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.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by MrFreakinMiyagi

Reseda

Member since Feb 2007

18964 posts

Posted on 3/19/13 at 1:54 pm to Freauxzen

quote:
but for the Lecter character in a Red Dragon adaptation, I prefer Cox.

What isn't better about the Manhunter adaptation? Other than not quite being as true to the source material (story-wise)?

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Sho Nuff

Oahu

Member since Feb 2009

11924 posts

Posted on 3/19/13 at 3:14 pm to Freauxzen

quote:
It's greatness overall, as a Top 100, or even worse, Top 50, is out of the question.

Thank God you're here to set us straight! Yeah, so the idea that SoTL is pretty much on every top 100 list there is by a reputable source means nothing.

quote:
As said above, it isn't Citizen Kane. It also isn't Metropolis, Seven Samurai, The Godfather, or any number of truly great films.

Great films. There's a level of appreciation for a movie like Metropolis and what it did for film going forward. It's so "great" because of that. Let's remember a huge part of watching a movie is entertainment. It's not all just art or opening doors.

quote:
Yes there are 100, probably more than 200 truly better films, at least. (Let's see where it fits on our Top 200 thread).

You and your buddy Blue Velvet are probably the type of guys to put Blue Velvet in your Top 100. Maybe even add Naked Lunch in there to show how different and artsy you guys are.

quote:
Secondly, its "greatness" through quality of "parts" is debatable. I'd probably be on the side of "pretty good," but I'm admittedly overly harsh on film. I feel a film really has to connect, has to be perfect in multiple ways to be a great film. SotL falls just short for me.

What exactly are you overly harsh about? I mean, other than wanting to be different than the masses I guess. Where did the film fail?