Rating: 
Summary: Yay for Red Dragon
Review: To be honest, this movie only interested me because Edward Norton was in it. Silence of the Lambs was disgusting, and Hannibal was a waste of 2 hours of my life, and I was a fan of neither one. I didn't expect Red Dragon to stray far from the gore, and other disgusting elements as seen in the first 2. I just wanted to see Edward.Well, I'm glad I did. This movie is excellent. A great prequel. You find out why Hannibal is imprisoned (like you didn't know...but still). Too many people complain that it's not close enough to the book. Well, the writers have to interpret it, and when writing the script, they may interpret it differently from you. How many movies have you seen that were exactly like the book? Ok, so in the book, and in Manhunter, Will Graham is the main character. Yes, that may be true, but how much success did Manhunter attain? What's a movie in the Lecter series without Lecter? Lecter has a creepiness about him essential to the movies. Everyone did a great acting job in this movie. This movie was well written, and entertaining, and, as a prequel should do, stands on it's own as a movie. Everyone tends to enjoy the original more. Remember, this IS the original. Great movie, 5 stars. Good job.
Rating: 
Summary: PUTTING HANNIBAL TO REST - PRETTY GOOD TRANSFER, THOUGH
Review: In the opinion of this reviewer, public fascination with the flesh eating psychiatrist, Hannibal Lecter, should cease after "Red Dragon". After the truly gross-out brain scene in "Hannibal", we get a more subdued interpretation of both the man, played by Anthony Hopkins, and the subject matter. But the lack of gore isn't replaced by the hyper-paranoid sense of tension in "Silence of the Lambs". PLOT WISE: An ultra bland government agent (portrayed by the ultra-bland Edward Norton) is called back into service after a series of slice and dice family homicides leave the FBI baffled - as if! There is a sense, even from Hopkins, that he's played this role one too many times.
The transfer is pretty much first rate. Colors are rich, warm and well balanced. Flesh tones infrequently adopt an orange hue but nothing that is extremely out of character. Contrast and black levels are accurate. Fine detail occasionally gets lost in the darkest scenes. Film and digital grain are both present but not at levels that would distract. Edge enhancement crops up now and then. Shimmering of fine details and pixelization are present but at a minimum. The 5.1 audio is nicely balanced with deep bass and natural sounding dialogue.
Extras: A documentary that is pretty much average, some outtakes, audio commentaries and behind the scenes junkets that don't enhance or detract from the over all presentation.
BOTTOM LINE: The movie is nothing to write home about. The transfer is considerably better. But don't you wish, just once, that a truly worthy movie, like say "Gone With The Wind" would get an ultra amazing digital treatment on DVD. Ah, now that would be real coup!
Rating:
Summary: just sharing
Review: Red Dragon - Released 2002 - 126 minutes
Directed by: Brett Ratner, Universal Pictures
Anthony Hopkins, Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Harvey Kietel. Hannibal the cannibal (Anthony Hopkins) starts his feast with a lovely dinner party and the guest of honor is the person they are feasting on.This movie will keep you in your seat and you will not want to miss a part of it. It will chill you and thrill you. Hannibal's protégé, Will Graham has figured out how to get into the mind of Hannibal the character, and see what is going to happen next. Hannibal is caught and put into prison. The man that is doing all of the hands on work so to speak is called the" Tooth fairy ," and is getting messages from Hannibal from prison and decodes the information to see what to do next. This Drama - Thriller is one of the best intense movies of the year. The color generated in the cell of Hannibal Lecter is cold and and scary.
Rating:
Summary: Completing the Trilogy
Review: I've seen Manhunter several time before this movie was even concieved, and I never enjoyed it. It was bland, slow and much like Mann's other works (say Heat) it was a crime drama, not a thriller, not at all. That said, having read the novel before seeing the film, I find Red Dragon to be more interesting, deeper, richer and truer to the novel (escpecially the ending, and all the little details and clues from Harris's novel that where left out of Mann's version.) Brian Cox, though a fine actor, always seemed a bit clumsy and absurd as Lector, his posture and facial expressions where never suited to the ultra-calm and always posture purfect Lector of Harris's books. My only complaints here, Ed Norton is too young, Harvy Keitel is too been-there-done-that for their parts. Oh, and changing the Film to Video tape in the story looses something for the date and time the book took place in, I would have enjoyed this better if it would have looked like the era the book did. Over all, a very good film, superior to Manhunter, and truer to the novel.
Rating: 
Summary: Not believeable, scary, or funny
Review: First of all, shame on these guys for tricking us on the DVD. You push "Play Movie" on the menu, and instead of playing the movie as promised, they make you watch a preview for The Incredible Hulk. Extremely annoying. The only worthwhile moments in the film are with Anthony Hopkins, but he is not central to the film. The problem is that the tortured (and torturing) serial killer, played by Ralph Fiennes, is just plain weird. Not interesting, not compelling, and above all, not believeable. There are some unintentionally funny scenes where he talks to his mom that could have been lifted straight out of Psycho. Except at least Psycho knew that it was a campy exercise in style, whereas this movie takes itself way too seriously.
Rating: 
Summary: HOLLYWOOD BOTCHES ANOTHER!!!
Review: Now I like a few I imagine first was familar with the novel than with either film adaptation made of it. The first was Manhunter which was directed by Michael Mann back in 1986. Although that film seems to stray quite far from the novel it is in fact a much more fateful adaptation to the book as this bad remake. In the novel Will Graham was the key character and the suspense layed in whether or not his mind can handle doing the job that not only nearly drove him insane but also nearly killed him when he captured Lector. In the novel Lector was NOT a major factor in capturing anyone. In this remake they sort of tried making another Silence of the Lambs instead of making a version truer to the novel.
A major flaw in this is what they did to the character of Will Graham. He is remade into being a character although a veteran in detective work no smarter than Starling in Silence of the lambs who was a mere FBI trainee. His superior Jack Crawford (played by Kietel who seems to play every character the same way) actually tries to get Graham to not only come out of retirement but to ask Lector who nearly kills him for help??? Does that make sense???? In the novel the only reason Graham went to Lector in the first place was because he was a suspect and not a sorce of helpful information. They totally alter this fact in this remake.
To confuse the matter even more. They had the killer on the loose character Francis Dollarhyde be as close to the book as possible even though EVERYTHING else is completely altered. Ralph Finnes did a terrific job in this film taking on a role totally different from anything else he had ever attempted. His performance will change the way one looks at his work in other roles forever and it warrants the only star I can think to give this film.
If one has read the novel or has seen this film I recommend seeing Manhunter which was actually the first film in the series that was made. It stayts truer to the novel because Will Graham who was the real star in the novel and the film figured out the case on his own. His visit to Lector was not advised or requested by anyone but his own decision to recover the mindset of a killer. In the remake does Crawford really ask him to see him after entering the mind of this killer drove him to the insane aslyum??? Nice work Hollywood. You made Hopkins a prominant part by ruining the story.
Rating: 
Summary: Marvelllous cast, average movie...
Review: The producers went to great efforts to make a slick porduction, with attention to the detail. I enjoyed the movie a lot, mainly due to the marvellous cast: Norton, Hopkins, Keitel, Fiennes! uau!
Rating:
Summary: it was ok...
Review: This did not live up to hype, I heard it was really gory. You remeber how the other two movies had a scene or two that made them really sick, this one doesnt have anything like that(even though some are claiming it does.) No scene in here topped the last sceen on hanibal, or the crossdressor in the silence. On top of this, my only other complaint is this is too much like the original, it trys way too hard to be, yet it is not even close.
Rating:
Summary: Tepid, lifeless remake of "Manhunter"
Review: Oh, where to start? First off, I really like actor Edward Norton. I think he is a brilliant actor. With that out of the way, he is miscast in this movie. There, I said it. So is Harvey Keitel. And Ralph Fiennes. And even the superb Phillip Seymour Hoffman. The book Red Dragon has already been made into a movie, and definitively so. It was called "Manhunter", and it was even made by the SAME PRODUCER who made this one. Ted Tally, screenwriter of "The Silence of the Lambs", is credited with the screenplay on "Red Dragon". However, there are SO MANY lines in this film that are word-for-word reproductions of dialogue in "Manhunter". Either he copied them word for word from that film, or the lines were directly from the book and they were used in "Manhunter" too. Either way, Tally is taking sole credit for someone else's work. Yes, I am a big fan of "Manhunter", and I've seen it many, many times. And I bet "Red Dragon" director Brett Ratner has too. Ratner is a self-described movie nut, too, as well as director. I would find it VERY difficult to believe that he hasn't seen "Manhunter" at least a few times in the past. And so much of "Red Dragon" seems lifted directly from "Manhunter" that it goes beyond coincidence. Well, he lifted a lot of stuff but not its style. "Red Dragon" is to "Manhunter" what paint-by-numbers is to a Van Gogh. So many things in "Red Dragon" seem like blatant copies of things from "Manhunter", down to shot selection, scene structure, editing choices, etc. Unfortunately, those of you who have seen "Red Dragon" but have never seen "Manhunter" can never see "Manhunter" with the same set of eyes that we "Manhunter" fans have. So you may never know the excitement and thrills of that movie quite the same way. But believe me when I say that "Red Dragon" copies so many elements of it but never reaches the level that "Manhunter" does. Brian Cox played Dr. Lektor in "Manhunter" (don't worry about the spelling), and he was spot-on perfect. It made Hopkins' subsequent version seem over-the-top and too theatrical. William Petersen played former FBI agent Will Graham, and he was old enough and battle-scarred enough to play it perfectly. Norton just can't pull it off with the same intensity or believability. Sadly, in "Red Dragon", even Hopkins seems to be phoning it in. For "Manhunter", director Michael Mann had a cast of largely unknown actors (at the time). Casting higher-profile actors for "Red Dragon", while a smart business decision, was a poor artistic one. And in "Manhunter", we didn't need spooky atmospherics to set a mood. Hopkins' Dr. Lecter in this movie and in "Lambs" is imprisoned in a dank, creepy basement. But in "Manhunter", Cox's Lecter was in a pristine, all-white, sterile environment, and he STILL was creepier than Hopkins. In "Red Dragon" we are shown Lecter's attack on Graham, and we are shown The Tooth Fairy's Dickens-ian childhood traumas. It is all spelled out for us. In "Manhunter", those elements are merely referred to fleetingly, but you can read the rest from the actors' eyes and performances. "Red Dragon" is a FAR INFERIOR version of the novel by Thomas Harris than Michael Mann's brilliant "Manhunter". And it even borders on plagiarism in spots, IMHO. It is more than obvious that this film was made only because Dino DeLaurentis, who owns the film rights to the characters, felt he could bleed a few more bucks out of the franchise. And that's all.
Rating:
Summary: As Good As Silence of the Lambs
Review: This one beat the last release hands-down. Good job done by all. Of course, without Hopkins, they would all be zeros. The man must personally understand Fear at a level most of us don't ever get near or he could not pull such a wonderful acting job off in this series.
| 
