Drácula (1931 Spanish version)

Happy Halloween everyone! To end this great month of October, I think it would be best to review the Spanish version of the 1931 “Dracula” movie. At first you might be thinking, “wouldn’t that be the same movie, but just dubbed in Spanish?’ Not exactly see, this is the jest:

Director George Melford had filmed this movie at night, on the same set as Tod Browning’s “Dracula.” In the beginning of the birth of sound pictures, it was common for Hollywood studios to film a foreign-language version of films using the same sets and costumes. Usually the languages were Spanish, French, Italian, or German. Of the Spanish cast members, the only one that saw the Browning “Dracula,” was Carlos Villarías, who played Dracula in the Spanish version, and was encouraged to imitate Lugosi.

In recent years, this version is highly praised to be better than Browning’s “Dracula.” The Spanish cast had seen unedited footage of Browning’s “Dracula” when they came in the evening to shoot the movie. From that, they would see what better camera angles and lighting they needed to shoot to top the other version. End result: this version has been said to be more artistically effective. Roman Gubern, the Spanish semiologist says that since this film has a little bit more running time, it allowed for a better development of the plot as opposed to shooting the film in a shorter time with a smaller budget. The reason why this film runs longer is largely because of extended dialogue.

To be perfectly honest, I had never heard of this version until I saw James Rolfe’s review on the film. I was familiar with the Tod Browning “Dracula,” since that is a classic that everyone has heard of, even though many people may not have seen it. However, about two years ago, I saw this film and the differences are really noticeable. For instance, when Renfield first meets Dracula in Browning’s version, it’s a simple static shot. In the Spanish version, the camera actually moves, making the scene more dramatic. There are many added scenes that you don’t see in the English version, like Mina (or Eva in this version) gets killed in the graveyard, and it shows a little more violence. The costume of Lupita Tovar, who plays Eva in this movie, is much more revealing than Helen Chandler’s, which tells you that the Spanish audience was less uptight. Most foreign audiences are though. Pablo Alvarez Rubio as Renfield is more psychotic than Dwight Fry, even when the nurse passes out and he crawls up to her, he eats a bug off of her. Carlos Villarías as Dracula looks more insane than Lugosi, which is creepy in its own respect.

Other differences include: the Bargo Pass driver (who is Dracula in disguise) has his face covered. When Renfield is in Carfax Abby, he carried a torch rather than a lamp. Renfield cuts his finger with a breadknife, not a paper clip. Rather than Dracula biting Renfield, Dracula's Brides bite him. His death is more violent in this version, and Dracula shows pleasure in killing Renfield. The names are obviously Hispanicized. For example, Johnathan is Juan, Lucy Westenra is Lucia Weston, and Mina is Eva. The Brides look more seductive and dressed in a way that a person would want them, but in the English version they are covered and behave calmer. When Dracula knocks the mirror out of Van Helsing's hand in the English version, it simply falls to the floor. In the Spanish version, Dracula smashes the mirror with his cane. In an interview on the Legacy Collection DVD, Lupita Tovar said that the Latinos are less uptight than Anglos. The sun is seen rising near the end to prevent Dracula from killing Eva.

My verdict: if you have seen Tod Browning’s “Dracula,” but not the Spanish version, go see it. It’s the best way to celebrate Halloween night. I have to give this film a solid 10, as it is another one of my favorite Halloween films, but it’s debatable whether this one is superior to Tod Browning’s version.

Well, thank you for joining me on “Halloween Month.” Happy Halloween, enjoy tonight, go out and get as much candy as you want, sit back, watch a scary movie, and stay tuned tomorrow when I start back up with my Friday reviews.

Dracula (1931)

Now in these last two days until Halloween, I think it would be appropriate to talk about the king of all the monsters out there, Count Dracula. You might have read the Bram Stoker novel, which is what the number of film adaptations is based off of. The only adaptations I have seen are both 1931 versions. At first you might be thinking, “What? They made two adaptations back in 1931?” Yes they did, and I will look at both of them in these last two days. Today, I will look at the classic 1931 masterpiece, “Dracula,” directed by Tod Browning.

What makes this film so great? Bela Lugosi. He is a Hungarian actor who did not know English, but only learned it through the roles that he was doing either on stage or on screen. Originally, the king of the silent film era, Lon Chaney, was supposed to play Dracula, but he died before they could even start production on the movie. So they went for Bela Lugosi instead. The rhythm and accent of Dracula’s voice in this movie would forever be imitated in that same way. If you ever hear someone impersonating Dracula, they are mimicking Lugosi’s Dracula. You have to love it when Lugosi delivers such great lines like, “I am Dracula,” “Listen to them, children of the night. What music they make,” and “I have charted a ship that will take us to England. We will be leaving tomorrow eeeeevening.” I know that Lugosi was not the first person to play Dracula, since in 1922, “Nosferatu” was released, but remember, I haven’t seen that one…yet. I’m not sure if I’ll ever get around to it, but time will tell. Lugosi was the first person to set the image of Dracula into the mainstream pop culture. He was even buried in the Dracula cape. The way Lugosi had portrayed Dracula in here; you know that he gave the right spook value to make you afraid of Dracula. When he gives you that famous scary stare, you know that you would be in serious trouble.

Since this was 1931, Universal Studios had made all the famous horror icons have their own sound picture, since talking movies were born in the 30s. It would be obvious to start off with Dracula, since that book is probably the most popular amongst the other novels the horror icons were in. And because this was one of the first sound pictures, they didn’t add any music during the movie. Unless you count the opening title screen and the end credits, but still, there isn’t any music. This is a slow paced movie, but because of the parts where there isn’t any audio or dialogue spoken, that just adds to the creepy, surreal atmosphere of Transylvania. This is why this is, hands down, the best Dracula movie ever made.

The supporting cast also does a great job all around. Helen Chandler does an excellent job as Mina Harker, the woman who gets bitten by Dracula. David Manners gives out the hard work and commitment he did for his role as John Harker, Mina’s fiancé.  Dwight Frye as Renfeld, goodness, what can I say? He is completely demented. Especially you have to love his line, “Rats, Rats, RATS!” Even his laugh would make you pass out, and people always imitate that laugh as well. Herbert Bunston as Dr. Seward is very convincing. Charles K. Gerrard as Renfield’s assistant, Martin, does lighten up the mood as the comic relief. Edward Von Sloan as Dr. Van Helsing is really believable in the role, as the man who wants to kill Dracula.

Overall, I give this film a solid 10, as it is one of my favorite Halloween movies. If you haven’t seen it yet, what are you waiting for? Halloween is tomorrow folks. Go out and watch it to celebrate the holiday with so you can be scared. But how good is the other version? And what is that version about? Find out tomorrow in the epic conclusion to “Halloween Month.”

Ghostbusters 2

Five years after the groundbreaking comedy, “Ghostbusters,” the sequel came out in 1989, “Ghostbusters 2.” This one a lot of people seem to dismiss, but I think that this film is still good and a good sequel to the first one. It is the not impossible basis of “Ghostbusters 2” that Manhattan, as one of the characters say, “is about to blow, like a frog on a hot plate.”

Everything that is channeling the people’s anger is a river of slime running in the sewer line. Obviously it’s not easy to tell since the people of New York are already rude to begin with. They knock someone off of their crutches and laugh when a baby’s carriage rolls out into the middle of First Avenue and is almost run over. Most of the locals will tell you that it’s just another day at the Big Apple.

That’s not what Dana Barrett, played by Sigourney Weaver, thinks, who is an art restorer. At the end of the first film, we get an idea that her and Peter Venkman, played by Bill Murray, would get together. In the five years between these two comedies, they break up, Dana marries someone else, has a son, and is now divorced, leaving her for Peter to get back together with. That’s just a sub-plot to the film though.

When Dana realizes that there is something going horribly wrong after her baby was almost run over, she goes to the Ghostbusters for help. Working together, they see what is going on in Manhattan and how an evil is out to get Dana’s baby, Oscar, played by William T. Deutschendorf and Henry J. Deutschendorf II.

I know that this doesn’t make a lot of sense, but Dana does get the chance to say this line: “Oh, Peter, the most awful thing has happened. The bathtub tried to eat Oscar.” Any movie with a line like that can’t be entirely bad.

“Ghostbusters 2” isn’t all that bad. Vincent Canby says, “In truth, the movie, strikes me as being far easier to take, funnier even, than the first film, which seemed overproduced and sloppy. ''Ghostbusters II'' seems more modest, less aggressive, not so oppressively extravagant.” I know that this film isn’t as good as the first one, but I think they are both just as good.

Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd handle the screenplay, who both know how Manhattan is like after spending just a few short minutes in the city: It’s the angriest place on Earth. Vincent Canby says when they recognize this, “Mr. Ramis, Mr. Aykroyd and Ivan Reitman, the director, have made a remarkably cheerful film. It has the weight and stylishness of designer toilet tissue, but it doesn't offend.”

Now the supporting cast is all just as good, since they are familiar faces from the first film. Most of them are really good friends, including Murray who plays Venkman as a really laid-back type of a guy, and, as his partners, Ramis, Aykroyd, and Ernie Hudson. Sigourney Weaver looks great as always and is in control even in the silliest moments, and Rick Moranis is just as funny as the Ghostbusters lawyer.

Vincent Canby says, “It is probably heresy to say to ''Ghostbusters'' fans, but the funniest performance in this film is given by Peter MacNicol, as Dr. Janosz Poha, a prissy but lecherous Carpathian art historian, the conduit by which the Evil One hopes to take over Manhattan (not having heard that it's already his).” This Evil One is a painting of Vigo the Carpathian, a seventeenth-century magician trapped in the painting, played by Wilhelm von Homburg and voiced by Max von Sydow.

Canby also says, “Even the special effects are more to the point of the comedy than they were in the first film.” I take it he loved this one over the first film, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Very oddly, this let’s our main heroes give their funny lines that we all know and love them to do, or how they react with most ease.

So if you like the first film, you should definitely check the sequel out, and at least give it a chance. I would also give this film a 10.

One final note: Ghostbusters 3. I have been hearing rumors on that movie for the past couple of years, but Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis seem to be having a tough time trying to get Bill Murray to sign on for the movie. However, I hear that they will be making the movie without Murray, so if that is the case, then I hope that it will come out soon.

Alright, I have done the two Ghostbusters films, what film do you think I will end “Halloween Month” off with? I think it would be appropriate to bring up a famous monster that everyone associates Halloween with.

Ghostbusters

Since Halloween is close by, I thought that we should look at one of my all-time favorite comedies from 1984, “Ghostbusters.” This is a good film to watch around Halloween, but isn’t really scary for today’s standards. Still, those of you who grew up with this film and were scared by it when you saw it as children may not be scared by it today with an adult perspective.

This film is a head-on collision of two comic approaches that only work in that once in a blue moon lifetime. In this film, it did work. It’s a special-effects blockbuster and has a clever dialogue, where everyone talks to one another like graduate students who are a part of the joke. In the climax, a Sumerian shape-shifting god is raising havoc in Manhattan, "and our main heroes talk like Bob and Ray," according to Roger Ebert.

“Ghostbusters” is one of those rare movies that rebuttals the rule of special effects ruining a comedy. Special effects are hard work and those people have to put a lot of detail to make them look good. Comedy is all about impulse and improvisation, or what it should feel like regardless of how much effort is put in. When you watch Spielberg’s “1941,” look at the vast beauty of the special effects in that film which was the main driving force over everything else. You won’t laugh at that film because you have no reason to, but in this film, there is.

When you look at the effects in this movie, a lot of them are neat. Some of them mess with your head; others look like they were recycled. For example, look at when Slimmer (played by Mark Bryan Wilson, and voiced by the director, Ivan Reitman) eats away at the hot dogs. No matter what effects are used, they are there to help the actors out. Instead of us thinking that the characters have been placed in front of the effects, we feel that they are just improvising this as they shoot the film.

Our stars of this film are Bill Murray, Harold Ramis, and Dan Aykroyd, three comedy graduates either known from National Lampoon, SNL, or Second City. They are hilarious in this, but they also show how quick-witty and intelligent they are. Ebert comments that their dialogue “puts nice little spins on American clichés, and it uses understatement, irony, in-jokes, vast cynicism, and cheerful goofiness.” This is one of the most quotable films ever made, which comes around once in a while.

Now the plot involves a series of psychic reports all around Manhattan. Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis have lost their jobs as college parapsychologists, after their reports have been called bogus by the dean, played by Jordan Charney, so they open up their own business called “Ghostbusters.” They say that if people are haunted by ghosts, then they will be there to rescue them from the ghosts. However, business hasn’t been picking up until the attractive Sigourney Weaver calls in to say that her eggs were frying on her kitchen counter and her fridge has some sort of demon castle inside it. Her neighbor, played by the funny Rick Moranis, also notices demonic beasts in the apartment hallway. Apparently the apartment both of them live in is a gateway to another world. The Ghostbusters go down to the apartment suited with their Proton Packs, and having Ernie Hudson along as the new member. This is the highlight of the movie since a lot of the psychic knowledge in the dialogue is made up before they have a showdown with the Sumerian god, Gozer (Slavitza Jovan and voiced by Paddi Edwards), and his minions, Vinz Clortho, “The Keymaster,” and Zuul, “The Gatekeeper” (also voiced by Reitman). Around that time, the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man arrives, and I will leave it there or else I will give away too much of the plot.

As I have already stated, this is a film where the comedy works well along with the big budget production. It is not proof for big-budget comedies, since the rule still applies that the more you spend, the less you get the audience to laugh. But the money is spent the right way, and when the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man stomps all over Manhattan and climbs the skyscraper, you can see where they spent the money since this is one of the funniest scenes in the entire movie.

Just a heads up: expect a cameo appearance of adult movie actor Ron Jeremy and Reginald VelJohnson.

For this film, I have to give it a solid 10, it’s one of my all-time favorite comedies, and I just adore it. Sure it’s right for Halloween since the effects in this film could scare children today, but not the adults who watched the movie when they were once their children’s age. It might still scare them, but that depends on who it is.

What can be said for the sequel that came out 5 years later? Find out tomorrow when I talk about the equally good sequel, in my opinion.

Jaws: The Revenge

Studio executives, if you see a franchise going downhill, don’t continue making sequels to it. You should have quit while you were ahead with the “Jaws” franchise, especially since the third one was really bad. Instead, they tried one last time with another bad sequel. Sorry to put you through this again online audience, but it looks like we have to go back underwater for the worst of the worse. I’m talking about none other than the 1987 film that killed the franchise for good, “Jaws: The Revenge.”

This is not simply a bad movie, but a stupid and useless sequel – basically a rip-off. Our main star this time is Lorraine Gray as Ellen Brody. By the start of the film, she is a widow since Martin has died from a heart attack, which she claims to be caused by the fear of the shark. That’s your best reason? Mitchell Anderson plays Sean, now taking over his father’s position as police chief. Wait a minute, why is there no mention of him as an employee of the SeaWorld Park or of Katherine? Apparently Universal Studios considers this horrendous piece of garbage as the third in the so called “remarkable Jaws trilogy.” Remarkable nothing! This series is down in the dumps!!!

You want to know how this film starts. Well, the previous films started around summer time. Not this one. Instead, this opens on Christmas Day. Why? Sean is eaten by a shark when he goes out on a boat to clear a log from a buoy. Instead of hearing his screams, the children tune him out by singing Christmas carols. Nice going you little idiots!

In order to get away from everything and spend more time with the family, Sean’s older brother, Michael, played by Lance Guest, convinces his mother to come with him to The Bahamas. Since Ellen has become hydrophobic and is sure the shark is out to kill her entire family, she tells Michael and her grandkids to stay out of the water. But you know what? In a short number of three days, the shark arrives at The Bahamas. Does the shark have a Brody radar equipped to him that he knew they were in The Bahamas?

Ellen spends some time with a pilot named Hoagie, played by Michael Caine, which results in a subplot of Michael jealous of this man in her life. What is going on here, an Oedipus complex? I wouldn’t be surprised, but that would be disgusting! Like all bad movies, this subplot goes unresolved. The screenplay is mainly focused on meaningless stuff of Michael and his crew on the boat going after the shark. One of Michael’s friends is Jake, played by Mario Van Peebles.

Since we see the shark “way” more often than in the previous films, you would think that they would build it up to a scary shark, right? Ebert comments that the shark looks like “canvas with acne” in some scenes and others you can easily see the fake effect.

These shark models move like snails and they look like they are supporting the boats instead of attacking them. Up until the last sequence, the scariest creature we see in the film is an eel. A STINKING EEL!!! That’s how low we have gotten people.

What happens at the end? Ellen is convinced this shark is after her family for revenge, hence the reason it keeps following her. Here is what Ebert had to say about the film, “Her friends pooh-pooh the notion that a shark could identify, follow or even care about one individual human being, but I am willing to grant the point, for the benefit of the plot.”

I am convinced that the shark is after the Brody family, since Martin was the first person responsible for killing the shark and blowing it to Kingdom Come. What shark wouldn’t want to get revenge on the family of the man who blew up their entire family?

Here is a list of things Ebert did not believe: “That Mrs. Brody could be haunted by flashbacks to events where she was not present and that, in some cases, no survivors witnessed. That the movie would give us one shark attack as a dream sequence, have the hero wake up in a sweat, then give us a second shark attack, and then cut to the hero awake in bed, giving us the only thing worse than the old “it’s only a dream” routine, which is the old “is it a dream or not?” routine. That Mrs. Brody would commandeer a boat and sail out alone into the ocean to sacrifice herself to the shark, so that the killing could end. That Caine’s character could or would crash-land his airplane at sea so that he and two other men could swim to Mrs. Brody’s rescue. That after being trapped in a sinking airplane by the shark and disappearing under the water, Caine could survive the attack, swim to the boat, and climb on board - not only completely unhurt but also wearing a shirt and pants that are not even wet. That the shark would stand on its tail in the water long enough for the boat to ram it. That the director, Joseph Sargent, would film this final climactic scene so incompetently that there is not even an establishing shot, so we have to figure out what happened on the basis of empirical evidence.”

You know what else is ludicrous? March 30, Michael Caine brushed away his chance to get the Academy Award in person because he was working on this film. You want to know what was going through his head. The same thing a marine biologist is thinking in this movie: if you don’t go back into the water after something terrible happens to you, you might be too afraid to ever go back in again.

Bottom line, I have to agree with The Nostalgia Critic on what he said about this film: “This is not only stupid, but it’s mostly kind of a bore. The set up is crazy, the characters are not interesting, and it mostly feels padded out. The shark is not as fake as the third film, but it’s still pretty fake. And for a film called ‘The Revenge,’ it’s a pretty lame revenge.” It’s not scary, the writing is all bad, and the script has some of the worst dialogue ever. James Rolfe remembers watching this film on TV, and the shark does get impaled by the bow of the boat, but in theaters, the shark spontaneously combust after getting stabbed with the bow. This film will be rated with a big, fat 0. It’s one of the worst sequels and one of the worst films ever made!

Thank goodness I am done with this horrible series. Check in tomorrow where we will change gears to a much more light-hearted film that you can watch around this time. “Halloween Month” will look at a comedy.

Jaws 3D

Seriously, what’s the whole idea of making “Jaws” into a franchise? What can they possible think of for the sequels? All the films are about a giant killer white shark that just preys on its victims until a group of people come around and they kill the shark. In the case of “Jaws 3” or better known as “Jaws 3D,” released in 1983, we are taken away from Amity Island and instead are in SeaWorld. Unlike Amity Island, this place has underwater tunnels and plenty of people for the shark to feed on.

As I had stated already, “Jaws 3D” takes place in the SeaWorld water park. Suddenly a new white shark arrives into the park and starts to feed on the park employees, water skiers, and so on. Then at the climax of the film we get a sudden twist. Apparently what they thought was the shark that was killing people apparently was the baby shark, whose mother is obviously larger in size. In case you’re wondering, she “is” in the park.

There are no familiar faces reprising their roles from the first two films, even Roy Scheider as the ever loving Martin Brody. I think that after the second one, he thought that he didn’t want to be in another shameful sequel of “Jaws,” if they ever thought of making one. Who can blame the guy? However, this film focuses on Brody’s two sons. Randy Quaid’s younger brother, Dennis Quaid, is playing the elder son, Mike, who along with his girlfriend Kay, played by Bess Armstrong, are SeaWorld employees. Mike’s younger brother, Sean, played by John Butch, arrives to stay at the park, and befriends the lovely Kelly Ann Bukowski, played by the attractive Lea Thompson (ashamed that she will not get another good role after “Back to the Future”). There is only a passing mention in this film as to why Sean is hydrophobic. All they say is, "something that happened when he was a kid." Why is that? I blame bad writing. Now the person they are having trouble convincing that there is a shark in the park is the park’s manager, played by Louis Gossett Jr.

Like a lot of other bad sequels, this one just follows the same formula that the first two followed. Shark starts to kill people where our lead characters work, they go to their boss to convince him of a series of shark attacks out there, he doesn’t listen, more people get eaten, so the lead character decides to take matters into his own hands to kill the shark. What is there new for “Jaws 3?” The setting is really nice, it takes place in a water park, Louis Gossett Jr. plays one of the main characters, and a baby shark is captured first before the real shark is, the way the shark dies is awesome, and the final sequence is pretty original and entertaining.

“Jaws 3” is one of those horror movies from the 80s that was released in theaters in 3D, which was a relatively new gimmick at the time. But I have to agree with the Nostalgia Critic when he said that the special effects are terrible, even if you had the 3D it wouldn’t save the movie, but “the story is ludicrous, and the characters are so boring that there is literally nothing that can save it, even if it was in 3D.” Yahoo reviewer Mike Cameo said in his review of this horrendous sequel, “Considering that the studio missed a ripe opportunity for a good fourth 'Jaws' film with "Deep Blue Sea" (1999), it probably would have been best to end the series at "Jaws 3".” Just do yourself a favor and avoid this film. I would have to give this film a 1.

Did they end up leaving it as a trilogy? Find out tomorrow when I thankfully will finish off “Jaws-a-thon.”

Jaws 2

Apparently filmmakers didn’t feel the need to leave “Jaws” alone. Instead, they thought they could make a sequel to this great film. What did we get? The less than average sequel released in 1978, “Jaws 2.”

Want to know the sad part about this film? When you watch it, you will immediately miss Spielberg in the directing chair. Instead, Jeannot Szwarc directed this film, and the end result is that it’s not even that scary. The screenplay was still based on some of Peter Benchley’s original characters. It’s basically a rehash of the first film, which is based on a series of shark attacks on the fictional island of Amity. I guess you could call this resort something like Long Island which could resemble something you would see in the Caribbean islands.

Roy Scheider returns as Chief Martin Brody, and so do Lorraine Gray as his wife, Ellen, and Murray Hamilton as the Mayor. The remaining cast is mostly consisted of teenagers, making this film feel more like a teen flick, which is what it pretty much plays as. Vincent Canby of “The New York Times” said in his review that the teenagers are, “all of whom look enough alike as to make it virtually impossible to remember which kid has been gobbled up in what sequence. Not that it matters much.” The reason being is that the screaming in this film is so overused that you will not feel any sympathy towards these retards if they got eaten.

Some of the film can be scary, but it has been dropped so low in this sequel that there is no climax that gets built up. It just drags on and on making you feel so bored. Seriously, it feels more like a film that was made specifically for television than for the theaters.

Another mistake that they made is that they decided to show a mechanical shark really early. Canby comments on this by saying, “One of the canny decisions in "Jaws" was the withholding of such visual information until near the end, by which time suspense had overwhelmed logic to such an extent that our imaginations were in league with the movie makers'.” That’s what made “Jaws” so scary because all you saw was the fin for a good majority of the movie. Since the shark is shown really early in “Jaws 2,” you’re not really so scared as you were when watching the first one. Canby says that the shark in “Jaws 2” looks like one of those mechanical sharks used in the “Jaws” Disneyland ride, which I remember going on when I was six. Obviously I was scared because I didn’t know that it was all staged.

Bottom line: this film is not as good as the first. But what do you expect? They are trying to capitalize on the popularity of the first one, and they made this horrible sequel. You would miss Robert Shaw and Richard Dreyfuss from the first movie, since Roy Scheider pretty much plays it solo in this one. I would have to give this film a 5.

Do you really want to continue reading these reviews? Alright, well you asked for it. You’re punishment for reading the reviews of horrible films. Stay tuned tomorrow for the continuation of my “Jaws-a-thon.”

Jaws

To continue “Halloween Month” I will now go into the deep ends of the ocean and get out one of Steven Spielberg’s classic films from 1975, “Jaws.” It’s one of the scariest films of all time, and is still scary to this very day. Since it revolves around the humans that we see develop, we get to know them on a personal level and fear for them. Roger Ebert said that this film is just as frightening as “The Exorcist,” but I think “The Exorcist” is far scarier than “Jaws.” The thing that makes “Jaws” scary is that people may not even go to the beach again because they are afraid a shark might come in and attack. I have never encountered a shark before, but I have heard of sharks that have attacked people. Maybe at an aquarium I have seen shark tanks, but that’s about it.

You probably all know the basic storyline of this film. A series of attacks happen on a beach by a great white shark. Out of fear that the tourism attraction will deteriorate, three men venture out into the sea to find this shark. There are supposed to be a number of meanings in this classic story, but Spielberg being the genius that he is, doesn’t underline any of them. This film stays within its own boundaries, and none of the characters have to give speeches on the meaning of it. Spielberg does present these characters that make them into individuals.

Before the three men hop onto their boat and venture out to kill the shark, we get to know them in a way that we know how they’ll respond. First, we have Brody, played by the great Roy Scheider, who is the police chief of the island, and came from New York for a change. Next is Quint, played by another great actor, Robert Shaw. He is a sailor who has a very personal grudge against sharks. Finally there is the ever loving Hooper, played by one of the most well-known actors, Richard Dreyfuss. Now Hooper is a rich kid turned oceanographer. He is their best resource to ask what a shark can do to man, and he is a daredevil to go into the sea with one.

All three of these characters are just memorable. Scheider is the one that you identify with the most. He has hydrophobia, which shows because he doesn’t like to swim. The first time he sees a shark go past the boat, it’s believable when he says to Quint the famous line from the movie, “We need a bigger boat.” Roger Ebert had this to say about Shaw: “Shaw brings a degree of cheerful exaggeration to his role as Quint, stomping around like a cross between Captain Queeg and Captain Hook, and then delivering a compelling five-minute monologue about the time the Indianapolis went down and he was one of more than a thousand men in the water.” When the rescue had come, two-thirds of the men were already killed by sharks, hence the reason for his vendetta against sharks.

The most memorable of the three has to be Dreyfuss as Hooper the oceanographer. Dreyfuss calls himself an idiot for turning the role down twice, but he got into this role soon after being the titular character in “The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz,” and the college boy from the ever classic, “American Graffiti.” In “Jaws,” he looks just right for the role. Young, engaging, and scholarly, and even mentions what he knows about sharks that channels our fear of them.

Finally, we have the shark. Some of the footage in the film is an actual shark. The rest is of a mechanical shark patterned on the real shark, which completes the illusion. We see the shark close up, we look him dead in the eye, and it feels like we are looking at an actual shark. “Jaws” still holds up well today, and it will still scare you if you watch it. Unlike a lot of horror films that overuses the violence; here Spielberg uses the necessary amount of blood and guts. The story is also brilliantly told throughout. I give this film a solid 10.

What is next for this shark killer? Will they make the smart choice and leave the film where it should be, or make it into a horrible franchise? Wait until tomorrow in my “Jaws-a-thon.”

Hannibal Rising

This is just unacceptable. Why don’t film directors ever quit while they are ahead? Instead, just so they can get cash, they decide to make a film whether or not it will be successful or liked. Case in point: the 2007 prequel to the Hannibal Lecter series, “Hannibal Rising.” As bad as it may be, I think it could have been a lot worse. MGM and its producers did give Anthony Hopkins a small amount to forcing him back into a title role.

Now let’s look back at the film appearances Lecter has made. Brian Cox was the first in the underrated Michael Mann picture, “Manhunter.” That didn’t make Lecter into one of the scariest people ever to appear on the big screen until Hopkins came around in “The Silence of the Lambs.” Since then, it has been ups and downs with this character. We had to suffer through the average “Hannibal” and the amazing prequel “Red Dragon,” but the latest, “Hannibal Rising” was enough to never make another Lecter book or movie again.

Author Thomas Harris can really sink into his obsession of Lecter, but he seems to be hungry for money the way the cannibal is hungry for human organs. So we have to put up with this painful prequel that tells his origin. It’s just an unwatchable cluttered junk movie where you see Gaspard Ulliel playing the young Lecter.

For those of you who watched “The Silence of the Lambs,” you’ll know that there was only a passing mention of Lecter’s youth. It’s the same way how Kyle Reese explained to Sarah Connor in the first Terminator movie how the war started, but the filmmakers feel that they should show in the sequels how the war started, as if explaining wasn’t enough for them. In this prequel, it gives viewers that when Lecter was eight (portrayed by Aaran Thomas at eight) that he changed from such a great boy to a horrific monster after what the Nazi soldiers did with his little sister, Mischa, played by Helena-Lia Tachovská. The film then goes on to show us that he had samurai training from his aunt, Lady Murasaki, played by the hot Li Gong, also learning to cook, studied in medical school, and a very dangerous battle against the Russian soldiers who could have been involved in killing Mischa.

Peter Webber directed this film, and it’s his second, as you can obviously tell when watching it. Sean O'Connell stated in his review that this film is “Ugly and drab, the film has the mood of a morgue. It falls back on predictable slasher-film clichés (gone is the thrill of the chase that drove Lambs), and reduces Hannibal to a one-note joke of a villain, a soulless killing machine with as much depth as a contact lens.” After you watch this film, I would be surprised if you don’t miss Hopkins in the role of Lecter.

Sean O’Connell goes on to say, “By this point, a Lecter prequel would only appeal to the most dedicated fan base, and yet Rising makes mistakes that will drive the core audience crazy. I'm not talking about the easy plot holes, the ones you could drive a truck through. Though you might ask yourself why, after 10 years, the chateau where Hannibal and Mischa were held prisoner remains untouched, even though there was a working orphanage right next door.” What happened to the sympathetic Hannibal that we knew and loved, or the man who knew how to get inside your head? That’s what made him so great in “The Silence of the Lambs” and “Red Dragon.”

At least Sean O’Connell states, “No, I'm more bothered by a particular scene that's included for dramatic effect, even though it messes with Lecter's mythology. You might have seen the shot on the poster.” When you look at the movie poster, Lecter is wearing the famous mask that you first saw in “Red Dragon.” You would get nostalgic of “The Silence of the Lambs” when you look at the image, as the guards who would put the straightjacket on Lecter. In this film, we see that Lecter didn’t choose to wear this mask, it was forced on him. This is a huge slap in the face of the fans base of Lecter who will get mad at the filmmakers of this film who can’t even get Lecter’s past right.

Bottom line: avoid this film at all cost. Just watch “The Silence of the Lambs” and “Red Dragon” since they are the only good ones in the series. How ironic that the films with Lecter’s first name in it are the bad ones. Also, if you want to check out “Manhunter,” then by all means do so, since I believe that film is also good. This film I would have to give a 0.

Looks like I have completed all the Hannibal Lecter series. Check in tomorrow when I will go underwater to look at the next series for “Halloween Month.”

Red Dragon

After the disappointment fans had from the halfway decent “Hannibal” movie, a prequel to “The Silence of the Lambs,” directed by the awesome Brett Ratner, was made in 2002. This is “Red Dragon,” based off of the Thomas Harris novel. And how is this film? It returns back to what made “The Silence of the Lambs” so great, and quite possibly, maybe even scarier. You could consider this a remake to Michael Mann’s “Manhunter.”

In the role of Will Graham, we have Edward Norton, who plays Graham as a no-nonsense type of a cop. He’s straightforward, hardworking, and doesn’t take any bluff, even from one of the scariest killers you have ever seen. He has a talent of getting an idea of what a sick mind is thinking, which he sees more as a curse than an approval. He’s a healthy guy with a dark edge. They address the same issue in “Red Dragon” with Graham the way they did in “Manhunter,” but Norton still looks like he is fairly in control. There’s never a feeling that he will go crazy at any given moment. When he’s trying to get into the criminal’s head, Norton seems like he is having an epiphany. He just has one foot confidently in the real world, so when Lecter says that they are alike, it just sounds like one of those villain speeches you’ve heard so many times before. Norton gives a solid performance in this movie.

“The Tooth Fairy” is played by the great Ralph Fiennes in this film, who portrays him more tragically than Noonan in “Manhunter.” Much more backstory is given to “The Tooth Fairy” in this film, and the more you know, the more you feel sorry for him. As you watch him, you get the feeling that he doesn’t want to do his job. Sadly due to his abusive past with a horrible combination of a sick mind makes a worried need to go through a strange change. You see him interact more with people, how he works, how often he’s constantly battling with himself, making a great performance and great character in this film. He’s a killer you have more compassion towards.

Hannibal Lecter is seen much more in this film than in “Manhunter,” which makes it amazing. Anthony Hopkins returns, since he made this role into an icon that whenever anybody says Lecter, you’ll immediately think of Hopkins. He’s slow, calculating, and could be evil but you never got mad at him. Ratner increased Lecter’s role compared to the book because of his fame, unlike in “Manhunter” where he was used as much as he was in the book. Since we had two movies to increase the scare value, by the time “Red Dragon” was released, there was a lot more build up to what we should get scared at. We also see how he was caught in this film, which is interesting but how did he survive getting stabbed with arrows and shot like three times? True his age can be a little disrupting, but there’s more time, we had two other films to build on his character, and it’s an Oscar-winning performance. It’s hard not to like Hopkins, who knows how to find the exact core of the role.

With the supporting cast, Graham’s wife and child are portrayed by Mary-Louise Parker and Tyler Patrick Jones. There is a connection between both of them in this film, but they are not seen as much as in “Manhunter.” The great Phillip Seymour Hoffman plays the nosy reporter, who is better in this one. Also, Jack Crawford is portrayed by one of the most beloved actors of all time, Harvey Keitel. How can you not like that?  Frankie Faison, as always since “Manhunter,” plays it cool and suave as Barney Matthews.

Emily Watson portrays Reba McClane, the blind girl who dates “The Tooth Fairy,” who is far more memorable in this role than Joan Allen. Much more time is given to both of their romance, and more detail is shown in how their relationship grows. This makes it tragic to see how their relationship ends up at the end. It’s a hard choice for “The Tooth Fairy” to kill off McClane, but we know why because we’ve seen them grow close to one another. Their relationship is important in this movie. It gives the character more purpose and a weight.

If you read the Harris novel this film is based off of, you’ll know that this film follows it pretty close. However, you’ll notice this film has two endings: a fake-out and the real climax. You may not be a fan of fake-out deaths, but for this film, Norton had the opportunity to get a psychological and physical confrontation with “The Tooth Fairy.” You see more of Lecter and McClane in this film. Nostalgia Critic said that the story in this film is spelled out a little more than in “Manhunter.” For example, when Lecter’s cell was investigated on, they actually show what the detectives did in order to fool him, and whether or not it works. A lot of this film is more visually appealing to the eye. The creepy sets, the bizarre imagery, and the dark shadows. It moves smoothly, with the exception of the ending, every scene seemed to fall nicely in with the next. The characters that needed to be focused on were constantly focused on. Even the ending isn’t horrible; you might think it’s superfluous.

So my advice to you is that if you loved “The Silence of the Lambs” and you want to see another awesome movie of Hannibal Lecter, check out “Red Dragon.” I promise you, you’ll love it. It even Segway's nicely into "The Silence of the Lambs" when Clarice comes to see Lecter for the first time. I give this film a solid 10.

Now with the modern day look on Lecter having a great start, a not so good sequel, but a much better prequel, will they continue making films, or stop right here? Look out for that tomorrow when I conclude my “Lecter-a-thon.”

Hannibal

As much as I love director Ridley Scott, since he has made some really amazing films, I personally do not like what he did with the 2001 sequel to one of the scariest films to come out for this generation. I am of course talking about the putrid film, “Hannibal.” I feel like I am watching some sort of violent film that took it just way too far. Why else would you think that a film that shows a man cutting off his face and feeding it to his dogs would pass for an R and not an NC-17?

The film lacks what made “The Silence of the Lambs” so great, for quite a list of reasons. The main reason is that it completely misplaces why we loved Hannibal Lecter so much in that film. In “The Silence of the Lambs,” he was a good man because he was allowed to with Clarice. Of course, like a computer chip, he was programmed as a cannibal and a murderer, but that wasn’t his fault, and with Clarice, he was kind and helpful. Anthony Hopkins reprises the role of Hannibal Lecter, but Jodie Foster is replaced with Julianne Moore. You think that you will miss Jodie in this film? No, you’ll actually miss the Clarice from “The Silence of the Lambs.” Clarice in “Hannibal” is drier, more sarcastic, more closed off than the one we knew a decade ago. I blame the fact that it was the law that must have sucked out all likeability from her. According to the Guinness Book of World Records, Clarice holds the record of killing more people than any FBI Agent ever. Like all cops in movies, she has no response when her boss demands her to turn in her badge and gun. Her boss is Justice Department official Paul Krendler, played by one of the scariest looking but great in action thrillers actor, Ray Liotta. I bet he regrets being in this awful movie. Now she has the typical, boring desk job, but leaves on her own basis to look for Lecter again. He writes to Clarice from Florence, Italy, where he is now an art curator. Also on the hunt for Lecter is a millionaire, Mason Verger, played by Gary Oldman, who is out for revenge. Verger was a child molester who was told to go to Lecter for therapy, which Lecter drugged Verger and said to cut his face off and feed it to the dogs. Now since he looks horrific, he says, “It seemed like a good idea at the time.” Really, what kind of a sick twisted mind would say that? A Florence detective, Pazzi, played by Giancarlo Giannini, assumes that the curator is none other than Lecter, and agrees to bring Lecter to Verger for $3 million. Want to know what happens? He confesses to Lecter everything. What a wimp!

Would you like to see Lecter out on the loose? The idea behind “The Silence of the Lambs” was that he couldn’t escape. Clarice climbed down seven flights of stairs and walked through seven doors before arriving at his cell. The only part of Lecter that was allowed outside his cell was his imagination, since he could think of himself out.

In this one, Lecter is out of his cell and that loses what made the first one so great. By letting him walk around outdoors, the movie changes him into a monster. He is able to escape from any trap, and isn’t as sympathetic compared to when he is strapped to a cruciform brace and about to be fed to pigs, one limb at a time. At that point, he sounds like he pities his tormentors, which makes us remember the previous Lecter, the one we love.

Roger Ebert, who read the Thomas Harris novel this film is based off of, had this to say: “I agreed with earlier reviewers who doubted it could be filmed in its original form. What is amazing is that Ridley Scott and screenwriters David Mamet and Steven Zaillian have kept most of the parts I thought would have to go. Verger's muscle-bound lesbian dominatrix sister is missing, along with her electric eel, and the very ending of the novel is gone, perhaps to spare Clarice irreversible humiliation in case there is a sequel. But the face-eating and voracious boars are still here, along with the man whose skull is popped open so that nonessential parts of his brain can be sliced off and sautéed for his dinner.” The man who has his brain eaten by Lecter is Krendler.

Many people would say this film cannot be considered, even filmed and released. Our complexity is up there that we would laugh at the earlier generations when they vomit. I know the part where Lecter eats Krendler’s brain is special effects; the face-eating part is shot in the shadows and its cut so quick that you can’t even see the dogs munching away, and Julianne Moore has said in interviews that the story is a tale of good and evil. Although she admits to have talked to her shrink about it.

Ebert himself admits, “I cannot approve of the movie, not because of its violence, which belongs to the Grand Guignol tradition, but because the underlying story lacks the fascination of "Silence of the Lambs."” The reasons why is because Lecter loses all of his power with him being free, Clarice isn’t likeable, the story does a horrible job of joining its evil with the police procedural details, and the movie is too daring in wanting to scare us. “The Silence of the Lambs” was strangely able to do that however.

Despite all of these flaws, Ebert says, “Still, I'm left with admiration for Scott's craft in pulling this off at all, and making it watchable and (for some, I'm sure) entertaining.” The Mason Verger villain does a great job of combining skill and demonic imagination, Julianne Moore’s portrayal of Clarice probably is spot on in how she would change in a decade, and Anthony Hopkins made sure that Lecter was still a joy to watch whenever he was on screen. Even Lecter’s former jailer, Barney, played by the one of the coolest guys, Frankie R. Faison, says, “He said that whenever possible, he preferred to eat the rude--the free-range rude.” Lecter still shows his taste in humans when he would eat them.

So if you are a Hannibal Lecter fan and are looking for an entertaining film to watch that goes overboard in time for Halloween, than do check out “Hannibal.”

Now with “The Silence of the Lambs” and “Hannibal” set in stone, what is next for Hannibal Lecter? Will they make another sequel, or go backwards? Find out tomorrow in the “Lecter-a-thon.”

The Silence of the Lambs

Now we finally start the Hannibal Lecter series in modern day times with one of the best horror films ever made, “The Silence of the Lambs,” which came out in 1991. The secret about this movie is that it doesn’t start with Dr. Lecter or “Hannibal the cannibal” as he is called. Instead, the film arrives to him through a young woman. The movie is a story about a young FBI trainee named Clarice Starling, played by the very lovely and attractive Jodie Foster, and the story follows her without considerable disturbances. Dr. Lecter, played by the great Anthony Hopkins, waits at the central force of the story, a mean but somehow likable company. When I mean likable, I mean in the sense that he likes Clarice, and he says that he will not hurt her, but he helps her. Lecter is a side character and Clarice is the main person who drives the plot.

Roger Ebert comments about the director, Jonathan Demme’s work: “The popularity of Jonathan Demme's movie is likely to last as long as there is a market for being scared.” His work is in the same boat as other classic horror pictures like “Nosferatu,” “Psycho,” and “Halloween,” since the best thrillers don’t age. Fear is a universal emotion and one that everyone feels from the start of birth. The thing that is good about “The Silence of the Lambs” is that it’s not just a scary movie, but about two of the most memorable characters in cinema history, Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter, and their bizarre relationship. At one point, Lecter laughs when he tells Clarice, “people will say we're in love.”

Ebert says that these two share so much. You can see that in the film, especially when Ebert breaks it down by saying, “Both are ostracized by the worlds they want to inhabit--Lecter, by the human race because he is a serial killer and a cannibal, and Clarice, by the law enforcement profession because she is a woman.” They are both powerless since Lecter is behind a cell in a maximum security prison (think of how “King Kong” felt when they moved him), and Clarice has had men make her feel uncomfortable when they eye her in a way that she doesn’t like it. Both of them share a persuasion talent that is able to get them both out of their traps. Lecter does this by eliminating his cellmates by chocking on their own tongue, and Clarice is able to persuade Lecter to help her in finding a serial killer that goes by the name Buffalo Bill. Similarly, they both had rough childhoods. Lecter is able to connect with Clarice when she shares with him that her parents died when she was a child, was adopted by relatives who didn’t love her, and Lecter also had experienced child abuse. Demme says in the DVD commentary that he regrets going more in-depth on this.

Speaking of Buffalo Bill, also note that he and Lecter look like they are in the realm of Hades. Lecter is in a prison cell and Buffalo Bill is in his basement, and Clarice has to get to both of them by going down a number of stairs and opening countless doors. They are similar to Hades’ guard-dog, Cerberus. Also it is interesting to see that the camera focuses a lot on Clarice. Ebert mentions, “The point-of-view camera takes the place of the scrutinizing men in her life, and when she enters dangerous spaces, it is there waiting for her instead of following her in.” Another interesting note is that the film uses the colors of the USA flag a lot. Not only in the FBI scenes, but also there is a flag on a car in the shed, other flags in Bill’s lair, and the graduation cake at the end of the movie, which Ebert says, “the U.S. eagle in the frosting is a ghastly reminder of the way Lecter pinned a security guard spread-eagled to the walls of his cage.”

The soundtrack, goodness does it know how to carry the film’s theme throughout. At many points you can hear exhaling and sighs, like when the cocoon of the gypsy moth is taken by Bill from his first victim’s throat. Talk about heavy breathing. There are bottomless echoing and far cries and mourns, almost too low to hear, at central parts. There is the sound of a heart monitor. Howard Shore has music that can make a funeral type of manner. Ebert comments on the music, “When the soundtrack wants to create terror, as when Clarice is in Bill's basement, it mixes her frightened panting with the sound of Bill's heavy breathing and the screams of the captive girl--and then adds the dog's frenzied barking, which psychologically works at a deeper level than everything else.” Bill also has green goggles so that he can see Clarice when it is dark. Call it night-vision goggles.

Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins deserved the Oscar awards for best actor and actress, and the film also won best picture for Demme’s direction and Ted Talley’s screenplay, and was nominated for editing and sound. Don’t you find it strange that the Academy would remember this film, when it normally votes films that are either still in theaters or newly released on video? This proves that “Silence of the Lambs” could not go ignored and deserved to be talked about, since it was released 13 months before the Oscarcast.

Hopkins doesn’t have that much screen time compared to Foster, but he left a huge impact on audiences. When you first see him, it’s just an image that will be implanted in your retina forever. After Clarice is done climbing down the stairs and walking through all those doors, the camera shows her POV when she first sees him in his cell. You would think that he is a wax statue. Her next visit he is also still, but slightly flinches, then he opens his mouth. On the commentary track, Hopkins said that he was inspired by the HAL 9000 computer from “2001: A Space Odyssey,” which made him come up with Lecter’s personality.

With Foster’s character, Clarice, she is not only an orphan, but an inconvenient rough country girl who has worked tirelessly to get where she is at right now, and doesn’t really have as much confidence as she shows. When she sees the nail polish on one of Bill’s victims, she assumes the girl is from “town,” which is used by someone who is not. Her bravest moment is when she orders the gaping sheriff’s deputies out of the room when she is at the funeral home.

One thing about the film is that audiences will like Hannibal Lecter. This is slightly because he likes Clarice, and says that he won’t hurt her. Another reason is because he helps her search for Buffalo Bill, and save the girl he has trapped in his basement, played by Brooke Smith. But mainly it’s because Hopkins embodies this character in a way that he will always be remembered for this role. Just like how whenever someone says Jack Nicholson, they immediately think of the Joker, or when you say Harrison Ford, you’ll immediately remember both Han Solo and Indiana Jones. He may be a cannibal, but he doesn’t bore you to death, and is still interesting, since he is the smartest character in the movie.

Dr. Lecter has comparison with other movie monsters like Nosferatu, Frankenstein, Norman Bates, and King Kong. They have two similarities: They act according to their nature, and they are misread. Whatever these monsters do are not because of some “evil” way, but because they do not have any moral sense. Think of a computer like HAL 9000. They are programmed to act this sort of way, and have no choice. Whenever they are given the opportunity, they try to do the right thing (Nosferatu never had that opportunity, sadly). Kong wants to rescue Fry Wray, Norman Bates is a sociable guy who loves his mother to death (much like how Hitler was the same way), and Dr. Lecter helps Clarice because she does not insult him the way others have, and you could say that they both love one another, but not in the sense of going out.

All of this put together would not assure how long “Silence of the Lambs” would last if it wasn’t truly scary. I don’t think anyone could describe the reasons best as Roger Ebert could, so here are his reasons: “first in the buildup and introduction of Hannibal Lecter. Second in the discovery and extraction of the cocoon in the throat. Third in the scene where the cops await the arrival of the elevator from the upper floors. Fourth in the intercutting between the exteriors of the wrong house in Calumet City and the interiors of the right one in Belvedere, Ohio. Fifth in the extended sequence inside Buffalo Bill's house, where Ted Levine creates a genuinely loathsome psychopath (notice the timing as Starling sizes him up and reads the situation before she shouts “Freeze!”).” The reason why we get scared when watching this movie is because of its smart treatment of story and image, and we like Clarice, we can identify with her, and fear for her like Lecter does.

If you haven’t seen this film, well then….what are you waiting for? Go out and rent it, buy it, or catch it on TV, but definitely watch this. It’s definitely a film to watch around Halloween time. I give this film a solid 10.

Stay tuned tomorrow when I continue my “Lecter-a-thon” with an average sequel.

Manhunter

Today marks a very creepy start to a series of films about the most diabolical cannibal himself, Dr. Hannibal Lecter. We all know about “The Silence of the Lambs,” but I’m not going to review that today. That will be saved for tomorrow. Today I will be reviewing a film that is overlooked at times, and is actually Lecter’s very first appearance on screen. It’s none other than the 1986 film directed by the wrecking force, Michael Mann, himself, “Manhunter.”

William Petersen plays our main anti-hero Will Graham. He portrays Petersen as a sick mind that barely made it over to being good. Even still he’s constantly tight-roping it. He doesn’t seem like a well person and deep down inside he knows that just like how he can easily become like one of those mental guys he brought in. You get the feeling that he is actually diving into the killer’s mind, almost like he is disgustingly enjoying it. Because of this, Petersen comes across as more tortured and complex. You can easily see him going off the deep end at any moment. He literally starts to get scared when Lector tells him that they are similar, just like an erratic mind would. It would make sense that something like that would get to him. He has a sick twisted mind that makes it interesting to watch.

Francis Dolarhyde, who also goes by the name “The Tooth Fairy,” is played by Tom Noonan in this film. His tragedy is more hinted at in this film and not really shown why he is the way he is. He’s left more in the shadow, which makes him come across as more creepy and unpredictable. Most of his scenes don’t have music playing in the background. It just lets the suspense and mystery of his actions insert fear into the situation. The less you know what he is thinking, the more irregular and frightening he is. But he still has that level of power that is needed as well, and you do see the pain he is going through that isn’t explained through words. It’s explained in the forms of visuals and music. That plays pretty strong in a film.

Brian Cox as Lecter actually has a very different and surprisingly affective take on the role compared to the much more popular Anthony Hopkins role in the later films. Cox is a fast talker, obnoxious, a jerk, but he also manages to get inside your head in a very short amount of time. It’s frightening since he is a guy who has you pagead the minute you walk in, and uses that almost immediately to start controlling you. Half of the time you want to hurt the man. There’s not much of Lecter in this film, but just how Michael Mann did with “The Tooth Fairy,” there’s little music, little shadow, and the scare value comes from the performance and the inconsiderate reality of the situation.

Graham’s wife, Molly, is played by Kim Greist, and their son, Kevin, is played by David Seaman. This movie devotes entire scenes to how this connection is all affecting their lives. Especially in the scene when Will confesses to Kevin the suffering of a sick mind and what it means to live with it. This is a very strong moment. The relationship with the family is important in this film. More of the family interacting is seen here.

Stephen Lang as the nosy reporter is also a lot of fun.

Dennis Farina plays great as Jack Crawford, as well as the other detectives.

Joan Allen as Reba McClane, the blind girl dating “The Tooth Fairy,” is cool in this role. It’s a little rushed in the romance though. The idea is he falls in love with a woman and his psychotic killer mind doesn’t know how to handle it. When the attempt to kill her comes in this film, it’s just another typical murder.

You could argue that the ending in this film did keep it mostly in a three-act structure. Will just fights “The Tooth Fairy” off and that’s it. The rest of the two stories actually followed similarly to the book this film is based off of. You could follow this film ok, but a lot of the stuff goes by before you know it. For example, there is only one line when they searched Lecter’s cell and didn’t want him to know. The film looks good, but the visuals are more beaches and a lot of blank walls. There is that weird backdrop in “The Tooth Fairy’s” house, but I don’t get it. All of this contributes to telling the story more fluently and providing a more natural narrative.

If you haven’t checked this film out yet, you should. You don’t have to necessarily, but I think you should if you have seen the other Lecter films.

Well, there’s my review of Michael Mann’s “Manhunter.” It’s definitely a film that you should watch around Halloween time since it does have a lot of scare value. Especially the scenes where there isn’t any music.

But what can be said about the other films with the more popular Anthony Hopkins in the role of Lecter? Find out tomorrow when I start the more famous films in my “Lecter-a-thon.”