Rating: 
Summary: Better than Hannibal, Rehash of SotL
Review: This movie was definitely better than "Hannibal" (H). Many of the scenes and mannerisms were very similar to "Silence of the Lambs" (SotL), sometimes annoyingly similar.The acting was good, but I was disappointed with Edward Norton. This is primarily because I have seen his excellent acting in other films and it seems that he was strait-jacketed in this one. The limitations are not his acting abilities, so I have to assume it was because he was forced into contortions. Ones that he could have made the movie better if he were allowed to be himself. The suspense and sound are good, as in SotL. The shots are crisp. The editing is good. My overall feeling was that I was seeing a second-hand SotL, so I was a little disappointed. Still, it is much better than H was.
Rating: 
Summary: Good actors and a talented director make a fine film
Review: There's something funny about Thomas Harris' books. I have read the Hannibal trilogy and found "Silence of the lambs" and "Red dragon" merely "average" books, and "Hannibal" a terrible book, a desperate try to write something that would sell easily after a well-done marketing campaign. The movies, though, are a different story. Silence of the lambs was the first Hannibal story to get the audience and critics attentions, and it was well deserved, for it's a great, powerful thriller, full of undisclosed tension and sexual repressed feelings, not only by the transexual-intended killer, but also by Jodie Forster's character Clarice Starling, a woman among the tradicionaly male environment of the serial killer hunting department of the FBI. Also, Hannibal Lecter is played with enormous intensity and hability by one of the top actors of the nineties, Anthony Hopkins, a role that gave his career in Holywood the impulse it needed. "Hannibal" was a terrible mistake. Directed by Ridley Scott, who was obviously in a superego fix, the third part of the trilogy had the worst casting possible (you can't think Clarice starling as NOT being Jodie Foster after "Silence of the lambs") and ridiculous acting (even Hopkins is bad) and plot. The gross scenes only make it worse. To repair the mistake "Hannibal" was, quickly the holders of movie-rights convinced Hopkins to act in another Hannibal movie. Red dragon had an earlier version, called "Manhunter", 1986, which didn't catch much attention from the public. I have only seen sparse scenes of this film, and I didn't know it was based in "Red dragon". Well, this new "Red dragon" had a strong marketing campaign, an excellent cast (although I think Edward Norton is a bit too young to play Will Graham's part) and it DIDN'T have Clarice Starling. "Red dragon" is the story of a hare-liped, abused-when-young psicopath, excellently played by Ralph Fiennes, obcessed by a painting of a demon-like dragon, which he has tatooed on his back. To stop him, Graham and chief Crawford (Harvey Keitel) have to use Hannibal's psychological advices. "Red dragon"'s direction is more explicit than the subtle "Silence of the lambs". It's made to scare the audience, with flashing and sudden scenes. It's a powerful and rich adaptation of the medium novel by Thomas Harris, and it closes the trilogy (although it's the first story in the sequence) in a very good way. Grade 9.0/10
Rating:
Summary: Absolutely Amazing
Review: I went to go see "Red Dragon" the day it came out in theatres. I was very excited to see it, considering the fact that "The Silence of the Lambs" is my favorite movie of all time. I had seen "Hannibal" before and was somewhat disappointed with it, I had hoped for it to be a great follow-up to "The Silence of the Lambs". But, nevertheless, "Red Dragon" did not disappoint me. The first thing I would like to point out in "Red Dragon" was the director. Brett Ratner had done the "Rush Hour" movies, which has no relevance to "Red Dragon". I was amazed to see how he managed to direct "Red Dragon" so well when he has had any experience with psyochological thrillers or whatever you consider this movie to be. He made every part in the film key to its plot and particular scene. Personally, I don't think he has received enough credit for making this movie incredible. He put the psychological aspect back into the Hannibal Lector trilogy, which "Hannibal" unfortunately left out. Another thing I noticed was he focused more on the storyline than the gore aspect of the film. I think that was where "Hannibal" failed miserably. Brett Ratner did an amazing job with this film and should be noted for that, I have not seen a single review acknowledging him for a job well done with "Red Dragon". Another great part of the movie was the acting. One word" Amazing! Anthony Hopkins has yet again done a great job as the infamous Hannibal Lector. The charm he puts in his character is fantastic, and that has made me glued to the screen whenever I watch a Hannibal Lector movie. Edward Norton is great as Will Graham, and he does great playing him as the frusterated cop he is meant to be. The way he reacts to all of Hannibal's input is priceless. The relationship between Hannibal Lector and Will Graham is definately one of the best parts of the whole movie, to show how they act around eachother (even with the past "incident" between them, which I will not give away). Emily Watson has done a fine job as Reba McClane, and should be considered for an Oscar nomination for her role. After walking out of the theatre even I wondered whether she was blind in real life or not. The best part of the whole movie was Ralph Fiennes. His portrayal of Francis Dolarhyde was what stole the show. He even did a better job than Anthony Hopkins. He brought all of the emotional aspects to the character. He portrayed the love for Reba, the serial-killer mind, the reaction to his character's childhood (which isn't a pleasent thing to hear about), and his character's lack of self confidence amazingly. Every thing he did with Francis Dolarhyde was flawless, and amazingly done. If anyone should be considered for an Oscar, it's this guy. I have never seen a serial killer better portrayed then what I saw here with Ralph Fiennes. All in all, there is only one movie that I have seen that is better than this movie right here: "The Silence of the Lambs". I have read the book, and I must say that the movie was very accurate to the book. Every part of this movie was flawlessly done. Although I haven't seen "Manhunter", I don't see how it could have been a better movie and better portrayed than "Red Dragon".
Rating:
Summary: Powerful Performances, Strong Story
Review: One of the screens most delectable villains is back and better than ever, to help bring yet another cinematic miscreant of social de-evolution to justice, in "Red Dragon," a taut suspense/thriller directed by Brett Ratner, featuring an all star cast that includes Anthony Hopkins once again reprising his role of Dr. "Hannibal the Cannibal" Lecter. Those who have seen "Silence of the Lambs" and/or "Hannibal" will know what to expect here (and will not be disappointed); the uninitiated, however, should be forewarned, as this film will take you into the darkest recesses of the human psyche, and afterwards will not allow you to go gently into that dark night that waits beyond the secure confines of the theater or the safety (?) of your own front door. Indeed, this is one that will be with you for some time, so be prepared. In the Deep South, two entire families have been ritualistically slaughtered, and though they are located hundreds of miles from one another, there are similarities that lead the F.B.I. to believe they are connected. The killings occurred nearly a month apart, each during the full moon, and though agents have sifted through the crime scenes with a fine-toothed comb, they've come up empty. They are looking, but not "seeing" anything. And they're running out of time; it's three weeks until the next full moon, when they believe the killer will strike again. This leads Jack Crawford (Harvey Keitel), the agent heading up the investigation, to call in former agent Will Graham (Edward Norton), the profiling specialist who captured Lecter, to take a look at the crimes and offer any suggestions he may have. But Graham quickly realizes that to solve a case of this magnitude, and quickly, it will necessitate getting into the killer's mind; and as time is of the essence, it leads him to seek the assistance of his old nemesis, Hannibal Lecter. And so, with no time to spare, the games begin. And into the mind of the killer is exactly where director Ratner takes you, and he does it on a number of levels that range from the subtle and implied, to the undiscriminating. Working from a tightly written, intelligent screenplay by Ted Tally (from the novel by Thomas Harris), Ratner finesses the horror at the heart of the story to the surface, initially offering only glimpses, visually, of the heinous crimes. Instead, he plants and builds a picture of what happened in your imagination, routing the information through Graham's investigation, so that you know, at first, only what he knows; then, with Lecter's assistance, along with Graham you begin to get an idea of the man behind the madness as his portrait emerges. But Ratner soon transcends the usual parameters of the genre, as he makes you privy to the madman himself, Francis Dolarhyde (Ralph Fiennes), whom the F.B.I. has dubbed the "Tooth Fairy," in reference to one of the more obvious peccadilloes displayed during the manifestations of his insanity. It is here that Ratner objectively explores the possible cause and effect of Dolarhyde's demented mind by proffering glimpses into his past, but without suggesting it as an excuse for his actions in any way. Ratner, in fact, must be acknowledged for his careful and effective handling of this material, which had to be a challenge for the director who previously gave us the lighter "Rush Hour" and "Rush Hour 2," as well as the insightful "The Family Man." In this film Ratner covers all the bases, and he covers them quite well, with an imaginative presentation that incorporates a concise understanding of human nature and the human condition. Ratner, of course, had a cast that would be any director's dream with which to bring his story to life, beginning with Hopkins, who eases back into Lecter's skin seemingly without effort, as if he'd never left (Hmmmm. Will anyone who knows the REAL Anthony Hopkins please step forward, to perhaps shed some light on this?). And in visiting with Dr. Lecter again, it's easy to understand why Hopkins was awarded the Oscar for his initial portrayal of Hannibal in "The Silence of the Lambs." He conveys a natural eeriness in his countenance, and in the coldness of his eyes there is more menace than any deranged mask-wearing villain with a chainsaw could ever hope for. Edward Norton, meanwhile, provides the perfect counterpoint to the abhorrent Lecter/Dolarhyde personas, with a subtle and understated performance that is so inherently honest and convincing that the credibility of the entire film is established by his character alone. There is a precision in the unfettered nuance of his portrayal that few actors have the talent or ability to achieve. His strength is in his reserve, and Norton's intuitive presentation of Graham lends the character a ring of absolute truth. Ironically, the meticulousness of Norton's performance will probably deny him the acclaim he so richly deserves for it; in a kind of catch-22, he is SO good, and his portrayal is structured so economically and efficiently, that it will be perceived as too easy and natural. Yet it is precisely when the actor does not appear to be "acting" that he is decidedly at his best. And Norton certainly is here. With the exception of his Amon Goeth in "Schindler's List," the role of Dolarhyde is something of a departure for Fiennes, who usually gravitates toward more romantic, or at least amiable (if often moody or complex) characters, and he takes on his character with relish. He gives a strong, solid performance through which he manages to evoke empathy without any accompanying undue or misplaced sympathy. He successfully conveys the definitive disfigurement of the character-- that which lies within, beneath Dolarhyde's obvious physical deformity-- and therein lies the true strength of his portrayal. Also turning in performances of note are Emily Watson, as the vulnerable Reba; Mary-Louise Parker (Molly); and Philip Seymour Hoffman (Freddy), all of whom add to the considerable impact and overall success of "Red Dragon."
Rating:
Summary: Excellent
Review: I really didn't know what to expect here. This version of the movie was more closely related to the book. Which I found to be wonderful. There were parts of the movie that really jumped out at me. And as usual Anthony Hopkins did a supurb job of bring Hannibal the Cannibal to life. Bravo!
Rating: 
Summary: Scary and Intense!
Review: I have never seen a Hannibal Lector movie before so I didn't know what to expect when I saw this. I was always to young to see one of them so I never bothered but now that I'm older and more mature I could handle that kind of horror. Since Red Dragon is supposed to be the first of the Lector seris's I also figured that it would be a good time to watch it. Everything would be fresh and I wouldn't have to know anything about the other two to understand this one. Anyways, after seeing Red Dragon I thought that it was a really great movie. It was interesting and at every moment I wanted to know what was going to happen next. Each minute it got more interesting and much much more engrossing. The movie stars Edward Norton as Detective Will Graham who is looking for a killer who as he just found out eats parts of the victims. Will always goes to Hannibal Lector (Anthony Hopkins) to get some help on different types of cases. When he learns that Lector is the killer he arrests him and that lands Lector in a maxium security prison. Now it's years later and FBI agent Jack Crawford has come to visit now retired Will to ask him in he could come back to the FBI to solve anothor case. Will reluctily agrees. The case is about a killer who has killed two families recently. Will decides to go and get the aid from his old friend Hannibal Lector. Lector agrees to help Will but Will gets nothing much out of there conversations. The killer happens to be Francis Dolarhyde (RALPH FIENNES) who meets Reba McClane (EMILY WATSON) who is a blind darkroom worker. Francis grows a likeness to Reba and Reba who does not know anything about his doings falls in love. Meanwhile Will with help from other FBI agent tries to figure out who the killer is before he strikes again. As you could probally tell from my summary there are many twists and turns in Red Dragon and it also provides brief comic relief coming from Hannibal Lector's character. I have not read the book of Red Dragon yet to compare the two but I plan to and I hope that it is as good as the movie. Thanks for reading. ENJOY!
Rating:
Summary: Very good, but with this cast it should have been great.
Review: "Red Dragon" has possibly the finest cast of any movie in the last decade: Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes, Emily Watson, Harvey Keitel, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Mary-Louise Parker, and of course the incomparable Sir Anthony Hopkins, reprising his career-defining role as everybody's favorite psychopath, Hannibal Lecter. The cast acquits itself honorably, and the movie is very entertaining, yet it lacks either the pervasive foreboding of "The Silence of the Lambs" or the stylishness of "Manhunter," Michael Mann's original film version of Thomas Harris' novel of "Red Dragon." Brett Ratner is a good journeyman director; he paces the movie well, and gets a good share of thrills from the terrifying story. But he lacks the distinctive style of either Mann or Jonathan Demme. Compare how Ratner and Mann stage the ultimate fate of the sleazy tabloid reporter played by Stephen Lang in "Manhunter" and by Hoffman in "Red Dragon." The basic situation is horrific beyond belief, but Ratner's staging is pedestrian compared with Mann's, which rolls down the garage ramp into our nightmares. Among the "Red Dragon" cast, Fiennes and Watson make the most of their satisfyingly showy roles, but once again it is Hopkins, with his dead-fish stare and malevolent grin, who is the truly unforgettable and indispensable member of the cast.
Rating:
Summary: A delectable dish that Lector would approve of
Review: Red Dragon, a prequel to The Silence of the Lamb isn't necessary considering the graphic novel has been made into Michale Mann's cult-classic Manhunter. Then again why not when this movie resurrects on our fearsome awe for Dr. Hannibal Lector as with the progeny of the serial-killer trilogy Silence of the Lamb which swept an impressive 5 Academy Awards? This movie adapted from the 1981 Thomas Harris novel introduces the cannibal-psychologist Dr. Hannibal Lector and recounts how FBI agent Will Graham (Edward Norton) captured him. A few years ensues and spawns a new serial killer on the loose with a moniker Tooth Fairy aka Francois Dolarhyde (Ralph Fiennes) whose grisly victims totaled up two families. Graham's boss (Harvey Keitel) seeks out his expertise and suggests he employs Lector's assistance to unravel the motives. Red Dragon clinically enacts out the perverse mutiliations and disembowelment, morbid shootings without the gory-bloodfest of Hannibal nor the stylish quieting chills of SOTB. It is slick, fast and efficient under the direction of Brett Ratner (Rush Hour)yet simultaneously routine as Hopkins is deft in his overly familiar portrayal of Lector and swiftly ties up Dolarhyde's abuse that plunders the emotional core from the story. It is thus fortunate that Edward Norton and Anthony Hopkins dissect the complexities of the characters' psyche and notches their chemistry up with intelligence and cunning minds. Fiennes is equally compelling at portraying the tragic megalomaniac who rouses our sympathy with his scarred childhood. Not forgetting his love-interest beautifully supported by the subtle Emily Watson who transform and stymie his wild side and Philip Seymour Hoffoman as a hounding paparazzo. They enhance the routine cat-and-mouse game with rapier wits and treacherous intents - no doubt whipping up a blood-curdling gastronomic experience that Lector would revel in.
Rating: 
Summary: Cashing in on the name "Hannibal"
Review:
Ugh. I can't believe they made this into a movie. The thing that made this hard to swallow is that it was trying to portray the first story in the Lector trilogy, but the actors are far older than they were in both Silence and Hannibal!
This detail throws you off a bit, but, ok, you can go along. What stops you dead in your tracks is the brazen insanity displayed by the Red Dragon. This is a guy so huge and so obviously nuts that you would just call the cops when you saw him on the street. Also, his Bates-like obsession/delusions with mommy was so overly dramatic it was almost like a parody of the Psycho movies.
Norton does a pretty good job, and the scenes where Lector deviously interplayed with the Baltimore intelligentsia were really dark and hilarious. But most of the movie was pretty thin. It was also impossible to picture Ralph Fiennes as the huge, muscle-bound Red Dragon, though his back tat was impressive.
I know film geeks always say the original was better, but I have to agree that "Manhunter" was a better portrayal of the book. I mean, the book had its faults, and making a verbatim movie probably wasn't the best idea. I'd like to give this movie 2.5 stars. I don't think it was produced because it was a great idea, but because the studio knew anything with Anthony Hopkins playing Lector is going to sell. Maybe we'll have Hannibal Lector in space as the next sequel.
-- JJ Timmins
Rating: 
Summary: Pointless remake
Review: Red Dragon is nothing more than a pointless exercise in money making. Manhunter still remains the superior version of Red Dragon on every level. Norton is miscast, Hopkins is to old to be scary, Fiennes is bland, Kietel seems sedated and Brett Ratner's direction is tired and uninspired.
| 
