like Cox's Lecktor. There is something deep inside each of these portrayals that makes them so riveting.
@@drewhammond5203 I've always thought that Mikkelsen's Hannibal does it for one overarching reason: Because he *CAN.* Which you're right is probably the scariest reason of all.
But...there was nothing terrifying about him tbh.
@bobbyrossfella3248
You’ve never met a sociopath, have you?
Brian Cox was so underrated in this role, it's a shame we didn't get more screentime with him!
He has a few more minutes in a deleted scene
Makes you wonder if the franchise carried on in this more realistic crime drama direction, than the artistic horror-thriller of Silence of the Lambs
@Cameron Monaghan No doubt. Brian Cox speaks quite openly regarding the tole Hannibal Lector took on him! That in itself has got to pique your interest in what could have been.
who rated him?
I love how Manhunter has the feel of law enforcement being focused on the agents perspective rather than Hannibal Lecter’s. It’s the best of the entire series.
You are correct. This is exactly how Tom Harris wrote it.
Also Michael Mann was the director and he has directed many cop and robber movies
I figure I'll leave my two cents here. The reason why I prefer this version of Hannibal to any other is because of how close to normal Brian Cox plays it. Anthony Hopkins' Lector is so clearly deranged in every moment there's no way that anyone would feel comfortable enough to let him in. Cox on the other hand has such a calm demeanor that it's almost hard to see the atrocities the character has committed. There's a hint of animalistic "evil" but it's only at the periphery. Something's wrong but it's not something that one can easily put their finger on. You *know* he's furious and that he hates Will, but you don't *see* it. It's terrifying how he draws the audience in never letting on that he's ready to kill at any moment.
Very eloquently put; especially his evil existing at the periphery. He doesn't resonate with it quite the way that Hopkins does but rather imperceptibly chills the room until you find yourself unconsciously rubbing your arms.
What do you think about Mads? Because his hannibal also has many of the qualities you mentioned
Hopkins is a cartoon, Cox could be living down the street.
Cox has the demeanor of an apex predator, such as a Siberian tiger, in the way he announces his awareness of Graham simply by remembering his aftershave from a court proceedings three years before. Then when he turns and sits up, starring at Will does the real terror set in. Tigers, like most predators, can look very fixedly at their prey for a long time before beginning the fatal rush attack. Tigers are also known to maintain serious grudges against those who’ve injured or attacked them. There are records of Amur tigers requiring the efforts of hundreds of soldiers to kill them, and only after they have completely destroyed the cabins of the original hunter who may have wounded them. In India, both tigers and leopards have wracked up death tolls of hundreds before finally being killed by a massive hunting party . Hannibal is like one of these predators ; Graham is definitely not smarter than him: he just had him at a disadvantage- he is insane. ( Great line ! )
@@molly0000000s hopkins is incredibly charismatic and almost "absorbable" for the viewer. he's playing a psycho, but one can absolutely tell that he's having fun with the role, while laughing on the inside. there is something jokeresque about it - and this is ok I suppose. it is entertaining. cox on the other hand, is unsettling and chilling to the bone. you can feel the sadistic and malicious vibe that he's giving off and you just want to get the hell out of there. his disgust, disdain and hatred for the human race are literally boiling underneath his placid and intellectual demeanor, yet he remains so inhuman and cold. I'll always vote for this lecter.
This sequence alone is visually so well designed. It's like Michael Mann being David Fincher-esque perfectionnist even before David Fincher made movies.
Fincher & Chris Nolan were both heavily influenced by Mann. The Dark Knight is Nolan's version of Manhunter & Heat.
Fincher's Zodiac owes a ton to Manhunter, down to casting Brian as Melvin Belli
Manhunter seems more in the style of Stanley Kubrick to me, especially the visuals - lots of clean white with occasional lurid colours.
Kubrick was also famously a perfectionist, to asburd levels. Sadly it may have had an effect on Shelley Duvalls mental health.
@@DoubleMonoLR The Shelley Duvall's trauma thing has been dismantled. Yes, Kubrick was a perfectionist primadonna pain to work with, but her mental issues had nothing to do with the film and he didn't ABUSE her or something, I think she stated that herself at some point.
If you watch carefully this scene, you can not miss the asbolute tension between both men. The line between reason and insanity is almost constantly about to get crossed by the two characters. Both opponents know each other inside out and play with one another, setting multiple traps. Both are extremely clever and articulated, but in the end, as Will put it, Lector lost it because he was... mad! Also, look at the blending of binary colors: the killer is dressed in overall whites, while the "good guy" wears dark clothes. And the gentle, ethereal soundtrack seems totally off from the brutal psychological violence that both men swim in. All these things tend to blur the line between good and evil. This is pure perfection!
I've sometimes wondered if the all-white cell was designed to make you flash back to the blood-spattered, all-white bedroom in the Leeds house. The first several times I watched this, I found that I was getting inexplicably tense when the camera was panning across Lecter's cell...then it hit me.
I wouldn’t call the soundtrack gentle here, seems a little ominous.
Love how this performance is so different, but not inferior. It's a completely different take, and it works just as well, only as a more grounded character.
When I was younger, I used to feel really bad for Brian Cox. Not only was he replaced as Hannibal Lecter in the sequel, but his replacement is the one everyone thinks of when they think of that character. To top it off, they remake his movie using his replacement. Then I found out that Brian Cox was offered the part in Silence of the Lambs, but he turned it down because he thought the movie was going to flop. LOL
Where did you find that out? I'd never heard he was offered the SOTL role
You're mistaken. Connery was offered the role ahead of Hopkins, but not Cox.
@@JayRiemenschneider Jeremy Irons and Sean Connery. Irons turned it down because it felt too much like the role that won him HIS Oscar, and Connery turned it down because he has a history of turning down great roles.
@@ShadowSonic2 wow nice one I didn't know that. Irons could've been perfect. Connery not so much imo
@@JayRiemenschneider "A censhush takah once tried to tesht me. I ahte hish livah with some favah beansh and a nicsh shianti."
"Dream much, Will?"
That line really gave (and still gives) me the chills. I always liked this movie better than any of the Hopkins or other versions. Maybe it's because I saw this movie first, but I feel that Cox was note-perfect as Lecktor and Petersen was similarly good as Graham. Hopkins' portrayal was too over-the-top for my taste.
Surprised and pleased to see some others feel the same way.
Over the top? It was goated bruh
Personally I saw Manhunter well after The silence of the lambs, and I definitely preferred Manhunter. There was no specific reason for me, just a combination of things.
I think Cox vs. Hopkins is kind of apples and oranges. Both are great performances, but with different tones (and certainly under the influence of different directorial styles). Bottom line for me: I'm grateful we have both of them.
Saw Silence of the Lambs first but Manhunter before Red Dragon.
Silence is probably the best due to how artistically creative it is. But it's what let Red Dragon down, that film needed Lector too much it makes Graham seem like an incompetent detective
Hopkins' performance in Silence of the Lambs was an acting masterclass. Granted he didn't bring the same intensity to Hannibal or Red Dragon, but those films had lots of issues. As good as Cox is here he can't touch that performance.
William Peterson, in this movie and To Live and Die in LA, are two of my favorite performances. I wish he had made more movies like these.
@Stefano Pavone In Young Guns 2 he stood out among all the others and their over the top performances.
You should see him in the HBO movie The Rat Pack he plays John F Kennedy.
TLADILA is just a great cop movie. Peterson, Dafoe, Pankow and Tuturro PLUS on of the best car chases ever. And Wang Chung's soundtrack was PERFECT for the movie.
He was the lead in CSI series.
This version of Lecter scares me way more due to that one scene in the grocery store. that's where Graham is telling his kid how due to his hyper empathy he tried to play out Lecter's thoughts in his own mind and that they were some of the most 'ugliest' thoughts ever.
Brian's Lecter is truly the former Psychiatrist. You can tell he is constantly scheming and formulating things in his head with little effort. He can read people so easily with his level of expertise and delight's in watching people squirm for his opinion.
As much as I love Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs, Brian Cox absolutely blew me away!! If he was asked to reprise his role in Silence of the Lambs, his performance still would have worked!
He's a fast-talking bully with a morbid sense of humor and weird facial expressions that represent that of an actual psychopathic serial killer, like Ted Bundy.
Speaking of facial expressions, here's my favorite difference:
Hopkins's Lecter stare captivates you and you can't look away. You find yourself intrigued by his charm and soft-spoken words.
Cox's Lecter stare is absolutely terrifying! As soon as he stares you down, you don't want to be anywhere near him. When he asks Will Graham if he's ever seen blood in the moonlight, that is the scariest Lecter stare EVER!!
It's hard for me to choose one over the other, as they are both very great!
This film is unique. In this scene the score is perfectly used, it brings up the idea of the fragile the mind can be, and how Dr. Lecktor plays with that, taking Graham to the places he wants to take him, installing the fear and the shame in his mind. Plus the color palette used, the shadow of Graham when we see Dr. Lecktor, provides much more darkness to the scene, plus the dialogue wich is great too. Michael Mann is definitely the man.
Far more realistic approach of a psychopath then the more acclaimed Silence of the lambs. I watch this movie every 3 or 4 years. Its that good.
This variation of Will and Hannibal feels more like Holmes and Moriarty. These two are both sides of the same coin, but Will always keeps a distinct line between them. They speak in verbal chess. Will is almost as insane as Hannibal but his family keeps him grounded in reality. The fine line between the hero and the villain with the former always at risk of following down to their nemesis’ level. Cox and Peterson really work well off of one another and the framing suggests that the two of them are locked in eternal combat with each other in the same cage. This scene works beautifully.
I like how he judges Will's hands from accross the cell. Denzel Washington does a simiar bit in one of the Equalizer franchise. This is one of my favorite movies growing up. My older boys may be old enough to see it now.
I saw 3 times in the first week it was released.
Cox nailed it without the « scary eyes » mimicks of Hopkins. Just a super-intelligent madman who wants to get inside your head. Rapid responses, just amazing wits.Bravo Coxie.
I love how this movie portrays Will Graham as a man of near supernatural power, as if that's what it would take to actually capture Lecter (LeCkToR whatever) because the Doctor would outmatch any opponent in terms of intellect.
I like Brian Cox's Lecktor. He's not a snake eyed, slavering monster like Anthony Hopkin's good Dr., he's disarmingly genial. If THIS Dr Lecktor was your tutor on campus, you'd think he was a gas. You'd trust him. And that's what makes him scary. Like all the best horror, it's what you don't see that counts.
Stephen McNicoll
Still not as good as Hopkins
@@fionnbarrcasey5247 respectfully disagree. It's not about "as good as", it's about personal preference. I watch Manhunter at least once a year, partly because of Brian Cox's turn as Lecktor, but also because of the awesome soundtrack, and the brilliant cinematography. You prefer Hopkins. Fair play, you have your reasons. I haven't watched Silence of the Lambs for over ten years. Doesn't mean it's a bad film. Just means it's not one of my favourites. One might as well say "Queen aren't as good as Elton John". Who on earth could quantify merit between the two? What you like, you like. In an age where thousands are being wiped out by coronavirus, I'm not about to butt heads with a total stranger, because they prefer one excellent actor over another.
You're talking about me aren't you...?
@@bigvalvader4341 Agree with you 100%. Hopkins seemed to try a little too hard to creep out whomever he was face to face with whereas Cox didn't seem to give a rat's ass. He knew they knew he was a monster, he didn't have to act like one to amuse them or amuse himself which is what Hopkins seemed to be doing with his Lector.
Hopkins' Hannibal was a cartoon villain. Cox's was far superior, far more believable.
Michael Mann did an excellent job directing this scene. One great aspect is the quick pacing of Will and Lecter’s back-and-forth. This obviously isn’t the first time they’ve conversed in this cell, so there’s no time wasted on either trying to figure each other out. They already know each other, so Lecter goes right into twisting Will’s vulnerable mind, and Will knows he can’t really compete (hence why he breaks down so quickly when Lecter says the two of them are just alike). Another great touch is how in each shot of the men, the prison bars are always present. Lecter is locked in the literal prison, Will in the prison of his mind. Lecter may not be able to get out of his cell, but he can still do terrible things as though he were free. Will, however, is trapped in his fragile state of mind even though he’s “free”. A wonderful example of psychological storytelling!
“2nd raters the lot”….it’s interesting to see Lecter perk up talking to Will and to hear him say he’s glad to see him. He knows the gift Will has and it comes naturally to him, a gift that puts him on the same level with Lecter who he himself is a product of circumstances and education….with a touch of narcissist sociopath…..is like a splinter in the mind to Lecter. These characters are so brilliantly written it makes one wonder if it’s artistic ability on the writers behalf or is it rooted much deeper in the writer himself, the writers own thoughts, wants, needs slumbering so close beneath the surface….how I’d love to get them on my couch.
I genuinely really love Brian Cox as Hannibal Lecter. I wish that he could've played him in more movies.
Me too! I'll always love Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs, but I think that if Cox reprised his role in that movie, it still would have worked!!
@@casesoutherland4175 as long as it maintained the tone of Manhunter
Hopkins made a villain fit for a horror film. Cox made a villain fit for the real world. Cunning, frank, honest, educated, probing, brilliant; the sort of person you'd open up to about how you think your father never loved you. In other words, Hopkins played a villain to entice generations of audiences. And Cox played a serial killer. To the letter.
Both succeeded in their purpose; Hopkins is tense and creepy every second he's on screen, in an obvious film... but one of the two genuinely scares me, and it's not the one with a fixation on lambs.
Cox has got a twinkle in his eye, a sense of humour, and that makes the portrayal more believable somehow. Someone on Lector's intellectual plane would understand humour, what with it being integral to human nature.
Hopkins played the rôle with humour as well. His cheeky wink at agent Starling. His playful “okey dokey”
And who could forget, “love the suit” ???
However, Brian Cox is the more approachable Lektor. Hopkins can be a frightful (!) ham. He tried too hard to be sinister.
Peterson was born to play Will Graham. He reused a lot of Graham’s social awkwardness in CSI. A highly intelligent and focussed man. But with character flaws and an unease with relationships.
We see this in Peterson’s performance when he interacts with his young son. He clearly loves the boy. But he finds it hard to connect with him. Also, the boy looks nothing like him. Is this mis-casting? Or was it deliberate?
@@Torahboy1
Haven't seen the movie, but in the book it isn't his son. So I imagine it was deliberate.
Cox as Lektor seems to feel his cage more than Hopkins or Mikkelsen. The delivery of his questions seem to probe more eagerly, like he doesn't get to see people often, whereas Hopkins probes so he can get a clearer picture of what he already knows and Mikkelsen probes because he knows already and is curious to see how you squirm. Mads is my favorite but it's great to see each approach.
What’s so great about this scene is that Lector’s incredible sense of smell immediately signifies him as a predator. It’s like sitting face to face with a bengal tiger or a silverback gorilla, knowing that the only thing keeping you from being torn to pieces is a relatively thin row of metal bars.
What I like about this one, is that he has a sort of realistic charm to him. Out of all the Lecters, he's the one I feel as the most analytically convincing. Something in his eyes, he just seems to be able to look right through someone.
Cox plays this perfectly. It feels like he is evil, wearing a "Dr. Lecter costume".
The difference is that Hopkins portrayal is a lot more Theatrical than Cox's. Cox just feels raw.
Ya comparing them is like comparing a play to a movie. Some consider one over the other, but they're different mediums altogether. Different standards. I got started on the Hopkins movies, but I love all of Hannibal's portrayals on film. Even Rising.
The music in this scene makes it, almost dream like, like an horrific killer that can almost hypnotize you in to thinking he's normal.
This Hannibal is much more relatable........like someone youd sit at a bar and have a convo with. That is terrifying.
I always liked this version of Hannibal Lecter more than Anthony Hopkins'. This is what real insanity looks like. It's not standing weirdly, sniffing the air like a rat, making weird nom nom noises and talking about fava beans.
Hahahaha.
what is real insanity
Sorry but this is flat out BETTER than the same scene in Red Dragon....Nowhere near as dramatical....100% more relatable
Don’t apologize for having a different opinion
I think ppl say that bc they r more likely comparing red dragon to silence of the lambs. And nothing would compare to that magic.
I like this portrayal of Will more than Ed Nortons.
Much better, he really gets across how he's just barely holding himself together, and doesn't have the indulgent line readings of Norton that border on arrogance.
I love this portrayal of Will. I love the Will character in this movie. William Peterson brings a quiet sweetness to the role. Ed Norton's take was bland in the extreme.
Ed Norton was a bad choice. He is nothing like the book version of Will Graham.
@@velveetaslingshot I love Norton as an actor, but I think Will is a very complex, fascinating character, and this didn't come across in the Red Dragon movie.
Yeah this portrayal was a bit better imo. The biggest advantage in this movie was Dolarhyde, guy was perfect. Fiennes was a really poor choice, as was the over the top Psycho rip off aspect.
It’s really *strange* to see him having to deal with someone from a disadvantageous position, where there are things which he does not know and is unable to learn or discover without great difficulty, hence all of his intrusive questions, probing around for any
areas of potential weakness - it’s also truly striking, visually, by comparison to have this Lektor be in an actual CAGE, as opposed to the glassed-in fish tank-type habitat we usually think of him being in, like the reptile house at The Zoo.
This one far more resembles something like a Lion’s Cage.
Say anything about Anthony Hopkins but this guy...
Look at how Graham struggles to remain calm.
You can even cut a slice of the atmosphere with a knife, that's how thick it is.
Fun Fact: When Brian Cox was playing Hannibal Lecktor in Manhunter, Anthony Hopkins was performing as King Lear on stage. When Anthony Hopkins was playing Hannibal Lector in Silence of the Lambs, Brian Cox was performing as King Lear on stage.
Am I the only one who thinks this is a better Lector? Not as impactful on screen as Hopkins, but this is the real behavior of a psychopath. Direct, charming, courteous.
As one of the biggest Anthony Hopkins fans, I totally agree with you. Great actor, but I've always thought Silence of the Lambs is one of the most overrated films in history. His Lector was chewing scenery. Cox's version feels like a complete psychopath detached of real human emotion.
In my top 5, for so many reasons but the argument in the hotel room with Crawford and Graham just before the final piece of the puzzle falls into place.....cinema gold.
The deleted joker scene from the Batman was definitely inspired by this
I really loved The Batman and watching the deleted scene, I definitely see the similarities!
The books and The Long Halloween
cringe
Was a totale ripoff
Although, I loved what Anthony Hopkins did with Dr. Hannibal Lecter, I find this version to be more realistic.
And so more haunting
Malveaux He is smooth . Slides into your head before you realize he is there .
@@dagnabbit6187 Absolutely. I read the novel *Red Dragon* and after *Will* gets *Dr. Lecter's* card, he burns it and washes his hands immediately. Which is an interesting detail that I wish that they put in the movie.
Malveaux I am so glad that Bryan Cox’s Hannibal finally got the recognition it deserved . Not a secret anymore .
@@dagnabbit6187 This movie and his performance is still kinda overlooked, though.
I like the layout of this cell as opposed to the one they kept Lecktor in in Silence of the Lambs and Red Dragon. It's got that clean white clinical feel to it whereas the SOTL and RD cell looked dark, dingy and medieval. It felt as though Lecktor was being held in someone's wine cellar.
The basement prison was set in the old Allegheny County jail in downtown Pittsburgh, Pa, Lecter's single cell (in SOTL) was in the upstairs floor of Soldiers and Sailors Hall, also in Pittsburgh.
I also love how michael mann used the presence of cage bar to show us that Will Graham is like alter ego of Hannibal lecter who is trying to suppress his madness.
Brian Cox is an awesome actor, this is a much more realistic depiction of a cold, calculating psychopath
So true ... knowing that he’s a cannibal makes him even scarier ...
@@luislizard2626 He's not actually a cannibal in this version. They merged him with Garret Jacob Hobbs, the other serial killer Will had caught in the book, prior to the story, and made Hannibal a killer of college girls.
Hannibal wasn't established as a cannibal until The Silence of the Lambs (the novel), which only came out after this movie. In the Red Dragon novel, the exact nature of Hannibals' crimes are not established.
@@jonathancampbell5231 "It happened a year before Molly met Graham, and it very nearly killed him. Dr. Lecter, known in the tabloids as "Hannibal the Cannibal," was the second psychopath Graham had caught." - Red Dragon
@@winstonmarlowe5254 Huh- my mistake I guess
This is one of the all time great movies.
Hopkins awesome, but too enthusiastic creepy to be a realistic psychopath. Cox hit the realism on the nail, was never excessively creepy when it didn't suit him
I still prefer Hopkins, very tricky, smart, and enjoyable to watch as he plays with the investigator. No offense to the actor, but he looked just like an average 80's thug.
After all, this is a work of fiction.
Exactly the same thing I was thinking. Hopkins overdid it.
Mads Mikkelssen is the best, terrifying but realistic
@@Medroizz That's why he looks so much more dangerous. He's dissimulated. A rough-looking person with taste, education and a sense of humor, but with a lurking capacity for senseless violence. A guy like that could actually blend into society, unlike that weird-looking Lecter from Silence of the Lambs.
Brian Cox, the myth, the man, the legend. RIP Logan Roy, we miss you!!! 😭😭😭
I completely forgot about you. You went super viral a couple years ago
@@mhm6 I’m back.
Brian Cox has a certain creepiness about him as Lecter that not even Hopkins can match. Chilling
Exactly!
The way he uses the gum wrapper to non-chalantly tweak the phone to get the operator and tell her that he has no use of his arms and then asks the main switchboard for Dr. Blume's receptionist's name before telling the nighttime secretary to flip through the rolodex to acquire Graham's home address while he chews the gum without a second thought. So casual, so insane.
I don't know, the all-white cell makes the scene much more scary to me. Brian Cox easily gives Anthony Hopkins a run for his money.
You know what tells you that this is a great scene? Both versions are enthralling in their own way. Red Dragon is more about the mental sparring between Lecter and Graham. Whereas this one is really stolen and sold by Cox's portrayal. You know why Hopkins creeps you out in Red Dragon, mainly thanks to it being a sequel, so the scene had to draw on something else to be its most effective. This one, you're not really sure what it is. Some faint sense is telling you, "something isn't right here" and that comes from both Cox and Petersen's performances here. Truly brilliant scene in any interpretation!
"Dream much, Will?" Jesus what Hannibal wouldn't give for those bars to vanish into thin air lol.
He's so fucking pissed that he got caught I love Brian Cox he's brilliant.
This movie completely fits the feel of the book.
This version of lector I think is a lot more psychologically scary, like what you'd expect Hannibal lector to be if you really met him.
yeah, more believable of a serial killer.....open, candid but removed. they describe their evil deeds very matter of fact and they speak how you would like to be spoken too
This is the only version of Lecktor, the other one is Lecter
I love Brian Cox’s distinctive mini head wobbles during his dialogue, you see him do a similar thing in the Bourne films, quite characteristic of him.
That's the same atrocious line you've been using in every single movie
That’s the same line that red dragon copied from this movie.
jordan harding And TV series
I mean, it is taken straight out of the book that this story comes from, sooooooo....
@@SawyerSullivan95 yeah doesnt make it less atrocious though
This is honestly the second best of the Hannibal Lecter films
would u like to leave me your home number lol
This is the BEST of all Hannibal movies!
Paul Woods you realize that’s a dude with a big soda can
nah it's the best. The Silence of The Lambs is good but it's nowhere nearly as creepy.
People should remember that Manhunter/Red Dragon was not about Hannibal at all, it was about Will and the Tooth Fairy.
Hopkins' Lecter was the creepy kind of scary. Brian's is real life physically intimidating scary. Like the kind of man who could kick a man unalive outside a pub on a sunday afternoon.
Love Cox’s expressions in this scene. Damn
The music fits so good. Great dreamy vibe.
This kinda feels like Sherlock Holmes becomes an evil serial killer.
While having charms of Count Dracula, and presence of a Beast ( or aka The Devil ).
This video carried an ad for Old Spice, which is amazing considering Lector mocks Graham for wearing Old Spice aftershave lotion.
This Will Graham is something.
Most underrated of the Hannibal films if you ask me.
I’ve come to prefer this ‘realistic’ original take on Lecter (‘Lecktor’); the white cell and uniform, the subtle ‘water drips’, almost crystalline background music, and Lecter’s / Lecktor’s lack of any silly ‘scary’ verbal or physical affectations. He just speaks, and reacts to speech, quite normally, reasonably. He _seems_ normal, and yet here he is in this maximum security jail facility . . .
And yet, despite his normality, there is a subtle dark menace exuding from his face. Especially when he says "dream much, Will?".
"Do you have any problems, Will?"
"No."
"No... of course you don't. *scoff*"
I love how Lecter has Will figured out as soon as they start talking, same as he does with Clarice later, but since Will is an experienced FBI agent used to dealing with this sort of mind game bullshit, he doesn't play ball or let Lecter toy with him, and gets what he wants with a single visit. Starling is a badass for sure, but her inexperience as a mere cadet shows with just how much she lets Lecter get inside her head. Even after Crawford explicitly warned her, she wasn't quite ready for it. Will of course has conceptually the opposite problem, he gets too far into the heads of his perps. Excellent contrast there.
A far more realistic depiction of a psychopath. Able to converse normally but unable to resist any opportunity to undermine and belittle.
I'm 46. I grew up on these films and books. And I much prefer the feel, writing, acting and story of the show. Mads is the best portrayal even if he doesn't fit the character in the books.
Mads could've been good or great, who knows. But the material was just so freakin ridiculous and the characters were so over the top silly. The story needs plausibility. The show was almost a cartoon.
@@JayRiemenschneider I don't understand how that translates into "the show was ridiculous/bad"
Mads fits the character in the books, the only thing is that in the books Lecter NEVER kills women and despises men, he is a misandrist. But in the show he hurts women all the time and is very gay towards Will for whatever reason... the show is just fanfiction.
@@SAR-re1fx damn, never took novel Lecter for a misandrist. Always thought he was a non discriminate one
All in all, this scene has a much more realistic 'prison feel' quality to it. The bright lights, white walls, ect. This actor did a wonderful performance as well as Hopkins in the other movies
Who’s here after that Batman Joker Deleted scene?
I NEVER KNEW THIS MOVIE EVEN EXISTED.
oh you're in for a treat. It's brilliant.
I saw this in Air Force Tech School in January of 87. To me, he is the true Lecktor. Silence of the Lambs doesn't hold a candle to this movie.
There's quite a bit of debate about which depiction of Dr. Hannibal Lecter is the best. One could even call it a commotion. I don't think we could ever resolve this issue, if it is one. However, can we take a moment to appreciate this portrayal of Will Graham? I feel like this one (by William Petersen) is exquisite. His portrayal is true to the books; Will is conflicted with his potentially being a psychopath, one unable to truly connect with people, and delighting in besting another human being, to the point of taking their life. It almost makes him relatable, in his inability to relate with anyone. There is something dead or inanimate inside of him, and he seeks to explain and dispell it throughout the movie [Spoilers]
such as when he calls Lecter later on, and seeks out the family he saved. He seeks to understand his own deficiency before it becomes an insanity. Which becomes a thing Lecter has long recognized, and manipulates. It is so exciting and interesting:)
Petersen's Graham is arguably the best in my opinion. As you say, his portrayal is true to Novel!Graham. He perfectly encapsulates the man walking a fine line, a man whose strong emphatic talents are a double-edged sword.
I love the way he makes sure his tie isn't hanging out..........
Cox is underrated in this role. Just as menacing.
Most ironic experience I’ve had on RUclips: an ad for Old Spice ran before this.
Unsettling real. You can imagine him out in society doing well and impressing people. Grinning people's respect and trust while also killing in secret. He feels very dangerous
It's so weird to see a young Brian Cox. Modern film quality shows us in almost timeless fashion how we, as humans age and transform right before our eyes.
I like how Cox doesn’t look as friendly as Hopkins
You get the sense that Hopkin's Lecter is a genuinely nice man behind his malevolence.
With Cox, any perceived niceness is merely just a facade.
"Dream much, Will?"
"--I'm leaving."
"--Wait!"
And that's how you set boundaries.
There has not been a single bad Hannibal Lecter portrayal
- "I know I'm not smarter than you"
- "So how did you catch me"
- "You had disadvantages"
- "What disadvantages"
- "You are insane "
Brian Cox is a brilliant actor and portrays a realistic psychopath, charming and constantly trying to manipulate, however unnoticed, but it's not scary. It might be hard to imagine any other Hannibal Lecter than Anthony Hopkins, as it is with Jodie Foster as his counterpart, particularly if they made your first impression of the Dr. Lecter setting. Though it's not very realistic, the dungeon scene with stone walls and plexiglas is a hundred times more creepy and intens than it would be in a white prison cell with bars. No wonder they wanted to find another solution making Silence Of The Lambs. It was production designer Kristi Zea who finally came up with the plexi idea, and it's hard to realize that she really had to fight to get it through, knowing in hindsight what a stroke of genius it was, helping Hopkins and Foster to improvise such a genuin act, one of the most recognized in film history. The final key was air holes, and in comparison, this scene from Manhunter comes nowhere near. That's how important production design can be.
not everyone needs a dungeon to be scared. and manhunter is a pretty stark example of how important production design can be.
Yeah I and others disagree, Cox was fantastic and unnerving, maybe not in the Dracula kind of way, like hopkins, but still, Manhunter is probably my favourite "Hannibal" film.
Brian Cox - one of the very best actors.
Real serial killers don't project menace and fear that's why this Lecter by Cox was the best interpretation
Monty Russel and Richard Ramírez: ?
I haven't seen Manhunter; I love Red Dragon (book and film), but man does this guy deserve more recognition. I love that this is the exact same source material and yet such a radically different interpretation. It just goes to show that when we read we have a self-imposed interpretation of the story, makes me wonder how I would have visualized Lecter if I'd read the books first