Manhunter (1986)
Grade: C
Cast: William L. Petersen, Tom Noonan, Dennis Farina, Brian Cox, Joan Allen, Kim Griest, Stephen Lang
Director: Michael Mann
Rated R for violence, sexual content, language, and some nudity


Dr. Hannibal Lecter may be the most fascinating fictional serial killer of all time. Created by Thomas Harris, Lecter made his first appearance in the book “Red Dragon”, followed by its sequels, “The Silence of the Lambs” and “Hannibal”. They were all made into movies (“Silence of the Lambs” in 1991, when it won multiple Oscars, and “Hannibal” in 2001, when it won widespread hatred from just about everyone but me), and the one Lecter film that audiences aren’t really familiar with is Michael Mann’s sloppy and boring “Manhunter” (1986), an adaptation of “Red Dragon”. Lecter is just as fascinating as ever here, but the movie surrounding him fails. Critics loved it, but I think it’s a pretty uninteresting interpretation of Harris’s “Red Dragon”, which is a great book. Anthony Hopkins, who played Lecter in “Silence”, “Hannibal”, and the remake of this film, 2002’s “Red Dragon”, isn’t in this one. The shoes of the cannibalistic genius are filled by Brian Cox, but like in “Silence” (only much, much more so), Lecter is more of a supporting character than the main focus. Of course, one (me, for instance) could argue that “Manhunter” is too unfocused to have a main focus, but that’s not the point I’m trying to make.

Will Graham (William L. Petersen, who has a few effective moments but is overall kind of dull) is called upon by Jack Crawford (Dennis Farina) to investigate the murders of the Tooth Fairy, a serial killer who breaks into his selected family’s house, kills them all, and leaves things such as bite marks and evidence of rape with his victims. In the book, this is all detailed with a grisly fascination, and it’s no surprise that the film can’t duplicate its depth, but what is surprising is how little urgency Mann brings to the situation, which is really quite urgent.

About halfway through the film, there is a fascinating sequence in which a tabloid reporter, Freddie Lounds (Stephen Lang), who has written false things about the Tooth Fairy, is kidnapped by him and we finally see what the killer looks like. The genius of the scene is that Mann has kept him out of our sight for so long that we’re surprised his identification isn’t just saved for the end, and he creates a tension in the audience that is equal to what Lounds, in the movie, is feeling. We think we may be watching one of cinema’s scariest portrayals of a psychopath, but it all soon goes downhill because of the lack of focus.

Am I being repetitive? Probably, but it really was a lack of focus that sunk the film. In the book, the character of Reba, a blind love interest for Francis Dolarhyde (the killer), more or less works, but here she seems ridiculous—we can hardly believe Michael Mann expects us to be interested in the romantic life of a man who kills families every full moon. It also feels the need to spell out one of the book’s beautiful subtleties regarding their romance, which I won’t ruin for those who haven’t read or seen the book or the movies.

The lack of focus keeps the film from really knowing what it is about. The subplot in which Lecter is introduced is crucial to the story—Graham decides to revisit Lecter, whom he caught, to get into the psyche of a psycho—and yet it doesn’t seem as crucial as it ought to, because “Manhunter” doesn’t seem very interested in itself. What it really enjoys about itself, though, is that it was made in the 80s. “Manhunter” seems to pack as much 80s punch as any movie I’ve seen, and here it is not a good thing, since this film is not *about* the 80s. When it was all over, I wanted to go buy the soundtrack and play Frisbee with it. By completely missing the point of the book, Michael Mann has made a tedious and monotonous thriller in which we suspect the folks behind it read a plot summary and said, “Gee, wouldn’t this be great with 80s music and without focus?” You know a film has problems keeping the interest of its audience when the element I won’t shut up about is the music.

Another thing that doesn’t work is the revamped ending. I love when adaptations stray from source material positively, but the ending to “Manhunter” is not positive straying. It’s overlong, elaborate, and really, really dumb. Anything about Francis that was scary prior to the climax stops being scary at the climax, because I am not afraid of an invincible Frankenstein-like creature that harasses his blind lovers.

As Lecter, Cox cannot hold a candle to Hopkins. However, I must not judge with comparisons (especially since Cox’s Lecter came first). Looked at solitarily, Cox’s performance is very good. He feels slightly off because the character established by Hopkins feels so right, but Cox makes Lecter creepy in a way that is not unlike the Hopkins version, but not exactly like it either. The repartee between Lecter and Graham is excellent, and together they have some of “Manhunter”’s best scenes.

I have one final complaint: the character of Francis Dolarhyde. In the book, despite the clichéd look at his awful childhood, I felt like I really knew the guy. I understood why he was messed up in the head, but I didn’t feel sorry for him, which is the perfect medium for a character like that. In this film, we know hardly anything about him, except that him and everyone with a minor association to him have 80s music blaring in the background whenever they’re doing something.

Ultimately, despite some good scenes and performances, “Manhunter” didn’t work for me at all. It feels too bloated, overlong, and forced, as if the makers of it were constantly daydreaming and just doing their job on autopilot. It’s too distant, while the other Lecter films feel so up close and personal it’s scary. Michael Mann has proven himself a good director (“The Insider” is one of 1999’s best, and “Ali” is one of the greatest disappointing movies ever), but with this one he strikes out.


-Alex, September 2002