- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is it just me or is Mads Mikkelsen....
Posted on 4/9/20 at 5:09 pm to Bench McElroy
Posted on 4/9/20 at 5:09 pm to Bench McElroy
quote:
Yeah, there's a reason why a large majority of the great television actors have primarily only been supporting characters and character actors in movies. It's significantly more difficult to be an impactful actor on the big screen. Movie actors only have a finite amount of time to make an impression on the audience while lead actors in TV series literally have dozens of hours of screen time.
Eh?
They are about equal levels of challenging for different reasons.
It was Hopkins who said Breaking Bad was a master class in acting right? Whether or not you agree, that's one of the guys we're talking about here giving just about the highest compliment on acting you can give to a television series.
0
Posted on 4/9/20 at 5:10 pm to Freauxzen
I have never thought Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter was the least bit threatening or scary. Could never take it seriously. The "fava beans and Chianti" line was cringe-worthily hammy. SotL is one of the most overrated films ever.
Posted on 4/9/20 at 5:16 pm to Freauxzen
I don't care how charming he is, how all those FBI agents didnt get even a wiff of crazy from that guy is nuts.
Posted on 4/13/20 at 10:51 am to Pandy Fackler
quote:
But the subsequent version of Hopkins' Lecter was terrible and it was terrible because the writers got away from who Lecter really is.
This is why you need to learn to separate film from literature. So what if the character doesn't match the one from the book? The performance itself is iconic.
Posted on 4/13/20 at 1:40 pm to Corso
quote:
Brian Cox never seems to get credit for laying the framework for that character
this
Posted on 4/13/20 at 1:47 pm to Freauxzen
I've seen both the movie and the TV series. Have not read the books though.
I guess my answer is a cop out, but I think Hopkins' portrayal worked better for a movie in which he had 15 minutes of screentime. Same for Mikkelsen's performance in the series.
Personally, I preferred Mikkelsen's more subtle, sinister version of Hannibal. Just don't think it's possible to be that subtle while also conveying Hannibal's level of evil in a movie.
I guess my answer is a cop out, but I think Hopkins' portrayal worked better for a movie in which he had 15 minutes of screentime. Same for Mikkelsen's performance in the series.
Personally, I preferred Mikkelsen's more subtle, sinister version of Hannibal. Just don't think it's possible to be that subtle while also conveying Hannibal's level of evil in a movie.
Posted on 4/13/20 at 1:50 pm to Freauxzen
quote:They were both great but I think the Mikkelsen portrayal is closer to the book version of Lector
Is it just me or is Mads Mikkelsen
A better Hannibal Lecter than Anthony Hopkins?
Posted on 4/13/20 at 8:37 pm to Cousin Key
quote:
Personally, I preferred Mikkelsen's more subtle, sinister version of Hannibal. Just don't think it's possible to be that subtle while also conveying Hannibal's level of evil in a movie.
He had a lot more time to play it out. Apples to oranges here.
Posted on 4/13/20 at 9:01 pm to Corso
quote:
Brian Cox never seems to get credit for laying the framework for that character
Brian Cox is who you get to play Hannibal Lector as a "real" person. Sir Anthony plays him almost supernatural.
Sir Anthony's menace (while very effective in the close shots and his body movement) was exaggerated and you can easily remind yourself it isn't real. Brian Cox would actually scare you in real life, if in that character.
I enjoy both performances, but I appreciate them for what they are and (in particular) the differences.
I haven't seen the source of the OP, so I shouldn't comment.
Posted on 4/13/20 at 9:21 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
This is why you need to learn to separate film from literature. So what if the character doesn't match the one from the book? The performance itself is iconic.
Well in Lambs the performance was "iconic" because even without Anthony Hopkins, the movie would've still been excellent. In other words, the movie helped the performance. Had Lambs sucked, no one would've cared about the Hopkins performance. There's lots of actors who could've played Lecter and been just as compelling, for no other reason than it was just an all around excellent movie.
And the Lambs version of Lecter "did match the book". I said that. What I also said is the subsequent movie versions of Lecter were garbage becuase they got away from who Lecter really is.
To me, this is why the Mikkelson version of Lecter is better. He's consistently true to the character from beginning to end. He's also more enjoyable to watch.
You know who I think would've made a better movie Lecter than Anthony Hopkins? Anthony Perkins.
Posted on 4/13/20 at 9:21 pm to L.A.
quote:
They were both great but I think the Mikkelsen portrayal is closer to the book version of Lector
It is.
Posted on 4/13/20 at 9:25 pm to Cousin Key
quote:
Personally, I preferred Mikkelsen's more subtle, sinister version of Hannibal.
I do too.
Although I really didn't like the show. I finished it because of Mikkelson and his portrayal. Also, i liked that it was highly stylized.
The Will Graham character though was near unbearable.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News