Az embervadász

One book, two almost identical adaptations and lengths, but such different experiences. Mann’s version has William Petersen, Joan Allen and a much (but really much) better filmed scene with the tiger on its side. But it’s only a “Mann classic" in the scenes with silent panoramas of the rainy, nighttime city and at moments when the action is embellished with just the right songs. But it’s all slowed down by scenes that drag on unnecessarily, when they should have finished on the cutting room floor, and also zero suspense. Ratner’s version on the other hand has Hollywood parameters. So slightly (but not much) better tempo, attractive production design, sort of signs of suspense, the intro scene and the excellent casting of absolutely all roles apart from those mentioned above. So both movies made it into the “good movie" bracket, but not an inch higher. P.S.: Review copied intentionally. (2009.05.19)

The entire series of films based on Harris's books about serial killers suffers from comparisons with The Silence of the Lambs, which set the bar too high and showed what a proper atmospheric thriller should be. Manhunter partially escaped this because it was the first film in the series and therefore not burdened by fan expectations. Out of the five films in total, I rank it second to last after Hannibal Rising, which falls into the category of stupid films, whereas Manhunter falls into the category of bloodless films without atmosphere, which are mediocre in every respect. However, this film also loses out to Ratner's later version, not only because of the presence or absence of Hopkins in the role of the legendary Dr. Lecter. Manhunter has overall weaker villains because their insanity is more obvious. Red Dragon had truly top-notch actors who gave their characters ambiguity, especially Ralph Fiennes who excelled in the lead role in the remake. Manhunter is marked by the quasi-aesthetics of the 80s, and it is characteristic that the investigator's partner was played by a model and not an A-list actress. the film drags on and has overall routine direction. Overall impression: 45%. (2010.03.30)

An atmospheric thriller already with Mann’s signature clearly evident. It shines through a lot, mainly at the end. Peterson isn’t bad at all and Brian Cox is just great. His Hannibal Lector manages to attract all attention to himself in minimal space. He is a more than talented rival to Hopkins, even though not a word about “food" is said. And, as usual with Mann, the music is first class. (2011.01.13)

The first adaptation of Thomas Harris' book must be said that I feel it is a better adaptation than the later one, where attention was once again focused on the captivating Anthony Hopkins. Michael Mann did not emphasize Lecter as much this time, although he and his mental tricks are not lacking. Brian Cox is not bad in this role, but he is not Anthony Hopkins. Much more interesting is the character of the Red Dragon himself, played by Tom Noonan. He is the right kind of madman that you can't stand. Police work is captured quite well here, but the film itself doesn't completely impress, rather it pleases with its time and a certain sense of nostalgia. (2014.01.01)