Rating: 
Summary: Vastly superior
Review: First, I read the book Red Dragon. After that, I watched the movie Manhunter. Finally, Red Dragon the movie was released. So, that is the succession of events that leads me to my rating. Red Dragon (movie) followed the book to a much greater degree. The thing that I liked most in Red Dragon was the motivation behind Dolarhyde's actions, this missing from Manhunter. That, and the use of the correct ending (not the final conversation with Lecter). Red Dragon was moodier and less Miami Vice than the former. I also enjoyed the interplay between Lecter and Graham in the beginning, and the window into Lecter's life before his confrontation with Graham.Brian Cox gave a decent performance in Manhunter, but he didn't master the seething insanity that Anthony Hopkins imbued the Lecter character with. I really like Edward Norton in general, but he was not perfect for this role. Ralph Fiennes was convincing. Emily Watson and Harvey Keitel, though not spectacular, do fine. Philip Seymour Hoffman was very slimy. It appears that there are two camps of thought on this series. I am sorry, but Manhunter was dated by its production and failed in the story where Red Dragon incorporated the book into the movie instead of using it for some 'good ideas'.
Rating:
Summary: Athony Hopkins not quite the Mann
Review: Having seen the Michael Mann version of Red Dragon (Manhunter) and this new version I have to agree that the Mann version was better. The whole feel of the Mann movie is much better. Mann was still in his Miami Vice best when he shot Manhunter and it shows. Manhunters' visuals are much more compelling Film Noir. And the Hannibal Lecter trio is Film Noir at its' best. Ed Norton 's performance is lest angst ridden and flatter than William Peterson but still believable. It is more a matter of taste than one being the better than the other. Tom Noonan Dolarhyde was much more sinister than Ralph Fiennes as Noonan played Dolarhyde flatter and more mechanically than Fiennes.
Noonan's Dolarhyde was a cool unemotional killer. Fiennes' Dolarhyde is much more possessed and guilt ridden. As for the battle of the Hannibals, I can't fault either performance of Brian Cox or Anthony Hopkins. Hopkins is classically trained and gives Hannibal all the depth of a Shakespearian hero (or villain) but Cox is no slouch as Lecture either. Cox's Hannibal is every bit the suave and debonair killer that Hopkins' is. I happen to like Hopkins as an actor because of the performances he has given in other movies. I haven't seen any of Mr. Cox's efforts so it's hard to say he is better actor than Hopkins. Again, it's a matter of taste. As much as I like Hopkins turn as Hannibal I can't recommend purchasing this DVD over Manhunter. I do recommend getting both of these movies as they compliment each other well. I do prefer the Mann ending to the Brett Ratner's. The Ratner ending is much to "Perils of Pauline" for me. The Mann ending plays more like something out of fevered dream (especially with the Iron Butterfly playing in the background to accompany all the mayhem on screen.) while Ratner is much more paint-by-numbers and conventional.
Rating:
Summary: Oodles of Time....
Review: Silence of the Lambs, one of cinema's modern masterpieces is around number six of my all-time favorite movies. I can't figure out why, since my number one and two are, respectively, It's a Wonderful Life and The Wizard of Oz. I find myself mesmerized by the superior acting of Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins time and time again, as well as Ted Tally's intense script and the superb directing job of Jonathan Demme. So, it comes as a surprise that I completely avoided this movie as it danced through the theaters on its first run. Why? The ultimate disappoint of Hannibal still lingered, proving that even wonderful acting does not a movie make. I couldn't bear the disappointment once again. But, what I found, after watching the Red Dragon, was an intense, edgy thriller that was surprisingly good, delivering mucho bang for the buck Brought on by the, dare I say it, franchising of America's favorite fictional serial killer Dr. Hannibal Lecter, Red Dragon offers an all-star cast, with a story that sometimes tries to mirror Silence of the Lambs much too often. Anthony Hopkins reprises his role of hungry Dr. Lecter yet once again. He's done it so much I wouldn't be surprised to see a Dr. Lecter cameo on "Scrubs" or a new Fox reality show, "Budget Gourmet, starring Hannibal". Yet he creeps and crawls around, much more effectively then his turn in Hannibal. Edward Norton effectively plays the pseudo-psychic detective Will Graham, with the appropriate amount of regret and intensity. Baffled by two gruesome family murders, he attempts to unravel the secrets of the "Tooth Fairy", wonderfully played by one of my favorite actors today, Ralph Fiennes. I go so boldly as to say that dear Ralph steals the picture from Hannibal, who appears in a few scenes here and there as a more secondary role this time. Beset and bewildered, Mr. Tooth Fairy finds himself enamored by a blind technician at work (wonderfully portrayed by dear Emily Watson), so much so that his inner turmoil intensifies. In fact, for me, one of the most fascinating aspects of this film lies in the relationship between those two characters: blind girl and psychotic killer. Let's face it, we've all seen the story of lone detective solving the case by finding the one clue that everyone else in the movie has missed. Ho-hum! No, the interesting dynamic of this film lies in that relationship, how each interplay with one another; how blind girl brings an innocent sensitivity to someone whose life is nothing but infected, scab ridden emotional scars ready to tear open again; how psychotic killer tries to open up to that gift. That Ralph and Emily pull it off so well makes the film for me. What this film lacks is the much missed directing style of Demme. His flair and style is unique, and added so much tension to Silence. Brett Ratner gives it a good go, but the Hannibal cell scenes left me longing for darkness, shadows, and possibly even Jodie. In fact, that's another problem with the film. It tries much too hard to set up Silence of the Lambs. I ask, why? Silence certainly didn't need any introduction, and the audience itself (except for a few lamebrainers out there) would already know this was a prequel. He should have allowed Red Dragon to stand on its own two feet, or two talons, instead of leaning too much on the next movie down. And I do hope this lays to rest Dr. Hannibal Lecter. As compelling a character as he is, it's time to bid the ol' body muncher a fond farewell. We've enjoyed the time we've spent together, but rest he should, and only terrorize us in our dreams from now on. 6/10 stars
Rating:
Summary: Separate Manhunter and Red Dragon
Review: While Manhunter was Hollywood's idea of a good adaptation, it has to stand alone as a movie separate from Red Dragon. 'Dragon' has the elements of the book that Manhunter did not. It gives more insight into the Lecter character and how he got to be known as 'Hannibal the Cannibal' and pays more attention to Francis Dolarhyde - as a character. However, casting Ralph Fiennes as the tall, unattractive-to-geeky Dolarhyde was a huge mistake. Just not credible and not enough detail was given to the entire Dolarhyde character to explain his nickname "The Tooth Fairy". Manhunter was brilliant, it was cunning, it was clever and calculated and the performances were excellent. But I really had to look at these two movies as totally different movies. Edward Norton was great, I have no idea what they did to the delicate wilting female character from the book. And of course, there has to be a Director's Edition which has two discs and contains material not in [other] versions... Each film should be judged on it's own merits rather than compared to the other. Much more enjoyable that way.
Rating: 
Summary: Watch Manhunter Instead
Review: My biggest complaint with this movie is that Ed Norton is a very pale version of Will Graham, the FBI uber-psychological profiler the character is supposed to be. Norton is weak and whiny and should have never won the role simply because he does not live up to the Will Graham in 'The Red Dragon.' Norton was beefed up more for 'Keeping the Faith' than he was for 'Dragon.' This in and of itself made the movie very lame for me. Other than that this movie was pretty true to the book but I still give the original 'Manhunter' movie 5 stars and two thumbs up.
Rating:
Summary: The Trilogy is Complete
Review: For the past several years we have been treated to the bizarre tales of Hannibal Lector. THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (Part 2 of the Trilogy by Thomas Harris) surprised the public with a formidable tale well acted by Anthony Hopkins and Jody Foster. That film was excellent. The second installment HANNIBAL (Part 3 of the Trilogy) was a sequel to SILENCE and while it veered a bit to the excesses of Hollywood it was still a good film with Julianne Moore stepping in very well for the Jody Foster role of Clarice. Now RED DRAGON (Part 1 of the Trilogy) completes the appetite for the tale of horror of the life and misdeeds of Hannibal Lector. In many ways this is the strongest of the three films, due in part to the fine performances by Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes, Emily Watson, as well as Sir Anthony Hopkins. Some liberties were taken with the original story, but this incorporation of what we already have learned about Hannibal only adds to the spectrum. A well cast, edge of the seat thriller, RED DRAGON is a must if you've followed the other parts.
Rating: 
Summary: Totally generic thriller
Review: This is standard issue, assembly line, suspense/thriller filmmaking. No discernible style. Look at the other Lecter movies' directors: Michael Mann, Johnathon Demme, Ridley Scott. I'm not even going to evoke the name of this movie's director, what would be the point? It's an okay movie, but it would have been better without Hannibal in the darn thing. Right ladies? Stand tall and unite.
Rating:
Summary: The Horror.....The Horror
Review: Attention Hollywood. Stop remaking movies that are already good i.e. King Kong(1976) Psycho(1998) and Red Dragon(2002) formerly known as Manhunter. This movie was slow and boring. Ralph Fiennes failed miserably measuring up to Tom Noonan's performance as Francis Dolarhyde and in this go around Anthony Hopkins is outperformed by Brian Cox's previous portrayal of Hannibal. The film had no sense of urgency or suspense like Manhunter had. The cast even "acted" like they had a case of deja vu (hasen't this story been told once before?) Granted having seen Manhunter I knew what the story was so there were no real surprises. but at least give it the college try for entertainment. It even failed there. Avoid this movie at all costs. If I could give this movie zero stars I would. Do yourself a favor and watch Manhunter.
Rating: 
Summary: Lots of Great Actors and But Little Impact.
Review: Red Dragon is an adaptation of the Thomas Harris serial killer novel "The Red Dragon", the prequel to "The Silence of the Lambs". Retired FBI profiler Will Graham (Edward Norton) is asked to return to the force to investigate the murders of two families, each killed on a full moon in exactly the same manner, before the killer can strike again. In order to find the murderer, nicknamed "The Tooth Fairy", Agent Graham seeks the advice of a serial killer that he put behind bars years ago, Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Sir Anthony Hopkins). The Tooth Fairy (Ralph Fiennes) is an admirer of Dr. Lecter as well, and is simultaneously seeking his advice. Agent Graham must decipher the evidence and Dr. Lecter's ramblings in order to crack the case before the next full moon claims the lives of another family. Red Dragon is the second movie adaptation of the same Thomas Harris novel. The first was a movie called Manhunter, released in 1986. So Red Dragon is in the difficult position of being compared to both a book and a movie that preceded it. I wish I could say that Red Dragon holds up well, but it doesn't. Red Dragon has but a fraction of the visual and emotional impact that Manhunter does. It has bad screenwriting, mediocre directing, and poor casting instead. The first and most striking problem with Red Dragon is the extraordinary amount of screen time spent on things entirely extraneous to the basic plot and character development. The film really condescends to the audience by inserting several scenes that are only there to set up the next scene, as if we needed an explanation of what is going to happen before we actually see it. Presumably due to his iconic status, the character of Hannibal Lecter is given many more scenes than the book or first movie allowed him, including a ridiculous first act that only serves to lessen our opinion of Agent Graham. Lecter's extra scenes don't contribute anything to the film except the opportunity to listen to him ramble and look at various preposterous features of the prison in which he is confined, while being distracted from the substance of the story. I found this especially annoying because I have always thought that Sir Anthony Hopkins was badly miscast as Hannibal Lecter. There are a lot more superfluous scenes in Red Dragon whose purpose I could not even guess. But all of this extraneous material prevents the film and the audience from focusing on what should be the substance of the film, and it dilutes any emotionalimpact or intellectual interest that the movie might have. Red Dragon's cast is certainly impressive: Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes, Sir Anthony Hopkins, and in supporting roles: Philip Seymour Hoffman, Emily Watson, Mary-Louise Parker, and Harvey Keitel. I was left wondering how a film can feature so many great actors without producing one sympathetic or memorable character. I can only say by way of explanation that the characters are both badly written and badly cast. Red Dragon explores The Tooth Fairy's "Red Dragon" obsession in much greater depth than Manhunter does. In itself, that is neither good nor bad. But the character of The Tooth Fairy is so over-the-top and theatrical in Red Dragon that he is more ludicrous than frightening. And, again, too much screen time was dedicated to his histrionic antics. The more the audience sees of a villain, the less scary he seems, especially if we see that he is nutty to the point of caricature. In the film's worst example of poor character writing, Emily Watson plays the part of Reba, a blind woman in whom The Tooth Fairy seeks companionship. Reba is chatty, desperate, and generally annoying, not the bright and confident woman we know from both the book and the movie Manhunter. I find her character in Red Dragon to be a little insulting and certainly unsympathetic. Edward Norton's Will Graham is utterly lacking in depth and gives no indication whatsoever of the trauma that Lecter has caused him or of the great self-sacrifice that Graham is making when he decides to see Lecter again. Philip Seymour Hoffman sleepwalks through his performance. These are easily the worst performances of both of these actors' careers. If you liked Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal, you might like this film. But nothing in Red Dragon is believable -not the behavior of its characters or its knock-off gothic sets- so the movie is not affecting in any way. I strongly encourage you to see Manhunter, the first and far superior "Red Dragon" movie, and judge for yourself. Manhunter is a tightly woven film with good writing, directing, editing and casting. It is one of the best films of the serial killer genre. The characters have far greater depth. The movie has real visual impact. And Brian Cox plays Dr. Hannibal Lecter as he should be portrayed. The only reason Manhunter didn't do well at the box office is that it was released before serial killers were fashionable. Fans of Hannibal Lecter should check out Manhunter and see if you don't prefer Brian Cox's charming, seductive, and chilling Lecter to Sir Anthony Hopkins' grotesque, flippant Lecter who seems simply to be trying to put on a show all the time. I've always thought that Hopkins' Lecter was more of an attention-starved creep than a convincing criminal mastermind. If you are a fan of Thomas Harris or of murder movies, Red Dragon may be worth a rental, but Manhunter is worth owning.
Rating:
Summary: Inferior
Review: If Red Dragon did one thing right, it proved that 1986's Manhunter is a vastly undervalued crime drama. A brooding and sinister masterpiece from Michael Mann, Manhunter drips with the kind of fear and style Red Dragon could only wish it had. There is nothing in Red Dragon: no fear, no atmosphere, no suspense. The acting? Dry. Utterly dry. Not even Hopkins could save this tortured film, growling out lines that should inspire fear -- not laughter. There is nothing in Edward Norton's performance that is convincing; he seems far too detached, too flat. And a miscast Ralph Fiennes is only a pale reflection of Tom Noonan's nightmarish version of Dolarhyde. The plot unfolds in the kind of painfully mechanical way a made-for-TV drama does. I had hoped that Red Dragon wasn't just another Hollywood cash-in; but when Danny Elfman's comic-book score kicked in, that hope faded fast. It seems that in our current cinematic wasteland of pop-culture references and hyper editing, it's almost impossible to create a truly nightmarish cinematic experience. The exceptions are rare. Red Dragon isn't one of them.
| 
