re: .

quote:

---

Then you'd be wrong. I've only watched Cox's performance twice and both were recently. Having Hopkins' version as my mental standard of the character may give him all the latitude which I'll grant you.

---

And this is my only point really. It's almost impossible to evaluate them on equal terms given the amount of popularity Hopkins' portrayal generated. And deservedly so, it was a great performance. That doesn't mean Cox's wasn't any less great. It was a different film, a different time, etc.

quote:

---

But Hopkins' Lecter kicks the ever-loving-dogshit out of Cox's. Cox is flat and basically came off as a guy trying to remember his lines. No sick nuances or guestures.

---

That's a bit extreme. It's a different approach to the character. There's just as much going on under the surface for Cox.

quote:

---

He doesn't even look as scary as Hopkins.

---

Which is more effective to me. In these films, scariness should have little to do with appearance, voice, mannerisms. I think those almost "cartoonified" the character (and since pop culture took the reigns, they have), and made it difficult to see the real horror. I think it better that Lecter is more normal rather than less. But that's me. Hopkins rode a thin line very very well, that's for certain.

quote:

---

Well, no kidding. Obviously Cox is going to look flat when compared to Hopkins (in SOTL)... you have to keep in mind that the film Manhunter came first and in the novel Lecter has a significantly smaller role. In the little screen time he was given, he made the most of it.

As great as Hopkins is in SOTL and Hannibal, he isn't even remotely creepy in Red Dragon. His role in the story was only increased because of the popularity of the two preceding films but the formula and character was recycled to death by that point. Hopkins gives a one-of-a-kind performance in SOTL, but for the Lecter character in a Red Dragon adaptation, I prefer Cox.

---

Well said.