PDA

View Full Version : MANHUNTER (should-be classic)


Rock
04-11-2003, 07:40 PM
I put this thread here because I believe Michael Mann's MANHUNTER (1986) is a modern classic, the best of the trilogy, but I am a bit pissed-off after watching Anchor Bay's DVD of the supposed "theatrical" version last night...I've seen this movie enough times to know that it was NOT the version I saw at the theatre when the movie opened in 1986...for example, the climax where Will blows away Francis Dolarhyde (the Tooth Fairy) in his kitchen was choppy and obviously cut in places, and the movie ended with a scene I'd NEVER seen before (Will, Molly, and Kevin on the beach)...in the original ending I remember best, Will, beaten and scabbed, visits the home of the Tooth Fairy's would-be victims to make sure they're alright...did I miss something somewhere?

I don't have the 2-disc version of AB's MANHUNTER but am thinking about getting it now, hoping to revisit the version I remember best...Dave, can you help?

Andrew
04-11-2003, 10:11 PM
Dunno about the movie, but for the record, this forum is for "Classics" in the sense that they're old. As the forum description says: Universal, Hammer, Ed Wood, etc. Not being a dick, just saying...

DVD Connoisseur
04-11-2003, 10:26 PM
I caught the movie back in the '80s and it ended on the beach scene. Haven't seen another ending.....

cread
04-12-2003, 06:32 PM
I have the 2-disc limited edition of ABs Manhunter, with the 'theatrical' and 'director's cut' versions. The theatrical verison looks very nice but the director's cut looks really dreadful - it obviously hasn't been remastered at all.
If you weren't suckered into buying it, though, AB have released a 'Restored Director's Edition' as a separate release, which presumably looks much better (I haven't got it).
I have heard rumours that there are scenes missing from both the 'theatrical' and 'director's cut' dvds. Don't know if the new dvd will restore these.

Rock
04-14-2003, 04:30 PM
Well excuse me, Andrew, I didn't realize this thread was so busy that I should've kept my post out...I don't think we should exclude excellent movies from here just 'cause they aren't "old"...

Anyway, I answered my question through a back issue of Video Watchdog...apparently, Michael Mann prepared a special version of MANHUNTER for cable, which contains the aforementioned ending where Will visits the family that was next on the Tooth Fairy's list...I have certainly seen this flick on cable enough times, but I could've sworn I also saw this ending in the theatre during the film's initial run in 1986...apparently I have Altzheimer's at 40...

mutleyhyde
04-14-2003, 11:56 PM
Hey now, let's give pieces a chance folks. ;)

Rock, I have faith in Andrew that he meant well, and to a degree, I can see his point.

Andrew, I can also see where Rock would have a reason to post here, as he may personally feel Manhunter is a classic. I've never seen Manhunter, so I'm no judge on that particular film, but "Classic" doesn't always have to mean old.

Which brings up the question, just what is a classic?

Like I know. ;) Sometimes it's a hard call to drag some threads from General, or other forums into this one. I basically look at age, whether a film has lasting impact (or had mass impact at one time) and/or excellence in production. It's the combination of these three merits that I personally evaluate where to place my own threads, and when the need arises, to relocate other members' threads. Also, the absence of one criteria doesn't automatically rule anything out; let's say a film has an exellence of production but wasn't made all that long ago. While it may not be old, and has not had a chance to prove itself of lasting impact through the test of time, it could still be considered a classic based primarily on excellence of production. And with newer films, an exception could also be made for lasting impact depending on the film's mass impact at the time. That said...

Movies from the 60's and back aren't a problem. It's when we go into the '70s that we have trouble. There are several movies from this era that could be considered slashers, and a lot of movies from the era simply fall into General for whatever reason. I feel more than justified in dragging films like The Excorcist, The Omen, and The Stepford Wives in here because while they could be considered as being recent by some old geezers, the '70s in all actuallity was a long damned time ago! :lol:

It's when we get into the '80s that we begin to have trouble. Ahh, the '80s; harbinger of the preponderance of formulaic slashers. While many films of this era fall in that category and hence are easily relegated to the Slashers forum, there are some serious classics here, that have an excellence of production, have lasting impact - proven by the test of time, and can still be considered old by some of you pesky young whippersnappers out there. I feel justified yet slightly trepidatious relocating films like Alien, American Werewolf in London, and Hellraiser from General to Classics.

When it comes to the '90s and '00s, I pretty much leave well enough alone. While I personally feel films like Sleepy Hollow and From Hell, or even Brotherhood of the Wolf meet and exceed my requirement for excellence in production, they have not really had the chance yet to be proven by the test of time for lasting impact, and only the snottiest of young punks considers them to be old. :p My approach to these films is pretty much hands off of others' threads, but I might myself post threads on them here.

So basically, I feel that the forums here set a framework, but are not so defined as to be restrictive, nor do I think that they should be. If somebody wants to place a thread on Maniac in here rather than Slashers, hey, knock yourself out. Again, I haven't seen Manhunter, so I'll opt to take Rock's word for it and leave it here... until I get around to watching it. If I determine it's a pile of crap, it's out of here. ;)

By the way Rock, I'm glad you got your answer.

Bad Andy, quit makin' trouble. :p :D :cool:

RyanPC
04-23-2003, 05:59 AM
I usually like movies like this, but I was disappointed in MANHUNTER. I thought it was boring up until the final minutes in the apartment with the blind girl and the killer. It was alright, but not good enough for me to recommend, nor to buy for myself on DVD. It's sad, because I really wanted to like this...

Rock
07-18-2003, 05:27 PM
I'm bringing this back up to the front because I watched RED DRAGON last night and was surprised at how much I liked it (for a Dino De Laurentiis movie)...not quite as good as MANHUNTER (IMO), mainly because Ralph Fiennes' portrayal of Francis Dolarhyde wasn't nearly as frightening as Tom Noonan's...I did like the way DRAGON followed the book a little more closely...and some of those deleted/extended scenes on the DVD should've been kept in the movie, especially Freddy Lounds's flaming wheelchair death!

Yowie
07-18-2003, 06:52 PM
I agree "Manhunter" is a modern classic, but I also think this particular forum ought to mean old. The movie in question isn't old so it would be better suited for discussion in General IMHO, otherwise the Classic Forum would soon be full of modern classics and the old ones would lose again. My opinion.

Rock
07-18-2003, 07:12 PM
Sorry, I totally disagree...MANHUNTER has earned a good enough reputation in the past 18 years to be considered a modern classic...I don't think we should be so cut-n-dried around here...whoever said the old ones were losing?!

Yowie
07-18-2003, 11:09 PM
A modern classic, yes. I just feel if we start bringing in those here (and there would be plenty of candidates), they might drown the old classics. Might. It's already being discussed plenty in General, so why bring them in here ?. I think this forum is the one place "ancient" movies are debated, "classics" could lose its meaning then. But like I said, just a thought, I'm not the boss around here.

Derrick Howes
07-19-2003, 12:55 PM
AndrewBBD and Yowie you tossed all your toys out of your pram on this title, saying it should not be in the classics forum.

You want to tell us all why it is ok for you both to discuss THE HAND in the classics forum - which isn't a classic at all, but a huge turd.

dwatts
07-19-2003, 02:47 PM
Actually - the only one coming here and being anything less than polite is you. :eek2:

I started the thread on The Hand, as I felt - given the forum description - that this was the best place for it. After 58 posts, maybe you should spend the time to read the forum descriptions.

Anyway, if the forum contents existed only based on the results of your critical analysis, we'd be in sad shape indeed. We'd be in worse shape if they were based on mine. :lol:

hell ya!
07-19-2003, 08:47 PM
MANHUNTER was an ok flick, i found it to be pretty slow and a modern Classic? Hell NO!

Deaddevilman
07-20-2003, 09:01 AM
I agree with Rock, Manhunter is certainly a classic. Mann's cinematography was the closest and best I've seen next to Argento. Suspira, Dawn of the Dead, Fraility and Nightmare Before Christmas are all classics in my fucked up opinion. Sticking to a pre-60 frame of mind, or whatever it may be, defeats the purpose of the thread.

dwatts
07-20-2003, 04:56 PM
Wouldn't you agree that some films are GENERALLY considered classics, while others are simply statements from a fan? I've never even seen ManHunter - so I don't know about it - but this is just a matter of which forum this goes in. It is pretty clear to me that we're confusing the word "classic". This forum is not for films we might, as individuals, consider "classic" - it's for films recognized as being "classics". Manhunter is not one of those as far as I can tell.

mutleyhyde
07-20-2003, 05:10 PM
Well, to be fair, Anchor Bay thinks it's a classic. :lol:

Again, I still haven't seen Manhunter, and although I think it basically looks like crap, I have to realize this is a prejudice on my part, and so I have to remain impartial.

As for this little debate, come on people, it's not like it's really all that important. Do you really lose sleep knowing that a modern film like The Dead Zone or Hellraiser would be in Classic? Y'all are arguing over Manhunter? Hell, do I have to stir up the Maniac debate again? :lol:

Chill out already folks, dagnabbit. ;)

dwatts
07-20-2003, 05:20 PM
It's been a habit lately, arguing over things we haven't seen :)

Seriously, is this film that good? I have not seen it, it looks like cheapo crapola. This is in the Silence of the Lambs series, right? Last I saw was Red Dragon, and I JUST ABOUT got through it without turning it off - it was a huge turd of a movie.

mutleyhyde
07-20-2003, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by dwatts
It's been a habit lately, arguing over things we haven't seen :)

Seriously, is this film that good? I have not seen it, it looks like cheapo crapola. This is in the Silence of the Lambs series, right? Last I saw was Red Dragon, and I JUST ABOUT got through it without turning it off - it was a huge turd of a movie.

The story is of course from the Hannibal Lecter books, from Red Dragon specifically, but it generally isn't considered to be "in the series" of the modern Lecter films. It would be like considering Casino Royale as being part of the James Bond series - while both movies may have the same settings and basic themes as the respective series, neither share any production commonalities with those series.

As for Hannibal, the movie, I really really liked the Florence scenes... the rest was kinda, eh. As a whole, I can take it or leave it.

One thing for damn sure though, Silence of the Lambs is most definitely more of a classic than Manhunter... and yes, I know full well I'm making that claim never having seen Manhunter. :p

Deaddevilman
07-20-2003, 06:04 PM
You guys are right, on the "surface" Manhunter sounds like just another piece of crap. Especially when the director, Mann, is the the guy who brought us the pie in the sky of crap Miami Vice. I avoided watching this for years because of that fact only. However, that's where it stops. Brian Cox's portrayl of Hannibal is right on and it's obvious that Hopkins was inspired by this. There are no big name actors, yet the acting was great, especially Noonan as The Tooth Fairy. Mann uses a lot of the same actors for his projects and these people seem to be on the same wave length as him. Overall the film is quite stylish and intense. This is the only film I can think of that I went out of my way to recommend to other people as a must see. It's simply impossible to compare it to the recent Silence of the Lambs series. Which I enjoyed, but are simply not in the same league as Manhunter.

Atmims
07-20-2003, 07:08 PM
It really is good and worth checking out.

Yowie
07-20-2003, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by dwatts
Wouldn't you agree that some films are GENERALLY considered classics, while others are simply statements from a fan? I've never even seen ManHunter - so I don't know about it - but this is just a matter of which forum this goes in. It is pretty clear to me that we're confusing the word "classic". This forum is not for films we might, as individuals, consider "classic" - it's for films recognized as being "classics". Manhunter is not one of those as far as I can tell.
I whole-heartedly agree with everything you said. If we don't debate old movies here, then where do they go ?.

mcchrist
07-20-2003, 11:48 PM
This forum is not for films we might, as individuals, consider "classic" - it's for films recognized as being "classics".

My question is, dwatts, who does the recognizing? AFI? What the hell do they know? You could go for the consensus BS, but when you go to something like imdb.com and look at the Top 250 (http://us.imdb.com/top_250_films) movie list, you have all the "standards" up there, but IMO I think alot of what is considered classic (in the majority sense) comes from "herd mentality". Just because you have a large mass of people kow-towing at the feet of THE GODFATHER, doesn't mean that its a goddamn classic. You can't assume that crap, I'd say that DOCTOR GORE is more of a classic than the top five, simply because that's how I'd rather spend my time.

mutleyhyde
07-21-2003, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by mcchrist
My question is, dwatts, who does the recognizing?

I do. ;)

mcchrist
07-21-2003, 12:40 AM
Indeed.

mutleyhyde
07-21-2003, 12:47 AM
Jus' playin' around, McC :p . I'm not gonna discourage either debate or people posting in here. While I may have my own ideas as to what is and isn't a classic, I don't want to be too restrictive. In extreme cases however I will kick shit like Dracula 2000 out of here, and possibly ban anybody who tries to argue that it's a classic. ;)

RyanPC
07-21-2003, 12:48 AM
I dunno, I still think this movie sucks ass. ;)

RyanPC
07-21-2003, 12:51 AM
You mean to tell me IMDB would rather put crap like Seven and Deliverence (which I hate, btw) on the list and not even include Carrie, the best movie ever made??? Fuck them!!! :fire: :cry: :nervous: :bs:

mcchrist
07-21-2003, 01:01 AM
Hey, its how the users vote, which indicates there are alot of dipshits who think they are movie buffs.

***

In extreme cases however I will kick shit like Dracula 2000 out of here, and possibly ban anybody who tries to argue that it's a classic. ;)

Take em behind the barn and plug em.

dwatts
07-21-2003, 08:52 AM
Again - I think we're talking two different things - this forum, and what is a "classic". for this forum, they are, as far as I can tell, old movies that have hung around.

As to what is really a "classic" - I could give a damn. Frankly, in the horror genre, RoseMary's Baby, Omen, Howling are all quite boring to me - but people insist they're great. Lately, 28 Days Later has been called a classic - and it's merely okay. A "classic" is a personal choice.

Again though - in this forum, I thought it was older films. Thye 80's were like - yesterday :)