Rating: 
Summary: Flawed, but worth a look
Review: Ok, so the motivation behind the new 2002 adaptation of Thomas Harris's early 80s novel maybe purely money-driven, but the result is surprisingly rich and joyful. Who could have guessed that Brett Ratner, director of the mostly-bland Rush Hour series, was equipped to produce something with this amount of style and atmosphere? Certainly not me. I was expecting a mostly script-to-screen translation with little or no dedication by Ratner to the depth in the material. I was pleasantly surprised.
This is not the first rendition of Harris's novel. In 1986, Michael Mann, who would later go on to write and direct a similarly-styled Cops-and-Robbers drama Heat, directed Manhunter, based loosely on the novel with a distinctly 80s feel. Hannibal's appearances in Manhunter are limited; Harris has only eight pages about him in the 500+paged novel. How was Mann to know then that Hannibal Lecter would become the icon that he is today. Die-hard Hannibal fan will recognize that as the one which featured Brian Cox, not Anthony Hopkins, as the diabolical cannibal. I have a gripe with Rater about this film though. He was quoted in Entertainment Weekly as referring to Manhunter as really having nothing to do with Harris's novel, which sounded entirely arrogant and disrespectful to a man who has so-far outdone Ratner in terms of the quality of material he turns out.
There is no doubt in my mind that the main purpose of this film is to round out Harris's trilogy with Hopkins as the doctor and rake in cash. The producer want to sell Hannibal's name, and they do, though thankfully this movie is not about him. My problem with 1991's Best Picture-winner Silence of the Lambs was that it (like the novel) was overly fascinated with Hannibal, and the serial murder plot seemed like a flimsy clothesline on which to hang the Clarice and Lecter's strangely overwrought romantic affair.
Thankfully, Red Dragon is about a serial murderer called The Tooth Fairy and the cop who chases him with the help of forensic science and good old-fashioned profiling (i.e. surrounding himself with pictures of dead people and mumbling to himself), and Hannibal takes a back seat to the story. Which is for the better. After all, he's not likely to impress us just sitting in his cell and acting evil after the frighteningly grisly things we saw him do in last year's Hannibal. Rising star Edward Norton (Fight Club) plays Investigator Will Graham, called out of retirement to assist the FBI in the hunt for a man who kills families in their beds. He is recovering physically and mentally from a confrontation with Hannibal Lecter that got Lecter in jail and Graham nearly-gutted. I don't think Norton is quite cut out for the role of Graham (CSI's William Peterson played Graham in Manhunter) but alas, he surpassed my expectations.
If you haven't already figured it out, this is a Hannibal Lecter series, and not for the faint of heart or stomach. Let's see, if I remember correctly we have shootings, stabbings, people burning to death, a man getting his lips bitten off, glass shoved through eyes, some sexuality and some simply shocking scenes of unsettling weirdness.
But I promise, no one has their own brains fed to them, and no one is disemboweled before our eyes. And it's for the better.
Rating: 
Summary: A great adaptation of Thomas Harris's Book.
Review: This is a remake of the underrated 1986 Crime classic "Manhunter" which in turn was also a adaptation of Thomas Harris's Book " Red Dragon" which serves as a prequel to "Silence of the Lambs". This tells the story of how Dr. Hannibal Lector got in Prison in the first place, now a detective named "William Graham" ( Edward Norton) seeks his help to track down a maniac.Well acted and well done serial killer flick with tons of chills, thrills, and twists but it does have a few scenes not for the fainted heart but this is one of the year's best movies. I still say "Manhunter" is a underrated classic but this was staying true to the book. Recommended if you like "Hannibal Lector".
Rating:
Summary: Perfectly enjoyable movie
Review: While Red Dragon is not perfect (the Will Graham character is not as fleshed-out as he should have been), this version of the Thomas Harris novel fits well with the other two Anthony Hopkins Lector flicks.
Purists will go on and on about how much better Manhunter is, but the truth of the matter is that Manhunter was good, but not great. The ending of Manhunter is very weak, and fans of the book were very disappointed. Also, while the Francis Dolarhyde character in Manhunter was VERY creepy, again, it wasn't at all close to the book's depiction. Ralph Fiennes does a very good job in this role in Red Dragon, and his good looks don't make him LESS evil... on the contrary, they make him moreso.
The additional Lector material is welcome, and doesn't shift the focus on the story. This is still a movie about the hunt for the Tooth Fairy, and that character is very well-developed and far more interesting.
Rating:
Summary: It certainly rivals its predesceccors
Review: If you close your eyes and simply listen, the first precise five minutes of Red Dragon are divine. Rattner tells you what the rest of the film is going to be like instantly with a few credits and then with out any fading or build up, throwing you onto the stage of the Baltimore Orchestra House, with the Philharmonic (actually the Boston Philharmonic Orchestra) playing a beautiful rendition of Mendelssohn's Scherzo from A Midsummer Night's Dream. Ratner makes the shots of the musicians last slightly longer than you would like so as to make you wonder exactly why your watching this, but then the camera begins to float up to the conductor, past him, towards the stage lights and slowly down into an audience full of heads. And there, slightly more well lit than the other members of the audience sits one of the most infamous killers in cinema history, hanging on every note of the ill fated flautist, Benjamin Raspail. The opening scene featuring Edward Norton capturing Anthony Hopkins' Lecter is amazing, especially as it was completely up to Ted Tally to come up with it, given Thomas Harris never really created an appropriate scene. The opening titles, accompanied by Elfman's dark and sickening score is incredibly useful and fulfilling, showing a series of newspaper clippings charting the capture of Dr Lecter up until his trial and life imprisonment. The films low point is clearly after this, the initial set up and the dialogue between Kietel and Norton. The scenes of Norton wandering around the victims homes is very nerve-racking and tense, always having you on the edge of your seat and some of the scenes are disturbing, especially Norton's flashes of the female victims. As an avid fan of Thomas Harris' greatest creation, it is great to see Hopkins return to portray Hannibal Lecter for what is presumably and hopefully, for the sake of not ruining a great trilogy, the last time. The only thing disappointing is Ratner has made such an effort to make Fiennes scenes and any other scenes not featuring Hopkins so serious and violent that whenever Hannibal Lecter is on screen, the audience just laugh at every line he says. An audience watching The Silence of the Lambs (1991) eleven years ago would have been silent during every word he says but unfortunately, due to his lack of boundaries during Hannibal (2001), Lecter has become a sort of caricature and is now considered a somewhat humorous figure. The story picks up pace the moment the note from Fiennes is discovered in Lecter's cell, and the scenes in particular especially between Dolarhyde & Reba and also Dolarhyde and Lounds are incredibly tense and frightening. The twist at the end, sticking to Harris novel much more, is hard to see coming unless you have read the book and are familiar with the general story. The final showdown between Norton and Fiennes is also just as good as any other scene in the film, although the additional finale with Hopkins is the perfect send off if this really is Lecter's final big screen adventure. Ratner and Tally have broken several rules however and one scene in particular which annoyed me is the part in which Lecter is cooked a gourmet meal in his cell as this just ruins the mood and atmosphere. The fact that Lecter gets to walk around the exercise room once a week goes against Silence of the Lambs (1991) when he tells Clarice Starling that he has been in the same room for eight years and he will never be let out. And also one of the final scenes shows beautiful sunlight in Lecter's cell, which obviously destroys the romance of the one thing Lecter longs for, a window. It is not worth people trying to compare Red Dragon to any other films. It is not worth trying to compare it to Manhunter, because it is not in affect a remake, it is a second adaptation of Harris's novel. It can be compared to Silence, but this film doesn't make an attempt to scare you mentally, it is about using sudden cuts and Elfman's demented score to make you literally jump in your seat and make your heart skip a few beats. The only time you feel scared by Lecter is when he is being carted back to his cell and he sees the forensic gloves in the cleaners pockets. If you must compare however, it would be completely wrong to make your comparisons against Hannibal (2001) because it is a completely different set up, the previous films are not about Hannibal, especially Red Dragon. Hannibal, hence the title, is about Hannibal and is about culture, romance and freedom, and seeing as the Timing is not particularly important to Ratner. The film begins in 1980 and the subitle following Hannibal's capture reads "Several years later. Red Dragon takes place over about three weeks and it ends directly with a link to Clarice waiting upstairs. When he speaks to Clarice in Silence of the Lambs (1991) he tells her he has been incarcerated for 8 years and it should be 1991. Which should mean the subtitle reading "Several" should be "10 years later". As an avid fan of Lecter, Hopkins, Bach, and Harris this film is brilliant.
Rating:
Summary: Red Dragon 4 ¿ Manhunter 4
Review: The debate has raged long and hard as to which of the adaptations of Thomas Harris's novel Red Dragon is superior with most people plumping for whichever version they saw first. For this is the problem with remakes (or watching a movie having already enjoyed the novel) and particularly with thrillers, where it's the twists and turns that dictate just how much viewing pleasure and excitement there is for the audience. So at the end of the day being objective about which movie is better and how to rate each one is very difficult (and perhaps all that serves to prove is the pointlessness of the debate) but for what it's worth here goes... In a third outing as the world's favourite cannibal Anthony Hopkins returns in this prequel to "The Silence of The Lambs", complete with a ponytail in a new and very clever opening sequence that pits Hannibal Lecter against the FBI's special agent Will Graham (Edward Norton). Directed by Brett Ratner, (a surprise choice given that his last two outings were The Family Man and Rush Hour 2), Red Dragon sets out to recapture the tension of Jonathan Demme's multi-oscar winning "Silence of The Lambs" and to this end the sets of Hannibal Lecter's prison cell have been expertly recreated. Anthony Heald makes a return as the disgustingly sleazy asylum boss, Dr Chilton and Anthony Hopkin's part is inflated from both the novel of its origin and Manhunter. For make no mistake, this is (unlike Ridley Scott's Hannibal) not a Hannibal Lecter film, just as it was never a Hannibal Lecter novel. Instead the focus of Red Dragon is actually Will Graham's showdown with his own inner demon's and another serial killer, Francis Dollarhyde, christened the Tooth Fairy by the movie's tabloid press and played expertly by the ever excellent Ralph Fiennes, complete with a body toned by months of lifting weights and an enormous tattoo, (present in the novel but absent from the book) of the eponymous Red Dragon, covering his entire back. But is it any good? Well, I genuinely believe that how much you enjoy this movie wholly depends on whether or not you have previously seen and enjoyed Michael Mann's original cult movie of the same novel, because for the most part both movies follow the same path and in places the same script. Being objective, and trying to put aside the baggage of having both seen and enjoyed Manhunter (I own it on VHS), I have to admit that this is by Hollywood standards a superior thriller with an excellent cast. As previously mentioned, to my mind Ralph Fiennes is both the star and strength of this movie. However, despite being an enormous fan of Edward Norton's previous work (Primal Fear, American History X, Fight Club, The Score etc.), I would have to say that he was miscast as special agent Will Graham in that his appearance is too preppy and his portrayal seems to lack the inward depth of a man tortured by his own thoughts and the mental scars of his previous (mental and physical) duel with Dr Lecter. Don't get me wrong Edward Norton's performance is fine but it just lacks that spark and charisma of his other roles, which I cant help but feel is partly as a result of being miscast and partly as the result of some uninspired by the numbers direction by Brett Ratner. As for Anthony Hopkin's, he is surprisingly forgettable. His part is little more than a cameo, where he only just steers clear of hamming it up and fails to chill in the same way as he did in his Oscar winning performance back in 1991's Silence of The Lambs. Harvey Keitel meanwhile is as reliable as ever as Graham's FBI boss Jack Crawford but although fine (scant praise for such fine actors) Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Emily Watson are only required to sleepwalk through their parts on cruise control. This is perhaps because they have small and undemanding roles with not enough character development or screen time to get their teeth into the parts. That aside there is also much to recommend Red Dragon, other than Ralph Fiennes excellent performance. The pre-credits sequence for example and the finale are both very thrilling and very enjoyable and there are several other scenes throughout the movie, particularly those featuring Francis Dollarhyde's character development, that were absent in Manhunter but more prevelant in the novel, which positively add to the viewing experience. The debate will no doubt rage long and hard but in the end which one is better is a pointless argument and a moot point. The best way to watch either movie is with an open mind but once you have seen either version its probably best to avoid the other, as your perceptions of the plot, the characters and their appearance will in all likelihood be indelibly set, thus spoiling your enjoyment of any other version. I'm scoring this one a draw, four stars ****.
Rating: 
Summary: Do yourself a favor and see Manhunter first.
Review: Red Dragon (Brett Ratner, 2002) It is the rare film that succeeds not because of its director, but in spite of him. The latest of such films is Red Dragon, a thriller helmed by a comedy director (Ratner is best known for the Jackie Chan vehicle Rush Hour and its sequel). It also succeeds in spite of there already being a perfectly capable adaptation of the book in Michael Mann's wonderfully impressionist Manhunter (1986). It succeeds for one reason: The Silence of the Lambs. Ratner reprised most of the cast from Silence who also show up in Red Dragon (Scott Glenn is replaced by Harvey Keitel, who is capable but a bit jarring), and adds on Ed Norton in the main role of Will Graham, Crawford's golden boy before the advent of Clarice Starling. Graham, who retired from the FBI after almost being killed by Lecter, is brought back in as a consultant by Crawford (Keitel, in one of his few "normal" roles). Graham quickly becomes obsessed with the case, much to the chagrin of his wife (Mary Louise Parker) and child (Tyler Patrick Jones, last seen in Minority Report). Graham is tracking a serial killer known as The Tooth Fairy (Ralph Fiennes), a man with his own demons to overcome (one of them voiced by an uncredited Ellen Burstyn). Made with the lush budget and relaxed atmosphere one would expect from the newest film in a billion-dollar franchise, Ratner was able to play this one a lot closer to the vest than Michael Mann was when he filmed Manhunter back in 1986. But Mann, showing the mark of a great director, took his lack of budget and made a film that is more impressionist than it is true to the source material (not that staying true to the source material of Thomas Harris makes for good flicks; both Mann and Demme departed from the book when necessary, while Ridley Scott stuck to his guns, and the writing, in the dismal Hannibal). So while comparing the two is inevitable, it's like comparing apples and oranges. Yeah, Ed Norton is pound for pound a better actor than William Pedersen, but the Will Graham of Manhunter is a far different psychological beat than the Will Graham of Red Dragon. And the Hannibal Lecter played by Brian Cox is a different beast than the Lecter played, once again, by Anthony Hopkins. And it is in Lecter that the movie finds its greatest failing. Hopkins, here, suffers from what I call Freddy Syndrome. Did you ever notice that, as the Nightmare on Elm Street series progressed, and Freddy Krueger became a more popular character than the kids he was slicing and dicing, he became a nicer guy? He went from an almost unintelligible "I'm gonna kill you slow!" while pursuing Nancy in the first flick to tossing off comic-book style one-liners in the King's English by the third movie. (And as a physical marker, note that his sweater gets cleaner in every film. Really.) In a few short years, Freddy Krueger went from nightmarish serial killer to witty raconteur, the kind of guy you'd invite to a Hugh Hefner roast, as long as he put on some pancake makeup. Hopkins has the same problem. In Silence and Manhunter, you were never allowed to forget that Hannibal Lecter is not a nice guy; he's a sociopath with a taste for human flesh, and given the chance, he'd rather dine on ladyfingers than talk to them. But here, Anthony Hopkins plays the role in a far more charming manner; in the opening scene, when he attempts to kill Graham, you expect him to say something along the lines of "sorry, old chap, rules of the game you know." (And what you actually get isn't all that far off.) It's worth seeing for Ed Norton's performance, as is every Ed Norton film to date, but watch Manhunter first to get an idea of what it could have been-and, actually, what it once was. ***
Rating:
Summary: Truly Creepy
Review: What makes this movie a gotta see for me is that you get to see Hannibal Lecter before he was caught, in his own home, throwing a dinner party... It sent shivers right up my spine. Beyond that, this was an excellent creep-out suspense movie. Take away one star because of the way the lead-up to the final encounter was handled (there wasn't quite enough of an "it's all over" feeling to make Dolarhyde's reemergence unexpected). All in all, it was well worth the price of evening admission and I'd go to see it again.
Rating: 
Summary: Terrible.
Review: The best thing that can be said for this mediocre adaptation of Thomas Harris' bestselling novel, Red Dragon, is that it moves quickly. In this era of two and a half hour plus blockbusters, Red Dragon clocks in at a lean 124 minutes. So much the better, for this utterly unnecessary movie becomes tiresome very early. Besides, a perfectly good movie version of Red Dragon--Michael Mann's gripping Manhunter, released in 1986--already exists. Though much has been made about the supposed greed which allegedly drove executive producer Dino DeLaurentis to green light this remake (DeLaurentis also executive produced Manhunter) such concerns are irrelevant to discussions of the movie's quality. No, Red Dragon fails for far more conventional reasons. It is a poorly acted and directed dud with a near complete lack of freshness, originality, wit or humanity. On the technical side of things, director Brett Ratner (Rush Hour, Rush Hour 2) is unable to imbue his film with any sort of visual imagination. The movie is riddled with both visual and narrative clichés. Often, it feels (and looks) like a feeble imitation of Jonathan Demme's vastly superior Silence of the Lambs mixed in with the perfunctory "jump cuts" which afflict too many contemporary thrillers. The performances in Red Dragon range from mediocre to laughingly bad. Edward Norton is miscast in the role of retired FBI investigator Will Graham. Norton seems remarkably callow for a man who supposedly bears gruesome physical and emotional scars. His Graham comes off as a morose and moody adolescent unmarked by life experience. The actor fails to convey the psychic pain which made William L. Petersen's portrayal of the same character so memorable in Manhunter. While Norton's tepid and self-conscious performance mainly serves to drain the movie of energy whenever he is on screen, Sir Anthony Hopkins is simply dreadful in his second reprisal of his best known cinematic role. Silence of the Lambs should have been the final word for Hopkins' over-the-top turn as the sinister Dr. Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter. But monetary concerns seem to have dictated otherwise. In Red Dragon, Hopkins mails in a hammy performance with plenty of superstar movie actor flourishes but surprisingly little substance-"all sizzle and no steak" to coin a popular phrase. Worse, he hits all the wrong notes with Edward Norton. Hopkins leering, smarmy line readings fail to strike a chord with the languid Norton. Their scenes together should be brimming with tension but instead are rendered as emotionally flat as pancakes. Even with the benefit of the movie's expanded prologue, it's difficult to see how an overgrown Boy Scout like Norton's Graham could have gotten so close to the wily Lecter. Likewise, while much has been made of Lecter's expanded role in this version of Red Dragon, the new scenes merely draw attention to the movie's central weakness-the lack of a convincing connection between Hopkins and Norton. The two performers seem to be acting in separate, parallel universes. The idea that Norton's Graham could "get into" the heads of vicious serial killers like Dr. Lecter is implausible. Like Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes is wrong for the role in which he has been cast. Fiennes is simply too handsome to play the disturbed, tragic, serial murderer Francis Dolarhyde. His cleft pallet scar makes him look gentle and innocent, rather than evil. The rest of the cast doesn't fare much better. Harvey Keitel's turn as Jack Crawford is generic and forgettable. The character merely exists to advance the plot. The same can be said for Mary Louise Parker's role as Graham's wife and Tyler Patrick Jones, who plays Graham's son. (Perhaps their roles were trimmed because Norton is unconvincing as a family man.) Emily Watson is awful as Dolarhyde's blind would be girlfriend. Watson overacts terribly, straining visibly in her role. The talented Philip Seymour Hoffman plays the kind of character he too often plays--the fat, scummy loser whom everybody loves to hate. All in all, Red Dragon is nothing we haven't seen before (and many things we've seen too often). Moviegoers interested in seeing an adaptation of Red Dragon should save the price of the tickets and popcorn and rent the DVD version of Michael Mann's superb Manhunter from your local Blockbuster. Once they get beyond the dated clothes, hairstyles and soundtrack they'll be treated to a taut, suspenseful, well acted thriller. By placing the locus of the movie upon the character of Will Graham, rather than Francis Dolarhyde as Ratner does, Manhunter convincingly conveys the pain and suffering which evil men like Dolarhyde and Hannibal Lecter inflict upon the men and women who come into their orbit. The film not only challenges us to recognize our own capacity for evil, it dares to confront the true consequence of our own voyeurism--the loss of our capacity to feel for the victims. By comparison, Red Dragon panders to the audience's worst instincts. Hannibal Lecter is presented as a witty, charming, delightfully droll bon vivant while Dolarhyde is a victim of an abusive family (and thus not fully responsible for his crimes). The movie rationalizes their actions and allows the audience to share in their contempt for their victims. This aspect of the film, even more than its lack of cinematic virtues is what makes Red Dragon so objectionable.
Rating:
Summary: Best Movie Plot In A Long Time
Review: Man! I just saw Red Dragon and it was hot! Anthony Hopkins was, of course, brilliant as always playing the manipulative doctor. Somehow, you find yourself rooting for Lectar. The star killer of the movie, know as the "Tooth Fairy", comes close to rivaling Hannible in insanity, though. Action packed, dark, and at some times even touching, this movie rocks, and even Sherlock Holmes couldn't have got the ending. Don't tell it to anyone who hasn't seen the movie. Can't wait for the DVD! ^_^
Rating:
Summary: 3.5 Stars
Review: Red Dragon was the prequel to Silence of the Lambs and the third in the series, the sequel being the second. I can only give it a rating of 3.5 stars (out of 5). It was good but not great. Just a bit above average. It does lay some groundwork to better understand some finer points of the Silence of the Lambs movie but it stands alone as its own movie. This is where I ran into a few problems. While I enjoyed the movie it lacked the suspense of many movies. I figured out too many things ahead of time and this always brings a movie a bit down for me. But it did have its moments too. All in all, you could make a lot worse picks for an evenings entertainment. I enjoyed it more than the second movie of the Silence of the Lambs installment. Ed Norton is outstanding, as usual, and Anthony Hopkins does a fine job. Give it a look, see what you think.
|
