PatD

They're both iconic. They're both Oscar winning roles. They're both unforgettable. So...which do you prefer and why?

gp1086

Obviously love both. But I prefer Ledger's Joker. Have seen The Dark Knight probably ten times and each time he blows me away more and more. While Lecter is certainly interesting character to me, the scenes in which Ledger portrays The Joker are far more intriguing to me.

Troy Stiffler

Lecter was such a genius in his world. But I think he was kind of lucky and relied on weak victims who couldn't just shoot him in the face, or gouge his eyes out when they're being attacked.

Now that I think of it, Joker got lucky getting away in that school bus. But anyways, I think that he was a man with a solid plan and good ideas. I think that his actions would be a lot harder to counter.

Cardsfan111

Shocked that there's no poll.

I love both as well. Hopkins' performance just resonates with me a bit more.

Solid Snake

Hopkins. He did so much w/ so little. Though I did love Ledger's Mr. J.

auto

Really, no poll?

Easily Lecter.

Drexl

Probably Lecter of the two, but I have to give an honorable mention to Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men.

Dragon Tattoo

Ledger, easily.

musick

Hopkins by far
Ledger's Joker is completely forgetable ... I prefer Cesar Romero

RocShemp

I vote for Brian Cox' take on Lecter (misspelled Lector in Manhunter). He had and understated swarmy charm about him (like when he got Will Graham's address off the operator) that really shined in his two or three scenes.

Although you're probably joking, I actually seriously agree.

PopcornTreeCt

Ledger.

I actually prefer Levine's Buffalo Bill to Lecter.

musick

nope ... no "joking"

JumpCutz

Both performances are fun to watch with their mustache twirling scenery chewing, but for my money Kevin Spacey in Seven is so chillingly pitch perfect with his understated menace that he blows those other two guys off the screen.

FRwL

Ledge just acted like a random crackhead. So Hopkins.

He's actually even more badass in the book believe it or not,

RocShemp

Actually, Ledger was doing a Tom Waits impersonation:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gCSc6E4yG9s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Supermallet

I love Ledger's performance in The Dark Knight, but Hopkins' performance as Lecter gives me chills. He is possibly the scariest film villain of all time. Or at least he was until Ridley Scott turned him into a cartoon.

PenguinJoe

I always thought Ledger's role was great but he really only won the Oscar cause he died. Hopkins was chilling and I loved how he had some redeeming qualities.

WeylandYutani

Blame Harris for that, not Ridley.

Supermallet

I read Hannibal. It was in fact worse than the movie. I actually do find the movie interesting but as a sequel to Silence of the Lambs it is not impressive.

WeylandYutani

No arguments there The novel was basically him giving all the people, including major studio heads, who'd been pestering him to write a sequel for years a big fat middle-finger. He had to have known that there was no way his ending was gonna fly with people.

brayzie

I love Ledger's Joker but Hopkins had more to work with, despite having less screen time.

I guess it's because Lecter in SOTL comes off as more three dimensional, showing glimpses of being vulnerable, offended ("why do you apply that high powered perception against yourself? Maybe you're afraid to.") while still being a remorseless monster.

The sequels to SOTL did make Lecter a cartoon character. And I never got the affinity for the Lecter in Manhunter.

Charlie Goose

I remember reading Hannibal before the movie was made and thinking, "This is absolutely unfilmable."

Anyway, I guess I'll go with Lecter. The impact may have lessened over time and multiple viewings, but that doesn't change the fact that he is a terrifying psycho.

I love both movies and performances.

Guru Askew

I think you're way off. I think "Hannibal" was Harris giving people exactly what they wanted. He recognized that people loved the Lecter character so he made him the hero. He let his hero get the girl. He not only ramped up the violence but he also attempted to justify it by introducing a bunch of cartoonish villains (faceless orphan-tear-drinking child molester, corrupt and inept police officer, Italian snuff film producers, the female lead's misogynist and obnoxious superior etc.) for the now-heroic Lecter to dispatch. He literally gave the character supernatural superpowers. Pigs and gypsies sense his evil and Harris literally describes Lecter as having the proportionate strength of an ant.

"Hannibal" is awful in both its literary and cinematic forms but I honestly think Harris was sincere in writing it. I think Lecter's phenomenal success changed his motivations which in turn obviously changed him as a writer but I don't doubt for one second when reading that garbage that Harris thought he was writing a story that would please his audience and make his mountain of money even bigger.

He knew people loved Lecter and Starling and wrote a sub-fanfiction-quality love letter to the two of them complete with a fairytale ending.