Sorry, Manhunter still better than this, even with Hopkins

Yes, I love Manhunter, with all it's flaws.

Why I think this is BS?
- Noonan acts circles around Fiennes. Him having no tattoos, less screen time and less speech actually made him more misterious/menacing/frightening, to me at least. Fiennes simply came off cartoonish (proving Mann correct in losing Dolarhyde's tattoos), attention-needy, drama queen and pathetic.
- Norton, as good as he was in AHX, just SUCKED here. He just looks constipated (big time), not conflicted nor dangerous (in the book Lecter says Graham is essentially a sociopath just like him, hence why he can second-guess other psychos, he just decided not to go down that evil road) nor anything remotely interesting. William Peterson however, as bland and as quiet as he was, actually conveyed the character's inner demons better in my opinion (silence can sometimes tell/infer more than lengthy-wordy explanations).
- Cox got Lecter more realistically in my opinion. That is how a real life Lecter would actually come off, not like Hopkins, who also was given TOO MUCH screen time (for obvious reasons), at teh cost of the story. This is not his story, but Graham's and to a point Dolarhyde's.
- The blind lady works in both films.

I guess you can excuse Hopkins and Fiennes due to the tone and direction (Hopkins was expected to be teatrical and Fiennes to be sympathetic), but Norton is just pathetic. I really spent the entire film shouting in my head "either puke or let one go already!".