In the years following the Oscar sweeping "Silence of the Lambs", there have those inevitable whispers and backlash against the film from some jaded film buffs. Was it really nothing more than a horror film not worthy of Best Picture? Was Hopkins way too over-the-top and hammy? And with that backlash came one of most exaggerated phrases I've heard, "Well, 'Manhunter' was superior."

The folks at Entertainment Weekly, always happy to give praise of anything and everything under the radar despite whether or not its actually good so as to sound smart, prclaimed this around the time of the new DVD release and the release of "Hannibal". "Manhunter" is a good film, but superior to even "Hannibal" it is not, nonetheless "Silence of the Lambs".

Make no mistake, I love Michael Mann. He's possibly the greatest and most consistent director working today. He's the rarest of directors, one who has seemingly never made a bad film. His straightforward, perfectionist style hasn't been praised or honored sufficiently yet, but to me the man is a genius. So I wanted to really like "Manhunter".

This is the story of Will Graham (William Peterson), a retired FBI profiler with a 6th sense that allows him to actually think like the killer in order to solve the toughest serial killer cases. His most famous catch was Hannibal Lecktor (Brian Cox). Now he's searching for the "Tooth Fairy" (Tom Noonan), and after talking a few times to Lecktor, he takes the case. What follows is possibly the greatest and most detailed police procedural ever, following every possible aspect of the investigation and putting us into the situation of a man on the chase.

The problems come in for me with the fact that "Manhunter" is so helplessly dated. Whereas "Silence" was filmed in dark somber tones, modest costumes, timeless locations, and with simple procedures, it doesn't feel like an old film. "Manhunter" is a product of its time in every way, with a wretched 80s soundtrack that was cool and the rage at the time, but completely cut the credibility legs out from under it for me. It's like the Mann of "Miami Vice" was fighting internally with the Mann we have now, which resulted in well-staged and suspenseful scenes being ruined by pulsing 80s songs and slow-mo, double take action sequences.

My other qualm is the irritating notion that Cox was actually better than Hopkins?! The man did an admirable job and in standing alone might be pretty good, but compared to Hopkins I found myself laughing at this Lecktor version. He is never once a formidable and forboding figure, never does he chill the spine and demand us to watch. He has zero charisma, and without the novelty knowledge that he is playing a future famous character, he would be completely forgotten and unmemorable.

Which is why I find problems with the notion that "Manhunter" is somehow this superior film. If its such a phenomenal film, why has it been ignored forever? Why was this sort of praise not heaped on it during its release? "Manhunter" thrives on our knowledge that this is the original Hannibal flick. It is a series of moments, flashes of the brilliance Mann would display later. It is a film that lacks the suspense, impact, and affect that "Silence" has on the mind. It is a film that may forever function as that film you've seen that no one else has, and thusly if you talk about how great it is you will sound smart. We all know who we are, because as film buffs I'd say we're all guilty of it.

"Manhunter" is a good film, but on its own its undeserving of the reputation placed on it. Without the success and reputation of its spinoffs, it would be a forgotten film of the 80s.

Recommended:
No

Viewing Format: VHS
Video Occasion: Good for a Rainy Day
Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 13 and Older
Special Effects: Well at least you can't see the strings