Rating: 
Summary: An unexpectedly solid prequel to "The Silence of the Lambs"
Review: The key thing about watching "Red Dragon" is to realize that this is not a Hannibal Lecter story. The character was a compelling but relatively minor figure in both the Thomas Harris novel and "Manhunter," the original cinematic adaptation by Michael Mann. Obviously screenwriter Ted Tally and director Brett Ratner have enhanced the role for this 2002 film, but Anthony Hopkins's part is not a central part of the story. Once you understand that you will discover that "Red Dragon" exceeds your expectations. But if you cannot get around this idea then you are probably going to be bitterly disappointed with this film.Clearly a major strength of this film is the stellar caste, which in addition to Hopkins has Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes, Harvey Keitel, Emily Watson, Mary-Louise Parker, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Anthony Heald, and Mary Beth Hurt (add to the list Ellen Burstyn as the voice of Grandma Dolarhyde). But what makes this film work is its intelligence, for which Harris and Tally get the credit. Will Graham is an intelligent man, an F.B.I. profiler who constantly shows throughout this story that he has a gift for saying the right thing, whether he is talking to Lecter, a room full of police officers, the head of a company, or the Red Dragon himself. Yes, he has been scarred psychologically as well as physically by his capture of Lecter, but it is not an incapacitating condition as was the case with Clarice Starling. In "Silence of the Lambs" the climax of the film involved a cinematic commonplace that has always enraged me, when a law enforcement officer has a gun drawn and aimed at a suspect who then manages to get away. I thought the climax of "The Red Dragon" involved an exhilarating series of intelligent, brilliant moves by the good guys. The other aspect of this story that makes it compelling is that the villain is a monster with a soul. The idea of a serial killer falling in love, struggling to thwart the demonic voices and try to stop his descent into hell is brilliant. The circle becomes complete when you notice that all of the main characters in this film are complex; granted, not as complex as the Red Dragon, but enough that the actors reading this script would be drawn to the parts. But the ability of the villain to be surprising is critical because usually in the final analysis it is the villain that makes the film. Again, this underscores the fact that Lecter is not the villain of the piece. But he was in "Hannibal," and look how well that film was received. Here we are back to the pivotal idea that even when this character is bound and gagged in a cell he is still capable of killing you. Ultimately Hannibal Lecter remains the problematic element in the film; more often that not his scenes are suggestive if not outright reminiscent of scenes from "Silence of the Lambs." One of the obvious questions that springs to mind is whether Hopkins's Lecter would have made as big of an impact if "Red Dragon" had indeed been the first of the reconstituted trilogy. Ultimately the answer has to be "no," but because this is clearly a prequel made fully cognizant of the film that comes after it. To appreciate how difficult this is to pull off look at other recent prequels such as "Gods and Generals" and either of the two Star Wars films. The argument here is not that "The Red Dragon" is a better film than "The Silence of the Lambs," but that it is a worthy successor to that classic film, even if it takes place first. Final Note: The commentary track with Ratner and Tally is well worth a second viewing of the film, more so in terms of tidbits about the production than analytical insights into the adaptation. The rest of the DVD extras are at least average, but the commentary is the big attraction here.
Rating: 
Summary: Solid thriller compliments Manhunter
Review: First let's start with the obvious: the reason that Red Dragon was made was due to the success of Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal. The former film wasn't produced by Dino DeLaurentiis. He passed on it after the box office failure of Michael Mann's terrific thriller Manhunter (based on the same novel as this film). Manhunter was a terrific thriller. Yes, it has all the earmarks of a film made in the 80's but what film doesn't reflect the decade it was made in? Red Dragon is a good retelling of the same tale. Brett Ratner's film isn't an improvement as much as a refinement; Manhunter was really more about the conflict between Will (the FBI profiler)and the killer he was hunting. It also was about his attempt to recover from a mental breakdown that occurred as a result of Will's face off with Lecter. Red Dragon has an enlarged role for the character of Lecter. Ted Tally's screenplay keeps the basic plot intact and, in fact, Manhunter isn't significantly different plot wise from Red Dragon. The difference is the size of the role of Hanninbal Lecter and the pathology that drives the Toothfairy to kill in this film. Red Dragon benefits from the prologue that Thomas Harris added to the novel after the success of Silence of the Lambs. That key scene reflects the relationship and showdown between Will Graham and Hannibal Lecter. While that was alluded to in Manhunter, it's presented in full from the novel. Ratner dismissed Mann's film stating that his was closer to the novel. While that is generally true, it doesn't necessarily make Ratner's film any better than Mann's. Mann's film had a huge impact on the look, feel and sound of many of the films of the 80's. His influence on thrillers and action films (as well as television)had a much deeper impact than this thriller ever could. Ratner's film is more of a reflection of Silence; in fact Ratner's film fits in well with Jonathan Demme's classic film. It's a follower, not a leader despite the terrific cast, fine screenplay and sharp direction. That doesn't dimish the impact of the film; Red Dragon is a fine thriller and very enjoyable. For fans of Silence this would be the film to start with vs. Manhunter. Manhunter is the better film overall but there's a sense of continuity here missing (naturally since Manhunter was made well before Silence was made)that audience's will enjoy. It's like comparing Dangerous Liaisons to Valmont--both are terrific films that tell the same story. One film focuses more on being a mundane thriller while the other has higher ambitions. You can of course decide which is which.
Rating:
Summary: Delightfully tasty treat
Review: Wonderful adaptation of the novel in every sense of the word. Not the blundering, idiotic failure that Hannibal was, this is a well-acted, perfectly scripted film true to the excellent novel. Brilliantly done, Hopkins and Norton are charming and excellent in their respective roles. Psychologically frightening like Silence of the Lambs, yet intelligent and refined unlike Hannibal. You won't find a better film out there, except possibly Silence of the Lambs!! Definitely see this film.
Rating: 
Summary: Anthony Hopkins : a main course, not an appetizer.
Review: Red Dragon is definitely a good movie that I would recommend others see. However, what I found to be completely unnerving about Anthony Hopkins portrayal of Hannibal Lechter in the past is his icey cold civility. This incarnation of Hannibal has more of an attitude. FBI agent Will Graham is played by Edward Norton, someone I would have never thought of for this part. He does a very commendable job. The "Tooth Fairy" killer is played compellingly by Ralph Fiennes. By the end of the movie, my appetite was not satisfied in regard to Anthony Hopkins, one of our living legends of the theatre. I would therefore rate this film at a four and a half based on the commendable work of others actors and actresses in Red Dragon. This is still a very decent addition to the collection for Hannibal fans. Hopefully, the next Hannibal sequel will serve Anthony Hopkins as the main course instead of an appetizer. Bon Apetite!
Rating:
Summary: Not as good as the book Thats for sure!!!
Review: It kills me that most of the posters for this movie sport a huge picture of Hannibal on them,he was only in the book a few pages and now in the movie he is the main character?Also Francis Dollarhyde in the book was a physically huge monster of a strong individual.In the movie Palph Finnes plays him .COME ON!!!!!!!
half the book was left out and they made WIll and Hannibal look like friends after they stabbed eachother,it wasnt like that at all!
As a movie it is fine I guess, just dont expect too close of a translation from the GREAT book!
Rating:
Summary: A little rewriting and a little recasting could improve it!
Review: Having read "Red Dragon" nearly 10 years prior, I must admit I was extremely excited about this film being redone. I was disapointed overall with "Hannibal" (both the book and the movie) but since "Red Dragon" was by far my favourite of the three books, I knew it was a no-brainer ... it would be a huge success. Well, not quite. Some of the liberties taken from the book were outstanding ... such as the opening scene where Graham captures Lecter. But in a two hour movie, it was unbelievable that the screenwriters removed virtually any idea of what motivated Francis Dolarhyde to commit his acts. This was a HUGE part of the book. At least 10-20 more minutes could have been dedicated to that. Oh, but wait, we had to turn "Red Dragon" into a Hannibal Lecter movie. In actuality, he appeared very little in the book. Now for casting. Normally I like Ed Norton, but he was merely a stuffed shirt and barely believable as Will Graham. This character should have been portrayed as more of a burnout and probably at least 10 years older than Norton. Philip Seymor Hoffman as Freddy Lounds was an equally bad choice. Freddy was an older, shorter, kinda "greasy" guy. Hoffman just didn't fit that bill at all. Of course Anthony Hopkins did his standard superb job as Lecter. This makes the movie worth watching. Perhaps someone who hadn't read the book wouldn't know the difference. This may very well be the case and I would still recommend this title for Hannibal Lecter fans. But do yourselves a favour ... read the book. It'll blow you away. And you'll see what was missing from the movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Watch the 1986 film 'Manhunter' on DVD instead.
Review: I just saw this film and I only enjoyed it because it reminded me of the superior 'Manhunter', the original Hannibal Lecter film. 'Manhunter' is a visual feast and 'Red Dragon' has a carefully-framed feel to it with less intense use of lighting and shadows. The actors in 'Red Dragon' underplay to such an extent that we feel little or nothing for their characters. The only actor who succeeds is the wonderful actor Philip Seymour Hoffman in a small role as a reporter. The rest of the cast is weak, especially Ralph Fiennes and Emily Watson. Anthony Hopkins is a great actor, but here he is almost boring. Brian Cox is a much better Hannibal in 'Manhunter'. The biggest problem is Edward Norton's gentle portrayal of a man in torment. There should be something just beneath the surface of his character Will Graham, not just haunting him but physically altering him. We should believe he is capable of becoming a Lecteresque monster. The characterizations are simpler and tamer than those in 'Manhunter'. The dialogue is very similar in both films, but it is delivered in 'Red Dragon' so methodically that the chance to increase tension verbally is squandered. If you like this film then you will probably love the Michael Mann film 'Manhunter'. 'Red Dragon' is a neutered beast.
Rating:
Summary: The Middle Child ...
Review: First things first: As big a fan I am of Edward Norton, I think he was miscast as Graham. Norton is a superb actor, but even the best actors often have onscreen traits they simply can't shed. Tom Cruise can't go through a movie without being cocky, for instance, and Ed Norton is a just a little bit weasely. That said, I liked Red Dragon far more than Manhunter, the original adaptation of Harris' book. Keitel was as solid as ever as Crawford, Ralph Fiennes was exceptional as Dolarhyde, and Emily Watson was spot-on perfect as the potential redeemer. Anthony Hopkins was back to menacing form ... no goofy "Okey-dokey"s here. Brett Ratner's direction was at least a notch above adequate. I also appreciated the fact that in several places lesser characters (e.g., Dr. Chilton and Barney) were played by the same actor as in the other two Lecter films. Red Dragon doesn't have the same visual impact as Ridley Scott's Hannibal, but it comes much closer than Hannibal to matching the hawser taut suspense of Demme's Silence of the Lambs.
Rating:
Summary: OK REMAKE WITH NOVEL'S ENDING THIS TIME
Review: If a sense of deja vu hangs over RED DRAGON - Director's Edition, it's because producer Dino De Laurentis already made Manhunter, a 1989 version of Thomas Harris's brilliant best seller. This time around, Brett Ratner directs, and Anthony Hopkins is back as insane Dr. Lekter (without Sir Anthony, there's no real justification for this film). Baby faced Ed Norton is disappointing as the reluctant collaborator of Lekter in tracking the somewhat sympathetic "Tooth Fairy" killer wonderfully underplayed by Ralph Feinnes. Ted Tally's lean screenplay includes the book's jolting finale, something the first film version strangely omitted. The loaded two disc edition has a featurette on FBI profiling and Ratner's interesting video diary (including a weird visit to the set by Michael Jackson). The unusually incisive commentary by Talley and Ratner is as interesting as the movie.
Rating:
Summary: Hannibal Is Really Back In Dragon
Review: The first time that the Thomas Harris novel, RED DRAGON, was put on film was in a film called Manhunter. Written and directed by Michael Mann and made in the mid-80s, the movie has that same feel of Mann's television hit, Miami Vice, while staying true to the book. As much as I like and admire Mann's vision, I also think Red Dragon, has a lot going for it. After all, it's hard to imagine anyone but Anthony Hopkins playing Lecter I wont bother contrasting the 2 films, suffice to say, each version has its own plus (and minus) factors, but both are worhwhile ways to spend your time. FBI agent Will Graham (Edward Noton) is asked to come out of retirement by his former boss, Jack Crawford (Harvey Kietel), to aide in tracking down a serial killer, known as "the tooth fairy" (Ralph Fiennes ). Graham is reluctant to help out because he barely captured madman Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Hopkins) and almost lost his life. He agrees to help out, then, it's determined that Dr. Lecter may hold the key to cracking the case. Directed by Brett Ratner, the film boasts a top notch script from Ted Tally, who also adapted Silence Of The Lambs in 1991 The cast is also something that makes this film better over the 2000 sequel Hannibal. What a disappointment to say the least that film was. Hopkins seems in better form this time out. The rest of the cast is up for the task as well. Fiennes gives the "villian" much more depth with a single expression then with lots of dialogue Dragon is also closer to Silence by using characters and locales from that film, helping preserve a better sense of continuity than Hannibal did. Of the 3 ways you can purchase Red Dragon on DVD, the best buy in my opinion is the 2 disc "director's edition" Here's how the extras of this set break down. Disc one: Aside from a making of Red Dragon faturette, Real life FBI criminal profiler John Douglas talks about how his job is done, in a 7 minute featurette. There's also an interactive timeline that follows Hannibal from childhood to present day that's very cool as is Lecter's "casefile". Actor Anthony Hopkins sits down to talk about how the character has influenced him and the world. A commentary track with Ratner and Tally that is pretty good. Both men have a lot of give and take.There's also some DVD-ROM material to look for. A bonus feature on disc one that is not advertised on the box, is an isolated score track, complete with comments from composer Danny Elfman. Deleted, alternate, and scene extensions tops off disc one. Most of these cuts were well chosen, but are nice to see, just the same. Disc two features a video diary on the making of the film from Ratner. The diary includes a student film he made whille at NYU Film School that's um..interesting. Screen tests, make-up tests the effects of the film, stunts and a featurette about forensic scientists who helped with the film Most of the extras are well done and make for a well rounded set that comes recommended with a solid **** star rating
| 
