I would have to say Hopkins is the far superior Lecter. It's as if he looks right into you, I think his performance is almost unmatchable. Now, as much of a Norton fan that I am, I think William Graham did a better job, as did Tom Noonan as the killer in Manhunter
I personally liked red dragon more. It just held on to me more, and i found that both lector and the dragon just were portrayed better, and so was the story. I am still undecided who played William Graham better.
Excellent job with both versions of the same scene. Red Dragon did seem to follow Manhunter closely, especially in the Will Graham/Dr. Lecter scenes. Thanks for both of the "alternative versions". All four actors did their roles very well. Anthony Hopkins will always be Hannibal Lecter, but Brian Cox did an excellent job as cinema's "first Lecter". Will Petersen and Edward Norton both brought their own take on Will Graham's character and were equally good I thought.
The book, of course, is very much superior to both versions. Manhunter is way out in the whole follow-the-book-thing. Red Dragon is much closer to the original story. Ralph Fiennes is a better Dolarhyde than Tom Noonan, mostly because we get to know him better. The ending in BOTH FILMS are different from the book, don't ask me why, but again, Red Dragon is closer. At least they - SPOILER - actually used the "killer's got Will's home adress" storyline that was just kinda dropped in Manhunter.
Personally, I think Red Dragon was much better. The acting in it was superb. Anthony Hopkins and Edward Norton fit the characters so well. They really did an excellent job.
Seriously? You think this guy is better than Ed Norton? Dude, you are so way off beam. Norton is superb in this, as in all other films he acts in - this guy is wooden as anything.
i must say after viewing this and dont get me wrong, but i prefer Hopkins and the other guy over Brian Cox and Edward Norton. With that being said, both of themare great actors but i think Hopkins is the superior Hannibal and the other guy is the better Wil Graham because through both performances i felt something a little more realistic than i did with Cox and Norton. Hopkins seems more diabolically intellectual and the other guy seems more like a detective than Norton. Cox is great tho
I think Brian Cox is much better. Anthony Hopkins seems to be insane, and he appears to take relish in his insanity. Brian Cox plays Lecktor as someone who is so intelligent, that he doesn't believe he is insane, just misunderstood. Can a man be so intelligent that the world can't understand him?? Lektor actually believes that no one (other than Agent Graham) can understand him, and Brian Cox does a superior job of selling that than Hopkins.
There's only ONE Hannibal. He's Sir Anthony Hopkins.Manhunter is a good movie, perhaps better than Red Dragon.But...it's got Hopkins missing.Ps. Really great video!
Wow....this is awesome! I definitely prefer "Manhunter" over "Red Dragon". However, I always thought that Anthony Hopkins became "Cartoonish" after "Silence of the Lambs". After watching your video I am certain you are correct. Anthony Hopkins is much better than Brian Cox. Do you prefer Dennis Farina or Harvey Keitel? It is possible that all my thinking on the actors was based on the movie I preferred (Manhunter). With the exception of Philip Seymour Hoffman and possibly Joan Allen.
Como mezcalste ambas peliculas, y esa idea de combinarlas, es fuera de serie. Muchas personas nisiquiera conocen al Sabueso o man Hunter, y no saben de ese primer hannibal lector.
Para mi cambinar a hopkins y primer will graham es la combinacion perfecta.
Cox vs Edwar norton no es igual a norton le falto mucha fuerza.
elegir entre los do hanibal es dificil, ambos son ingleses pero hopkins tuvo que basarse en cox, obvio.
gente donde puedo ver Red Dragon en youtube?¿ digo, toda la pelicula!!! porque no me la baja mi pc asi que si hay aqui les agradezco si me avisan. Amo el final de la pelicula
@pushtheclown No, "Red Dragon" and "Manhunter" were two film versions of the exact same story. As such, a lot of dialogue throughout both films (not flashbacks, and not just the interview scenes) was identical.
"Manhunter" was made in the mid-80's, and was otherwise independent of the other Lector-related films.
@pushtheclown I remember seeing Manhunter in the movie theater back when it was first released. I watched it 4 times at the theater. I felt about it then as I did about Blade Runner when I saw that (also when it first came out). Both are epic/classics. Peterson did another movie about the same time called: To live and die in LA. I highly recommend that one too. Wilhelm Dafoe also stars in it. Excellent comparisons. Bravo.
@tigerone1970 It was good (and unexpected for a Brett Ratner film) but in the end Red Dragon was mostly closure to this film and it's lack of success. This is definitely gold though. No critic hated it.
But "Red Dragon" was *kind of* a remake of the movie "Manhunter" -- in reality, they were both simply based on the novel "Red Dragon," and so shared much of the same dialogue.
Only the endings really differed, with "Red Dragon" the movie being (somewhat) more loyal to the book.
Manhunter is and always will be the superior lecktor movie. Peterson(Graham) did a great job and Cox gave lecktor a more civiliazed personality. Cox and Hopkins are both great lecktors but Cox makes lecktor seem as if he could go through society and not be noticed unlike Hopkin's lecktor. Which lecktor did before being caught. All and all both are great actors.
man hunter's prison cell seems too movie studio than in red dragon which looks better a creepier i think some people are saying the anotony hopkins one is better(i think that thoe) because there used to hopkins playing lector i only found out about man hunter like 6 months ago since i write this comment.
manhunter is in my opinion the best of the ''lecter'' series.. it has this dark twisted atmosphere that no other film captured... sadly its the least known
William Peterson is a much better WIll Graham. He just seems more grown up than Norton does and Norton's a very good actor. It's just that Norton's portrayal seems boyish in a way. It's hard to believe he's a grizled and troubled FBI agent
He was not allowed to. Manhunter did bad in the Box office and that meant that the actor who played Lecter (Brian) was not allowed to reprise the role. Sad considering he did an entertaining job as Lecter.
While Red Dragon was also a fantastic film, Manhunter was better. In ways Manhunter was more faithful to the novel because Manhunter follows the Dolarhyde-Graham struggle, while Red Dragon is Graham-Lecter-Dolarhyde. The only major deviations from the novel in Manhunter is the fact that Dolarhyde's childhood story was omitted and the endings. Manhunter also has Michael Mann's atmospheric style of filmaking as well as better portrayals of the characters.
Interesting exercise. I thought the Norton/Cox face off worked
better, mainly because the dialogue was played at much the same pace. Wheras in the Hopkins/Petersen segment, you notice how slowly Anthony Hopkins is speaking.
As regards the moviesm I prefer Manhunter. Hopkins rendition
is the more charasmatic, but Cox's the more realistic.
The Manhunter rendition is superior because it shows two strong personalities facing off against each other. Norton is a great actor, but his Graham was too meek and college student-ish to be a good adversary for Lecter. Petersen's Graham seems more hard edged, a guy who is used to dealing with serial killers and doesn't take too much shit from them....until they probe too deep. I'm also more partial to Cox than Hopkins. Yes, Hopkins is great, but when I read the books I usually pictured Cox.
it was close. The edits could be better. Brian Cox was terrible in that roll and Will from Manhunter had no life in his voice or face, Ed Norton did a much better job, you didn't need a close up of them every time they spoke, especially when Lector was standing toward Will. it would have run smoother. I know that you were not trying to completely recreate it, but it needs to run smoother than that.
Now that the Anthony Hopkins Hannibal Lecter franchise is complete, perhaps we could have a direct sequel to Manhunter featuring Brian Cox as 'Lecktor'. Alternately, I would like to see Red Dragon, Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal adapted in a consistent manner for television, perhaps with Tim Roth as Lecter
I think william peterson did a much more effective job, during this whole scene he looks so uncomfortable, in such a way in which looks as if he wants to vomit. His tone of voice and his posture seems very uncomfortable, plus his chicago accent makes it sound so much better.
Nice job really. ALL the actors are very good., that's why they have careers. Manhunter was mad in Mann's Miami Vice period, the photography is good, but stylised. I still think the original is superior.
Is personnaly think that Cox's version of Hannibal Lector is bland and unsatisfying. Lector is supposed to be a menacing person, Cox just looks like his jaw is disconnected and the way he stares is just empty and his voice is the same way, very unchanging, unthreatning and really just boring.
I reading some of the debate on Hopkins vs Cox. First of all, they are 2 separate movies, made, each using popular actors of that generation. RD was made shortly after Fight Club when Norton was a hot actor. RD tried to align itself so it was parallel to SotL. Cox was good because he was believable and subtle. Hopkins was good in this because he was good in SotL. He reprised his role. The movies should not and cannot be compared, like both Psycho movies. RD was a unique retelling of the story
To compare the two does neither justice. Personally, I found Manhunter more suspenseful because it focued on the investigation and Peterson's desperation to find the killer, whereas RD was more about the killer. Both movies are good, and comparing Hopkins vs Cox is like comparing James Bond actors. These are two different movies. Red Dragon was made for a new audience, so young people will like it. Those who say Cox, and give no reason, prob hate Citizen Kane, noir, and foreign films too
meant to say 'Those who say Cox sucks, and give no reason.'
What I mean is, if you make a stance, back up your claim. That is how it works. If you have a criticism, verify it with observations. Just saying something sucks and giving no reason shows you are either ignorant or just trolling.
both movies are separate from a big generation gap of 20+ years
In my generation I didnt know anything about Manhunter til I saw Red Dragon and after watching Manhunter its only natural that I preferred the newer version (Red Dragon) because I'm used to the Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal movies, and also I'm used to Anthony Hopkins playing Hannibal Lecture especially since he did a performed brillantly in SOTL
I agree. Note also that Norton seems pretty laid-back, so much so that it would be hard to believe he had been viciously attacked if it wasn't shown. Petersen seems on edge all the time; he carried the memory of how he was nearly killed on his face, and we don't need to see the scene.
I'm would not compare the two films but i would suffice to say that William Petersen/Anthony Hopkins would of played off each other better, I much prefer Manhunter to Red Dragon only because Norton couldn't pull off Graham as well as Petersen did but thats my opinion i know that Cox did a great job for that movie just like Hopkins did for Silence Hannibal and Red Dragon
I love Anthony Hopkins too! Brian Cox isnt bad though...he adds a different element to an almost identical script! that isnt bad, i actually like william petersen better then ed norton, so i dont know you probably think my opinion is whack!
sorry i couldn`t finish the one with cocks..i mean cox manhunter was a disaster..red dragon was what happens when the director opens his eyes and says this could be done wayy better..ed and anthony rule ,,,,,and i went to school with gus van sant if any of you clowns know anything about directors..
Just because you went to school with Gus Van Sant doesn't mean your the all mighty. Also, Gus Van Sant did direct the Phycho remake and Even Cow Girls get the Blues, so I wouldn't go around acting all superior.
you`re right i`m not the king of the hill i do have alot of experience in film though..and between you and myself he(gus) was a fool to re- do a hitchcock flick..kinda like colorizing casablanca..some things are best left alone..
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Brian Cox is the better. Hopkins was just playing the character like a creepy ghoul, which isn't hard to do. All you have to do is act like an idiot in front of the camera.
I don't know man... Cox's interpretation makes Lecter look like an average killer... Hopkins on the other hand makes him look smart, crazy and a little sarcastic at the same time which is exactly how he is described in the book
I think the point is that Hannibal was supposed to look like a normal person, that's why catching him was so difficult. Being a crazy the way Hopkins portrays it, you wonder why he wasn't questioned before any murder even took place. Then again, in this he had been imprisoned for years, so I'm sure he'd be more vulgar than he was as a civilian.
But also the problem with Hopkins is that he makes the charater to ridiculous to presume possible to exsist. If Lector was a vampire I would be more inclined to be afraid of Hopkins. But Lector is meant to be a human-monster, and I find Cox's Lecktor to have found the proper balance between realism and sensationalism.
Also, what relavence is it that Lector is close to how he is described in the book? We're talking about the films here not the book. Really, Cox's and Michael Mann would get extra points because hey came up with their own idea of the character rather than just copying what was said in the book.
You are right, I would not go as far as to say that Hopkins looks like an idiot, but to anybody who understands acting and moviemaking you are right: Cox was far better.
I think they both have talent. They just portray him differently. Cox is more believable as a gentlemen turned psychopath, but Hopkins managed to carry a dark intrigue and will be remembered as Hannibal.
I respect your opinion however in my own it is rather foolish to downplay Hopkins performance based on favouritism. He payed attention to speech and mannerisms providing subtle implications and eery analogies to everything he said. I suppose horror icons like Bela Lugosi are 'idiots' aswell.
I'm not downplaying his performance based on favourtism, i havn't seen Brian Cox in any film apart from manhunter, while i've seen Hopkins in dozens of films and i've enjoyed his performances. The fact is that it isn't hard to play lector they way Hopkins played, any energetic actor could do it which result in a hilarious performance, but not scary. And Bela Lugosi, and the others, we're scary and original, in a sense, when they first came out which was many MANY years.
Also, I actually never said I didn't like Hopkins, I just said Cox was the better. Hopkins performance was funny and entertaining, but Cox touched something far more human that Hopkins did. Also, I wouldn't never at all say Hopkins's lector was subtle: " I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti"...yeah...sure... very "subtle."
I would. Hopkins calm demeanor and courtesy hid a sociopath. What makes Hannibal Lector such a great character IS how sane he seems, how stoic. Brian Cox carried a subtlety throughout the film while Hopkins had his obvious moments while he was acting and his quiet cunning while he spoke.
I don't really have a favourite, I just find it short sighted to imply that Hopkins portrayal takes any less ability. It's really about personal taste isn't it?
It's skillfull for someone to act energetic? In that logic you would be saying a todler is a great actor because he can run around in circles longer than an adult can. Hopkins lector was as calm as a horny dog, everyone word he said was trying to be scary. It's overacting at it's most possible greatist. But overacting, as much as I enjoy it, cannot compete with subtlety. Cox had cunning, spooks, courtesy and demeanor without making it blindingly obvious for the viewers.
And also, remember we are NOT on the "stage" here, we're in front of the camera. Subtlety is the most important key to acting in front of the camera. If we we're discussing two theatre performances, then Hopkins would be the the superior, because Cox was so subtle you wouldn't be able see him acting way back there in the audience seats. Their is no logic to contentiousness, Film acting IS subtle, Theatre IS projection. And both Manhunter and Silence are FILMS, not PLAYS.
I get that you prefer Cox. We have already established his credibility as an actor, so there's no need to reiterate is there?
If film acting was subtle we wouldn't have alot of the film genres we have now, some of our greatest actors are remembered for their *gasp* energy.
I am not trying to start a fight with you, you've made some good points...However your idea of what a 'human monster' is (your words) may differ from what others think, some people might envision Hopkins as that.
If you didnt want to have an arguement why did comment to me in the first place and why are you continuing to argue?
Which is a bit ludicrious really seeing that your argument has no basis apart from your own opinion. While im basing my argument on the very simple rules of acting. Film acting is about subtlety, you cannot argue with that. Hopkins WAS overacting, and overacting doesn't mean a display/not a display of emotion. Its just an over the top display of emotion which is easier to read.
I was pointing out that Hopkins was a talented actor. You said he acted like a ghoul which any 'idiot' can do. You've also said that not basing your character off of pre-established traits mentioned in the novel is original, you've implied that emotion in film is overacting and you are a hypocrite to say that my argument is based on opinion when yours are aswell.
Your 'rules of acting' are relative in most situations. Hopkins did not overact in MY opinion.
Hopkin did overact, you must be blind if you can't see that. It's not a bad thing it's what made him good in the film. It's just Cox was better because he was REAL. And I also know for a fact that any idiot can act like ghoul because I pulled of a similar performance in a drama lesson, I know it was very successful because it made everyone in the room gasp and my teachers congradulated me for it afterwards. Now, if then 16 year old can do a Hopkins, but can't do a Cox, what does that say?
At least LT and myself are both literate, even if we do disagree with each other. Hell, we stopped arguing like a week ago...Way to jump in on a dead conversation.
In fact, I was defending Hopkins you degenerate. Way to be observant.
I'm done with you and this thread, say what you want. At the end of the day you'll still be petulant little retard.
I'll assume that you've studied acting which you may have or may have not... But it takes a special type of dilusion to assume that your definition of 'acting' is unarguably the right way.
You're right, I don't know why I continue to argue, clearly you're so contrived that anyone who comments on your opinion is ignorant to what acting is and is in the wrong.
Feel free to respond but I won't be reading it, I wanted nothing more then a serious discussion. You chose belittlement.
Yeah, yeah. You just want the last word otherwise you wouldn't have hand two comments. I never said that giving emotion in film is overacting, I said hopkins overacted the emotion. And do you actually know anything about acting? All I know about acting is in films. And no I'm not a hypocrite, acting in films is about being subtle because the camera is close to the face, a very simple science. And I'm always serious when talking about these kinds of subjects, it's a requirment.
Did I say that being energetic required skill? I didn't even mention the word skill that is your word not mine. I said energy is a part of stage charisma. This 'logic' that you think I am trying to convey is based on speculation. You're merely twisting my words to suit yourself which is pretty unfair.
by 'stage charisma' all I meant was a dramatic flair. What you consider to be 'overacting' I consider to be a display of emotion.
Well energy is a part of stage charisma. Without some sort of energy the performance is rather dry.
Brian Cox played the role with a subtle menace which made for an enjoyable portrayal... Hopkins was alot more obvious, it doesn't require less of an actor to be energetic.....If anything it requires more I'd think. They both just had a unique take on the character.
I will say though, Hopkins was better in Silence of the Lambs.
Well, Petersen and Hopkins good stuff. But Brian Cox good play Gannibal Lecter. Cox's Lecter loks like more original, than Hopkins' Lecter seen than he is insane
That was a great piece of editiing Chris I realy enjoyed it as I am a fan of the series, although I like the Hopkins Lector you have to admit that Cox's spin on the the guise was great to !!!
Just one last thing to add, Manhunter over Red Dragon for me, the Noonan Dollorhyde is more creepy, especialy in the Lounds scene !!!
First would be Manhunter-or-Red Dragon, then Silence of the Lambs, then Hannibal, then, I believe, Hannibal Rising (never saw that one).
As I understand it, Hannibal Rising comes first chronologically, but it was written *to be* a prequel (unlike Red Dragon, which just got produced later), so you're already supposed to know Hannibal's character before watching it.
Petersen and Hopkins, man that would have been epic. But this is good enough! Great editing job.
peaceandmetal88 9 months ago
@peaceandmetal88 Thanks! :-)
actorwriterdca 9 months ago
Edward Norton isn't bad, but Brian Cox is just awful. He didn't get the feel of the character at all.
Shiggity123 9 months ago
I wonder which colour the cell and surroundings are in the book..
VicariousReality7 9 months ago
Hopkins is the better Lecter you imbicile. Observe and infer the greater role playing ability between the two individuals and
TheRedScorpion91 9 months ago
You are an idiot Anthony Hopkins is the real
TheRedScorpion91 9 months ago
I think Brian Cox is actually the better Hannibal.
EliteF50 9 months ago
Great job!! I was looking for a comparative. This was really cool.
I thought Hopkins was way over the top, Cox seemed a lot more unassuming.
Look at Bundy, Ridgeway, Dahmer, etc the real ones don't stand out.
bluumax 9 months ago
I would have to say Hopkins is the far superior Lecter. It's as if he looks right into you, I think his performance is almost unmatchable. Now, as much of a Norton fan that I am, I think William Graham did a better job, as did Tom Noonan as the killer in Manhunter
firebirdthecody 10 months ago
anthony hopkins is the ideal actor for the hannibal lecter....respect
ooovevaia 10 months ago
I personally liked red dragon more. It just held on to me more, and i found that both lector and the dragon just were portrayed better, and so was the story. I am still undecided who played William Graham better.
kolby206 10 months ago
naahhhh! Red dragon is the better anthony hopkins is insane!
KAKAPeople 10 months ago
Excellent job with both versions of the same scene. Red Dragon did seem to follow Manhunter closely, especially in the Will Graham/Dr. Lecter scenes. Thanks for both of the "alternative versions". All four actors did their roles very well. Anthony Hopkins will always be Hannibal Lecter, but Brian Cox did an excellent job as cinema's "first Lecter". Will Petersen and Edward Norton both brought their own take on Will Graham's character and were equally good I thought.
RavenHouseMystery 10 months ago
The book, of course, is very much superior to both versions. Manhunter is way out in the whole follow-the-book-thing. Red Dragon is much closer to the original story. Ralph Fiennes is a better Dolarhyde than Tom Noonan, mostly because we get to know him better. The ending in BOTH FILMS are different from the book, don't ask me why, but again, Red Dragon is closer. At least they - SPOILER - actually used the "killer's got Will's home adress" storyline that was just kinda dropped in Manhunter.
TheXFalcon 11 months ago
Anthony Hopkins IZ Hannibal Lector. His performance is legendary.
top1terra1girl 11 months ago
One thing I can definitely be sure of through this video: Peterson performed way better than Norton.
I think Norton tried too hard at diversifying his acting career, lol.
booste30 11 months ago
Personally, I think Red Dragon was much better. The acting in it was superb. Anthony Hopkins and Edward Norton fit the characters so well. They really did an excellent job.
InquisitorThirteen 11 months ago
this i think the books version of this interview is better. it has more detail.
96aromaz 11 months ago
The 2nd Will matches the Will in the book....All in All Red Dragon is better
cherishxxlove 11 months ago
Stra-ange!
urbandenizen 11 months ago
Seriously? You think this guy is better than Ed Norton? Dude, you are so way off beam. Norton is superb in this, as in all other films he acts in - this guy is wooden as anything.
OneManIndustry1 1 year ago
is that pat garett from young guns lol
South817side 1 year ago
@South817side Yup!
actorwriterdca 1 year ago
@South817side It's Grissom from CSI
widgewilliams 9 months ago
Hopkins is a much better Lecter, but Cox was very good.
thelupoistheman1 1 year ago
Manhunter was the strongest of the Lecter movies
Gandalfgrey93 1 year ago
Manhunter was the strongest of the Lecter movies
Gandalfgrey93 1 year ago 2
without hopkins Silence of the Lambs would never been the classic it is. Brian Cox never made Lecter a legendary figure, Hopkins did.
jeannedarc2007 1 year ago
hopkins is much more memorable, no doubt about it after seeing this
jeannedarc2007 1 year ago
"Second-raters, the lot." The snobby English really comes out- especially odd considering the character was mostly Italian.
mechasonic17 1 year ago
Anthony Hopkins was far better to be honest.
bantermelon 1 year ago
i found Hopkins and Nortens interaction more believable i mean it actually felt like they were old acquaintances
shadow6543 1 year ago
ship on the bottle
EllieroseORourke 1 year ago
It would be very nice if somebody could upload the opening scene from Red Dragon (where Lecter cooks for the filharmonic, and stabs Graham).
789123Y 1 year ago
i must say after viewing this and dont get me wrong, but i prefer Hopkins and the other guy over Brian Cox and Edward Norton. With that being said, both of themare great actors but i think Hopkins is the superior Hannibal and the other guy is the better Wil Graham because through both performances i felt something a little more realistic than i did with Cox and Norton. Hopkins seems more diabolically intellectual and the other guy seems more like a detective than Norton. Cox is great tho
ThomasxicoFree 1 year ago
Holy crap, I knew I saw graham before, GRISSOM!!
thatsnazzycornguy 1 year ago
edward norton ftw!!!! i just dont buy brian cox as a killer, he likes a menacing charm
kevkevness 1 year ago
I think Brian Cox is much better. Anthony Hopkins seems to be insane, and he appears to take relish in his insanity. Brian Cox plays Lecktor as someone who is so intelligent, that he doesn't believe he is insane, just misunderstood. Can a man be so intelligent that the world can't understand him?? Lektor actually believes that no one (other than Agent Graham) can understand him, and Brian Cox does a superior job of selling that than Hopkins.
natchy99 1 year ago
Awesome..that wouldve been my choice too!
knightklown 1 year ago
There's only ONE Hannibal. He's Sir Anthony Hopkins.Manhunter is a good movie, perhaps better than Red Dragon.But...it's got Hopkins missing.Ps. Really great video!
tubeskiller 1 year ago
I find the PURE WHITE Cell in "Manhunter" strangely contrasted to the DARK Stone Dungeon Hannibal is in with "Red Dragon"
AmericanMan512 1 year ago
I think that fantastic though Silence of the lambs and Hannibal were, this was was too far. Manhunter was better even if less high profile.
This was a good video though !
Roger210201 1 year ago
Red Dragon is MORE BETTER than Manhunter
myers82 1 year ago
Acting classes and film making classes should show these scenes back to back. Both brilliantly done but in completely different ways.
WhySoSerious0331 1 year ago
@MrFlick999
I didn't notice any scars, do you mean by the way it's CUT i.e knife, cut, scar, like a joke.
nath909 1 year ago
Wow....this is awesome! I definitely prefer "Manhunter" over "Red Dragon". However, I always thought that Anthony Hopkins became "Cartoonish" after "Silence of the Lambs". After watching your video I am certain you are correct. Anthony Hopkins is much better than Brian Cox. Do you prefer Dennis Farina or Harvey Keitel? It is possible that all my thinking on the actors was based on the movie I preferred (Manhunter). With the exception of Philip Seymour Hoffman and possibly Joan Allen.
closerdave 1 year ago
@closerdave I like Keitel as an actor (as I do Cox), but I think I preferred Farina's performance (over Scott Glenn's, too).
actorwriterdca 1 year ago
@closerdave How can you prefer Manhunter to Red Dragon? Man Hunter was TERRIBLY made.
scarlettsnowe 1 year ago
@closerdave
He's cartoonish in hannibal, but in red dragon he isn't cartoonish..
Also, i prefer red dragon over silence of the lambs.
gombie 9 months ago
I M P R E S I O N A N T E
Como mezcalste ambas peliculas, y esa idea de combinarlas, es fuera de serie. Muchas personas nisiquiera conocen al Sabueso o man Hunter, y no saben de ese primer hannibal lector.
Para mi cambinar a hopkins y primer will graham es la combinacion perfecta.
Cox vs Edwar norton no es igual a norton le falto mucha fuerza.
elegir entre los do hanibal es dificil, ambos son ingleses pero hopkins tuvo que basarse en cox, obvio.
Ente ambas movies man hunter sin duda
sayrus2001 1 year ago
I liked Red Dragon better then Man Hunter personally, I liked the book too.
I think Silence of the Lambs movie was better then the book, but I didn't like the book so much, and the movie was a master piece.
fromdaghettowithlove 1 year ago
maybe gil grissoms first case lol
carbonfootprintmyass 1 year ago
love it
Jkelquedi 1 year ago
Completely overacted by Hpokins. It's more like a pantomine than a film.
Each to their own.
NateSpurs 1 year ago 3
gente donde puedo ver Red Dragon en youtube?¿ digo, toda la pelicula!!! porque no me la baja mi pc asi que si hay aqui les agradezco si me avisan. Amo el final de la pelicula
fOrGiiVeMe 1 year ago
Will has some Joker duds goin on.
tbmuex 1 year ago
8;00 scottish accent really slips out then :P
romanblood 1 year ago
Ed Norton is cuter !!
store275 1 year ago
Me personally, I don't see that much of a difference between the two. I much prefer Edward Norton than William Peterson. (Pretty sure that's his name)
But that's just me :p
LeftLegYieldRight 1 year ago
hmmm i was under the impression it was just all the same story line.
like this
hannibal rising
red dragon
man hunter
silence of the lambs
hannibal.
those scenes were just flash backs and stuff..?
pushtheclown 1 year ago
@pushtheclown No, "Red Dragon" and "Manhunter" were two film versions of the exact same story. As such, a lot of dialogue throughout both films (not flashbacks, and not just the interview scenes) was identical.
"Manhunter" was made in the mid-80's, and was otherwise independent of the other Lector-related films.
actorwriterdca 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@actorwriterdca ""Manhunter" was made in the mid-80's, and was otherwise independent of the other Lector-related films."
That's because not one of them existed yet.
futurestoryteller 11 months ago
@pushtheclown I remember seeing Manhunter in the movie theater back when it was first released. I watched it 4 times at the theater. I felt about it then as I did about Blade Runner when I saw that (also when it first came out). Both are epic/classics. Peterson did another movie about the same time called: To live and die in LA. I highly recommend that one too. Wilhelm Dafoe also stars in it. Excellent comparisons. Bravo.
swedishmanguy 1 year ago
Shot for shot, actor for actor, Manhunter is superior to Red Dragon.
tigerone1970 1 year ago
@tigerone1970 It was good (and unexpected for a Brett Ratner film) but in the end Red Dragon was mostly closure to this film and it's lack of success. This is definitely gold though. No critic hated it.
NeverAloneForever 1 year ago
anthony hopkins is muuuuuuuch better
RyanTF2 1 year ago 23
edward nartorn is a loser
TheNaomiengland 1 year ago
It would have been wicked if hopkins had played lecter orignally in manhunter when he was younger.
dobindave 1 year ago 8
So, Silence of the Lambs is actually a re-make?
garciare1 1 year ago
"Silence of the Lambs," no.
But "Red Dragon" was *kind of* a remake of the movie "Manhunter" -- in reality, they were both simply based on the novel "Red Dragon," and so shared much of the same dialogue.
Only the endings really differed, with "Red Dragon" the movie being (somewhat) more loyal to the book.
actorwriterdca 1 year ago 3
@actorwriterdca So it's more or less a sequel to Manhunter.
NeverAloneForever 1 year ago
Manhunter is and always will be the superior lecktor movie. Peterson(Graham) did a great job and Cox gave lecktor a more civiliazed personality. Cox and Hopkins are both great lecktors but Cox makes lecktor seem as if he could go through society and not be noticed unlike Hopkin's lecktor. Which lecktor did before being caught. All and all both are great actors.
neji23001 1 year ago
yes, that's a fact amen! Manhunter was truly a great movie
aspergershawn 1 year ago
Comment removed
neji23001 1 year ago
what's the point of this?
LetTheRightOneIn19 1 year ago
man hunter's prison cell seems too movie studio than in red dragon which looks better a creepier i think some people are saying the anotony hopkins one is better(i think that thoe) because there used to hopkins playing lector i only found out about man hunter like 6 months ago since i write this comment.
MultiMurder 1 year ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Man, I can't believe 'Red Dragon' took the script from 'Manhunter' - almost word-for-word.
mrblujet 1 year ago
... They both took it from the same book, lol. 'Manhunter' didn't come up with that dialouge, the author (Thomas Harris) did.
forparadise 1 year ago 5
Antony Hopkins is the best but Brian Cox is awesome too
emmymoonshine 1 year ago
edward nortons hair ruined it for me....that colourist should be eaten
ezmereldagreen 1 year ago
manhunter is in my opinion the best of the ''lecter'' series.. it has this dark twisted atmosphere that no other film captured... sadly its the least known
BornToDie90 1 year ago
so red dragon is a remake of manhunter..yes,?
shaneanus 1 year ago
Sort of. It would be more fair to say that they are two separate movies based on the same book, but yes, "Manhunter" came before "Red Dragon."
actorwriterdca 1 year ago
Awesome job, Chris!!!!!!! Both of these are my 2 favorite movies!!
jongault4ever 1 year ago
Thank you. :-)
actorwriterdca 1 year ago
William Peterson is a much better WIll Graham. He just seems more grown up than Norton does and Norton's a very good actor. It's just that Norton's portrayal seems boyish in a way. It's hard to believe he's a grizled and troubled FBI agent
Drac39 1 year ago 2
I think Brian Cox made an excellent Lecter. I would have liked to see him cast as Lecter in S of the Ls.
19996669991 2 years ago
@19996669991,
He was not allowed to. Manhunter did bad in the Box office and that meant that the actor who played Lecter (Brian) was not allowed to reprise the role. Sad considering he did an entertaining job as Lecter.
thelupoistheman1 1 year ago
Now thats is a great work
zeprefel 2 years ago
Yeah, the Will in Manhunter was SO much better than Norton. The directing was better too.
But Red Dragon's a better script, and has a better Lecter.
Pwells1 2 years ago 4
very interesting. well worth watching.
lowspark68 2 years ago 2
i like the first clip better
wolfinfairy 2 years ago
I'm happy with what I saw, infact, I am super fucking happy with it. They are both good, not better just different.
ErikVaughnDillinger 2 years ago
well cut together
aliveagain09 2 years ago 3
Thanks.
actorwriterdca 2 years ago
While Red Dragon was also a fantastic film, Manhunter was better. In ways Manhunter was more faithful to the novel because Manhunter follows the Dolarhyde-Graham struggle, while Red Dragon is Graham-Lecter-Dolarhyde. The only major deviations from the novel in Manhunter is the fact that Dolarhyde's childhood story was omitted and the endings. Manhunter also has Michael Mann's atmospheric style of filmaking as well as better portrayals of the characters.
Downs2440 2 years ago
masterpeace!
darktim99 2 years ago
Thank you.
actorwriterdca 2 years ago
Interesting exercise. I thought the Norton/Cox face off worked
better, mainly because the dialogue was played at much the same pace. Wheras in the Hopkins/Petersen segment, you notice how slowly Anthony Hopkins is speaking.
As regards the moviesm I prefer Manhunter. Hopkins rendition
is the more charasmatic, but Cox's the more realistic.
M
irish66 2 years ago 2
The Manhunter rendition is superior because it shows two strong personalities facing off against each other. Norton is a great actor, but his Graham was too meek and college student-ish to be a good adversary for Lecter. Petersen's Graham seems more hard edged, a guy who is used to dealing with serial killers and doesn't take too much shit from them....until they probe too deep. I'm also more partial to Cox than Hopkins. Yes, Hopkins is great, but when I read the books I usually pictured Cox.
TheGreaterGood80 2 years ago
"You say you're a layman but it was you who caught me wasn't it Will"
majerlet 2 years ago
Comment removed
MrNightOwl88 2 years ago
this movie is so fucking scarry?
MrFlink999 2 years ago
it was close. The edits could be better. Brian Cox was terrible in that roll and Will from Manhunter had no life in his voice or face, Ed Norton did a much better job, you didn't need a close up of them every time they spoke, especially when Lector was standing toward Will. it would have run smoother. I know that you were not trying to completely recreate it, but it needs to run smoother than that.
Jacklgf 2 years ago
William Peterson owns the Will Graham role!
Manhunter pisses on Red Dragon.
iconzero 2 years ago 2
we will have to agree to disagree with that.
Jacklgf 2 years ago
amen. michael mann baby!!
detroituntilidie 2 years ago 2
awesome movie
hulksmash123100 2 years ago
Now that the Anthony Hopkins Hannibal Lecter franchise is complete, perhaps we could have a direct sequel to Manhunter featuring Brian Cox as 'Lecktor'. Alternately, I would like to see Red Dragon, Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal adapted in a consistent manner for television, perhaps with Tim Roth as Lecter
randomdave30 2 years ago
I think william peterson did a much more effective job, during this whole scene he looks so uncomfortable, in such a way in which looks as if he wants to vomit. His tone of voice and his posture seems very uncomfortable, plus his chicago accent makes it sound so much better.
wesker1998 2 years ago 11
it is how i imagined him in the novel, i agree
OvSanguineEyes 2 years ago
Nice video :D
I haven't seen Manhunter (just some vids and the trailer), but for what it's worth, I prefer Red Dragon.
I've read the comments, and I think that if Norton's Graham look "flat and unemotional" it's because he's doing his best at hiding his fear.
While he waits for Lecter to read the file, he goes to a sort of restroom and when he takes of his vest you see huge sweat spots on his shirt.
He's utterly terrified - but he's hiding it. So he looks "unemotional".
eyradesforets 2 years ago 2
this is pretty funny...i think the original "Will" is better and hopkins is a better lecter
TeNgaruRihari 2 years ago 4
Nice job really. ALL the actors are very good., that's why they have careers. Manhunter was mad in Mann's Miami Vice period, the photography is good, but stylised. I still think the original is superior.
cosmicdingo 2 years ago 2
Is personnaly think that Cox's version of Hannibal Lector is bland and unsatisfying. Lector is supposed to be a menacing person, Cox just looks like his jaw is disconnected and the way he stares is just empty and his voice is the same way, very unchanging, unthreatning and really just boring.
Hoekell 2 years ago 5
yeh. most serial killers aren't that menacing untill they're stabbing you to death.
YouDickwod 2 years ago 3
@YouDickwod
you're right. Oh wait.
calumhm 2 years ago
I reading some of the debate on Hopkins vs Cox. First of all, they are 2 separate movies, made, each using popular actors of that generation. RD was made shortly after Fight Club when Norton was a hot actor. RD tried to align itself so it was parallel to SotL. Cox was good because he was believable and subtle. Hopkins was good in this because he was good in SotL. He reprised his role. The movies should not and cannot be compared, like both Psycho movies. RD was a unique retelling of the story
4jonah 2 years ago 3
To compare the two does neither justice. Personally, I found Manhunter more suspenseful because it focued on the investigation and Peterson's desperation to find the killer, whereas RD was more about the killer. Both movies are good, and comparing Hopkins vs Cox is like comparing James Bond actors. These are two different movies. Red Dragon was made for a new audience, so young people will like it. Those who say Cox, and give no reason, prob hate Citizen Kane, noir, and foreign films too
4jonah 2 years ago 2
meant to say 'Those who say Cox sucks, and give no reason.'
What I mean is, if you make a stance, back up your claim. That is how it works. If you have a criticism, verify it with observations. Just saying something sucks and giving no reason shows you are either ignorant or just trolling.
4jonah 2 years ago 3
I totally agree with 4jonah,
both movies are separate from a big generation gap of 20+ years
In my generation I didnt know anything about Manhunter til I saw Red Dragon and after watching Manhunter its only natural that I preferred the newer version (Red Dragon) because I'm used to the Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal movies, and also I'm used to Anthony Hopkins playing Hannibal Lecture especially since he did a performed brillantly in SOTL
godsend92103 2 years ago 3
I agree. Note also that Norton seems pretty laid-back, so much so that it would be hard to believe he had been viciously attacked if it wasn't shown. Petersen seems on edge all the time; he carried the memory of how he was nearly killed on his face, and we don't need to see the scene.
textthing 2 years ago 2
I'm would not compare the two films but i would suffice to say that William Petersen/Anthony Hopkins would of played off each other better, I much prefer Manhunter to Red Dragon only because Norton couldn't pull off Graham as well as Petersen did but thats my opinion i know that Cox did a great job for that movie just like Hopkins did for Silence Hannibal and Red Dragon
SithSavageryMindblow 2 years ago 2
I'm sorry but Brian Cox's lector is absolute shit...I love him as an actor too tho, just not as hannibal...fuck me that was a crappy rendition
jeystonemusic 2 years ago
too bad your standards are soo hollywood, youre missing out
meeces13 2 years ago 2
I love Anthony Hopkins too! Brian Cox isnt bad though...he adds a different element to an almost identical script! that isnt bad, i actually like william petersen better then ed norton, so i dont know you probably think my opinion is whack!
bigrussthefusss 2 years ago
the way he says 'what disadvantages?' ...amazing
jeystonemusic 2 years ago
sorry i couldn`t finish the one with cocks..i mean cox manhunter was a disaster..red dragon was what happens when the director opens his eyes and says this could be done wayy better..ed and anthony rule ,,,,,and i went to school with gus van sant if any of you clowns know anything about directors..
sundowna 2 years ago
Just because you went to school with Gus Van Sant doesn't mean your the all mighty. Also, Gus Van Sant did direct the Phycho remake and Even Cow Girls get the Blues, so I wouldn't go around acting all superior.
LTstudios 2 years ago
you`re right i`m not the king of the hill i do have alot of experience in film though..and between you and myself he(gus) was a fool to re- do a hitchcock flick..kinda like colorizing casablanca..some things are best left alone..
sundowna 2 years ago
I heard Milk was meant to be good though.
LTstudios 2 years ago
red dragon is weak
meeces13 2 years ago
ur mama is weak lol
RedGun15 2 years ago
weak again..
meeces13 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
dude man hunter sucks ass like ur mom does with ur next door neighbor. then again ur weak as hell again
RedGun15 2 years ago
The music in manhunter is kind of annoying. Hopkins plays a better Lecter
mckfrr 2 years ago 2
I LOVE IT! I would have LOVED to see these two instead. The best Lector was Hopkins and the best Will was Petersen. I loved this :)
mistressturner 2 years ago
Thank you very much. :-)
actorwriterdca 2 years ago
manhunter>red dragon
1blondietuco1 2 years ago
i love brian cox but he makes a shite lector
viralfunnies 2 years ago
Clowns are funny! :D :p
lilfaithmarlee 2 years ago
Manhunter is a far superior film to Red Dragon.
ranvo05 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Brian Cox is the better. Hopkins was just playing the character like a creepy ghoul, which isn't hard to do. All you have to do is act like an idiot in front of the camera.
LTstudios 2 years ago
I don't know man... Cox's interpretation makes Lecter look like an average killer... Hopkins on the other hand makes him look smart, crazy and a little sarcastic at the same time which is exactly how he is described in the book
Teamsleeper 2 years ago 7
I think the point is that Hannibal was supposed to look like a normal person, that's why catching him was so difficult. Being a crazy the way Hopkins portrays it, you wonder why he wasn't questioned before any murder even took place. Then again, in this he had been imprisoned for years, so I'm sure he'd be more vulgar than he was as a civilian.
MaliciousPirate 2 years ago
But also the problem with Hopkins is that he makes the charater to ridiculous to presume possible to exsist. If Lector was a vampire I would be more inclined to be afraid of Hopkins. But Lector is meant to be a human-monster, and I find Cox's Lecktor to have found the proper balance between realism and sensationalism.
LTstudios 2 years ago
Also, what relavence is it that Lector is close to how he is described in the book? We're talking about the films here not the book. Really, Cox's and Michael Mann would get extra points because hey came up with their own idea of the character rather than just copying what was said in the book.
LTstudios 2 years ago
I agree with you. Hopkins makes Lector look more like a crazy pederast than a well read cannibal.
MaliciousPirate 2 years ago
You are right, I would not go as far as to say that Hopkins looks like an idiot, but to anybody who understands acting and moviemaking you are right: Cox was far better.
ElephantRage 2 years ago
I think they both have talent. They just portray him differently. Cox is more believable as a gentlemen turned psychopath, but Hopkins managed to carry a dark intrigue and will be remembered as Hannibal.
I respect your opinion however in my own it is rather foolish to downplay Hopkins performance based on favouritism. He payed attention to speech and mannerisms providing subtle implications and eery analogies to everything he said. I suppose horror icons like Bela Lugosi are 'idiots' aswell.
5anjii 2 years ago
I'm not downplaying his performance based on favourtism, i havn't seen Brian Cox in any film apart from manhunter, while i've seen Hopkins in dozens of films and i've enjoyed his performances. The fact is that it isn't hard to play lector they way Hopkins played, any energetic actor could do it which result in a hilarious performance, but not scary. And Bela Lugosi, and the others, we're scary and original, in a sense, when they first came out which was many MANY years.
LTstudios 2 years ago
Also, I actually never said I didn't like Hopkins, I just said Cox was the better. Hopkins performance was funny and entertaining, but Cox touched something far more human that Hopkins did. Also, I wouldn't never at all say Hopkins's lector was subtle: " I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti"...yeah...sure... very "subtle."
LTstudios 2 years ago
I would. Hopkins calm demeanor and courtesy hid a sociopath. What makes Hannibal Lector such a great character IS how sane he seems, how stoic. Brian Cox carried a subtlety throughout the film while Hopkins had his obvious moments while he was acting and his quiet cunning while he spoke.
I don't really have a favourite, I just find it short sighted to imply that Hopkins portrayal takes any less ability. It's really about personal taste isn't it?
5anjii 2 years ago
It's skillfull for someone to act energetic? In that logic you would be saying a todler is a great actor because he can run around in circles longer than an adult can. Hopkins lector was as calm as a horny dog, everyone word he said was trying to be scary. It's overacting at it's most possible greatist. But overacting, as much as I enjoy it, cannot compete with subtlety. Cox had cunning, spooks, courtesy and demeanor without making it blindingly obvious for the viewers.
LTstudios 2 years ago
And also, remember we are NOT on the "stage" here, we're in front of the camera. Subtlety is the most important key to acting in front of the camera. If we we're discussing two theatre performances, then Hopkins would be the the superior, because Cox was so subtle you wouldn't be able see him acting way back there in the audience seats. Their is no logic to contentiousness, Film acting IS subtle, Theatre IS projection. And both Manhunter and Silence are FILMS, not PLAYS.
LTstudios 2 years ago
I get that you prefer Cox. We have already established his credibility as an actor, so there's no need to reiterate is there?
If film acting was subtle we wouldn't have alot of the film genres we have now, some of our greatest actors are remembered for their *gasp* energy.
I am not trying to start a fight with you, you've made some good points...However your idea of what a 'human monster' is (your words) may differ from what others think, some people might envision Hopkins as that.
I
5anjii 2 years ago
If you didnt want to have an arguement why did comment to me in the first place and why are you continuing to argue?
Which is a bit ludicrious really seeing that your argument has no basis apart from your own opinion. While im basing my argument on the very simple rules of acting. Film acting is about subtlety, you cannot argue with that. Hopkins WAS overacting, and overacting doesn't mean a display/not a display of emotion. Its just an over the top display of emotion which is easier to read.
LTstudios 2 years ago
I was pointing out that Hopkins was a talented actor. You said he acted like a ghoul which any 'idiot' can do. You've also said that not basing your character off of pre-established traits mentioned in the novel is original, you've implied that emotion in film is overacting and you are a hypocrite to say that my argument is based on opinion when yours are aswell.
Your 'rules of acting' are relative in most situations. Hopkins did not overact in MY opinion.
5anjii 2 years ago
Hopkin did overact, you must be blind if you can't see that. It's not a bad thing it's what made him good in the film. It's just Cox was better because he was REAL. And I also know for a fact that any idiot can act like ghoul because I pulled of a similar performance in a drama lesson, I know it was very successful because it made everyone in the room gasp and my teachers congradulated me for it afterwards. Now, if then 16 year old can do a Hopkins, but can't do a Cox, what does that say?
LTstudios 2 years ago
Foushta!
LTstudios 2 years ago
I was in that drama class and you sucked, they gasped coz it was so shit
sapperhutch 2 years ago
Well, that was mature. Nice one.
LTstudios 2 years ago
how bout this fuck u and ltstudios
HOPKINS IS HANNIBAL LECTER
GET THE FUCK OVER IT!!!!!!
wazuphomechili 2 years ago
That was a mature response.
LTstudios 2 years ago
how bout this fuck u and 5anjii HOPKINS IS HANNIBAL LECTER
GET THE FUCK OVER IT!!!!!!!
wazuphomechili 2 years ago
At least LT and myself are both literate, even if we do disagree with each other. Hell, we stopped arguing like a week ago...Way to jump in on a dead conversation.
In fact, I was defending Hopkins you degenerate. Way to be observant.
I'm done with you and this thread, say what you want. At the end of the day you'll still be petulant little retard.
5anjii 2 years ago
I'll assume that you've studied acting which you may have or may have not... But it takes a special type of dilusion to assume that your definition of 'acting' is unarguably the right way.
You're right, I don't know why I continue to argue, clearly you're so contrived that anyone who comments on your opinion is ignorant to what acting is and is in the wrong.
Feel free to respond but I won't be reading it, I wanted nothing more then a serious discussion. You chose belittlement.
5anjii 2 years ago
Yeah, yeah. You just want the last word otherwise you wouldn't have hand two comments. I never said that giving emotion in film is overacting, I said hopkins overacted the emotion. And do you actually know anything about acting? All I know about acting is in films. And no I'm not a hypocrite, acting in films is about being subtle because the camera is close to the face, a very simple science. And I'm always serious when talking about these kinds of subjects, it's a requirment.
LTstudios 2 years ago
Did I say that being energetic required skill? I didn't even mention the word skill that is your word not mine. I said energy is a part of stage charisma. This 'logic' that you think I am trying to convey is based on speculation. You're merely twisting my words to suit yourself which is pretty unfair.
by 'stage charisma' all I meant was a dramatic flair. What you consider to be 'overacting' I consider to be a display of emotion.
5anjii 2 years ago
Well energy is a part of stage charisma. Without some sort of energy the performance is rather dry.
Brian Cox played the role with a subtle menace which made for an enjoyable portrayal... Hopkins was alot more obvious, it doesn't require less of an actor to be energetic.....If anything it requires more I'd think. They both just had a unique take on the character.
I will say though, Hopkins was better in Silence of the Lambs.
5anjii 2 years ago
And Cox was the first one so his work was harder.
aidenadore 2 years ago
Well, Petersen and Hopkins good stuff. But Brian Cox good play Gannibal Lecter. Cox's Lecter loks like more original, than Hopkins' Lecter seen than he is insane
marchrabbit85 2 years ago
That was a great piece of editiing Chris I realy enjoyed it as I am a fan of the series, although I like the Hopkins Lector you have to admit that Cox's spin on the the guise was great to !!!
Just one last thing to add, Manhunter over Red Dragon for me, the Noonan Dollorhyde is more creepy, especialy in the Lounds scene !!!
Keep up the great work matey !!!
ROVER25X 2 years ago
If i wanted to watch the hannibal films in order which would i watch first to last. Can anyoe tell me pllease.
wpfearnley 2 years ago
First would be Manhunter-or-Red Dragon, then Silence of the Lambs, then Hannibal, then, I believe, Hannibal Rising (never saw that one).
As I understand it, Hannibal Rising comes first chronologically, but it was written *to be* a prequel (unlike Red Dragon, which just got produced later), so you're already supposed to know Hannibal's character before watching it.
actorwriterdca 2 years ago
In chronological order in times the films were released, it goes Manhunter, Silence Of The Lambs, Hannible and Red Dragon.
LTstudios 2 years ago