Rating: 
Summary: Dino boils the pot one last time
Review: Brett Ratner's biggest problem is the numer of yardsticks - looooooong yardsticks, at that - against which his film can be instantly measured. There's Thomas Harris' novel of course, and Michael Mann's derivative mid-eighties interpretation of it, sub nom Manhunter (apparently so as not to be mistaken for a martial arts movie!). Looming even larger is Jonathan Demme's Silence of the Lambs, which most critics (this one included) will tell you is the pick of the Lecter Bunch. Weighing in for good measure is Ridley Scott's baroque, and markedly under-rated, Hannibal.Ratner's Red Dragon is indebted to all, but transcends none, of these. It is a much better picture than Manhunter (I don't understand how conventional wisdom has managed to conclude that Manhunter is good cinema: it just isn't); Red Dragon is better executed; there's better workmanship; clearer plot exposition, it's far less a hostage to style - but on the other hand it borrows its style wholesale from Silence of the Lambs. Overall, Red Dragon is workmanlike and no more. Anthony Hopkins can be dealt with quickly: the character of Hannibal Lecter has already been fully mined for chill (in Lambs) and as some sort of hammy, homicidal galloping gourmet (in Hannibal), so he steered an easy course between the two, relishing his one or two choice lines, but otherwise sleepwalking it. Harvey Keitel was a big disappointment: here he demonstrates how little he can actually act (he is terrific in films where he doesn't have to), while Edward Norton turns in a solid performance, leaving only Philip Seymour Hoffman to add any colour. Emily Watson stands out as Reba McLane and Ralph Fiennes acts well - he plays it extremely straight - but is handicapped (ahem) by his fundamental lack of ugliness. Note to file: without substantially more in the way of prosthetics, Francis Dolarhyde should not be played by one of the most handsome men on the planet. Silence of the Lambs had the element of surprise and novelty, but more than that it succeeded through the complex character of Clarice Starling and her absorbing relationship with the equally fascinating Doctor. Red Dragon has none of this. Will Graham is a less interesting literary character than Clarice Starling, and to the extent there is an underlying story (in the novel Harris makes much of Graham's questionable sanity and his empathy with serial killers), Ratner largely fails to bring it out, and when Graham does get a line on the subject, at the very end (having read Dolarhyde's scrapbook, he admits he feels sorry for him), Norton misses the opportunity to imbue it with any real meaning. The screenplay is patchy, too. There's no excuse: its writer, Ted Tally, scripted Lambs. But there is some pretty clumsy plot exposition, mostly out of the mouths of Keitel and Norton. And some things which work in a novel just don't play out on celluloid: the idea of Dolarhyde eating a William Blake painting is all very well as a figurative device. But just try filming it. Foolishly, Ratner did. But for all that it's an entertaining film, even if it is a pretty obvious potboiler. But no work of art.
Rating: 
Summary: Electrifying and Suspenseful
Review: My favorite film character of all time, the notorious Hannibal Lecter, is gracing film for the last time. Red Dragon is acted with delight and directed with the best. Brett Ratner shocked critics and audiences when he made Red Dragon work. Anthony Hopkins returns as the cannibalistic doctor who was caught by Will Graham(Edward Norton). Will Graham retires from the FBI, but returns when asked to help find THE TOOTH FAIRY(Ralph Fiennes). The cast is asembaled well. The suspense is good and the overall atmosphere is fantastic. The DVD is the best. I had to search everywhere for the Director's Edition and when I found it I was pleased. The Directors Edition includes another disc of extras that aim to please. The picture is fantastic and the sound is crystal clear. The extras include: criminal profile of Hannibal, life history of Hannibal, Hannibal's FBI case file, commentary, deleted scenes, (disc 2) directors journey, directors student film, screen tests, makeup application, and much much more. So if you like thrillers and a good cast, this is a definate buy. If not, be sure to rent it.
Rating: 
Summary: Want to see the REAL Red Dragon adaption? See Manhunter.
Review: What do I consider to be the absolute movie ever made? Well, it'd have to be a movie that is not interesting in any way, that features poor acting, and no style. But, most importantly, it would have to be a movie that is NOT so bad it's good, or at least entertaining, but something so truly terrible that is is just plain dull and boring. And, Red Dragon has all of these things. THIS is the movie that I would call the worst movie ever made. Of course, I haven't seen every movie ever made, so that's not a totally true claim, but I do say this is the worst movie I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot. But, why is this film so terrible? Well, the story comes from one of the greatest books I've read, also called Red Dragon. also, it is following in the footsteps of three of my favorite movies, Michael Mann's 80s masterpiece Manhunter, Jonathan Demme's horrifying The Silence of the Lambs, and Ridley Scott's criminally underrated Hannibal. But, here's the worst thing about this movie. The taglines and ads for this movie make it seem like a story not put on film, the untold Hannibal Lecter story. Bull. The Red Dragon novel was adapted in 1986 as Manhunter, and that was a great film. So, it didn't have Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, but so what? Brian Cox gave a great, memorable performance that could rival the Hannibal Lecter seen in 'Lambs' and 'Hannibal.' But it was a great movie and did a fabulous job of adapting the novel. So, with the three novels turned into three great movies, the trilogy is complete, right? Well, of course Universal couldn't let it go like that. There's major box office potential in Hannibal Lecter, so they went off and destoyed a great trilogy with this shoddy, pointless 're-imagining' of Manhunter. Re-imagining? Right. I'd be surpried if Brett Ratner (the director) actually watched that film. Manhunter oozed with amazing camera angles and a load of style. Red Dragon is amazingly dull with not a SINGLE interesting camera angle. The real nail on the coffin, however, is the casting, which seems like it as randomly picked out of a hat. Edward Norton gives one of the all time worst performances ever, conveying NONE of the emotional detachment and roughness of William Peterson's Will Graham. Anthony Hopkins does something I wouldn't have thought possible, and gives a bad performance. A TERRIBLE performance. Overacting galore, but underneath it, he looks incredibly bored. Ralph Feinnes also overacts, which is at least better than acting like a lump of cardboard, which seems to be what Harvey Keitel, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Mary Louise Parker seemed to be trying to do. Emily Watson is the only person in this horrible, horrible cast who could be called good, but even she is overshadowed by Joan Allen in Manhunter. Another major problem with this 'film' is the treatment of the Hannibal Lecter character. Red Dragon was the novel that introduced the world to Lecter, and he was really only in about three parts. Manhunter did honor to this, because the filmmakers realized the story wasn't about Lecter. It was about Graham and Dolorhyde, while Lecter was only a supporting character. The makers of Red Dragon, however, do not care about this a bit, but only about the thick wads of cash Lecter can pull in, and so they added TONS of totally unnecessary and distracting scenes with him that feature NOTHING to do with the story. Why, in the middle of a scene of Dolorhyde entering an art museum in Brooklyn, do we suddenly cut to Dr. Lecter eating dinner? And that's it. He's eating dinner. Noting else. Why is that scene in the movie? Because the makers wanted more Lecter in the story, that's why. Nevermind that is has nothing to do with the story. Basically, read Red Dragon, because it's a wonderful book, and if you want to see a proper film adaption of it, rent Manhunter, because it's a great adaption, while this drab, dry, dull, boring mess is just about the complete opposite. ' 0/5
Rating:
Summary: A FINE DINE!
Review: I was flat out smiling after the credits rolled during the closing of the remake/prequel, 'Red Dragon.' It had that same touch and emotion on the big screen via 'Hannibal'. This beginning of a perfect-lined trilogy starts out differently to the cheesy, yet underrated 'Manhunter' (Michael Mann's original Hannibal Lector film). The film begins with how Dr. Hannibal 'The Cannibal' Lector is captured and locked up in the first place, giving the full understanding to this infamous, yet charming character, who is recognized everywhere.
Sir Anthony Hopkins shines on screen with an absolute brilliant performance. His third and last attempt at evilness is understood to be the best yet. When I heard about this remake, I was worried on two names that seemed not to fit this perfect saga: director Brett Ratner (famous for his 'Rush Hour' films) and a fine actor named Edward Norton. Now. I may have not given Mr. Ratner a chance because he seemed to follow the same path as directors Jonathan Demme ('The Silence of the Lambs') and Ridley Scott ('Hannibal'). Ratner's direction with camera angles and the darkness of 'Red Dragon', seemed to have improved as being a fine director. As for Edward Norton (famous for beating himself up in 'Fight Club'), I still don't picture Norton as Will Graham.
The story follows as Graham is pushed out of retirement. He tries to unravel a monster of huge proportion, a killer under the name Red Dragon. Similar to 'The Silence of the Lambs', Dr. Lector helps out Graham to catch the Dragon. This film is best compared to a jigsaw puzzle. It has that edge-of-the-seat-don't-know'what-to-expect feel to it.
It's a privilege to see a thriller without the cheap gore or cheap scares. On the other hand, it's no different then 'Manhunter' in a lot of ways, besides the performance of goodie-goodie Hopkins. This new updated version is just as comparison as seeing 'Manhunter' on a special extended version on DVD.
The plot is the same, the scenes are the same, and even some of the dialogue is the same. But what is different from the 1986 version and this new 2002 version is that the subplot of the relationship between Graham and Dr. Lector.
'Red Dragon' could have been produced better if there wasn't an Edward Norton in the picture. I don't quite imagine Norton as retired FBI agent Will Graham. I thought William L. Petersen in 'Manhunter' had done a better job bringing out Will Graham from the inside. What was missing from 'Manhunter', which makes the film forgettable, is the missing link between Dr. Lector and Graham, in which 'Red Dragon' easily portrayed.
'Red Dragon ' is not for everybody. It has the psychological controversy of 'The Silence of the Lambs.' And the fine dine and gore of 'Hannibal'. In the words of the evil genius Dr. Hannibal Lector, 'Ta-ta'.
Rating:
Summary: Red Dragon Is A Red Hot Thriller
Review: Red Dragon is a fresh remake of "Manhunter". It's the prequel to Silence Of The Lambs, the first film in the Hannibal Lecter Trilogy, whose story concludes with "Hannibal". Based on the novel by Thomas Harris, the suspenseful crime thriller marks the first time Hannibal Lecter appears as a powerful and villainous character. On DVD, it is an experience worth watching, especially for its innovative use of special features. Anthony Hopkins is Hannibal Lecter, whose very presence, menacing albeit elegant, has become an American cinema icon. Hopkins hosts the DVD, which is quite a treat for his fans, and takes us on a tour of "the dungeon", chalk-full of his criminal profiles and behind-the-scenes looks on the making of the film. Danny Elfman provided the music and we are also treated to some of his more chilling orchestral pieces. The erratic loner that is Ralph Feines character is similar to Norman Bates in Hitchcock's Psycho, unstable, threatening and unbelievably cruel. He lived in a large home by the swamps of the rural South, and there are hints that he was abused. Eventually, he loses grip on reality and transforms himself into "The Red Dragon", otherwise known as Satan the Devil as seen in the Book of Revelation. In psychotic delusion after seeing a William Blake painting, he is convinced he must do the Devil's work by bringing death and disaster in Apocalyptic proportions. The F.B. I. agent played by Ed Norton tracks down the killer, and his mission becomes more urgent when the Red Dragon killer is bent on murdering his wife and child. The film is the most gruesome of the Hannibal Lecter films in my personal opinion. It has more R-rated visuals, blood, etc than any of the other films. Not even the dinner scene in Hannibal in which Lecter makes his victim eat his own brain is as shocking in material as some of the horrific atrocities the Red Dragon commits during his killing sprees. Evidently, this film is for a very mature audience, and to be taken as a film that exposes the terrible, inhuman and psychotic psychological make-up of crazed killers. The F.B.I. and police authorities can benefit immensely from watching this film. Other than the gore, the drama is full of suspense, and of course, Anthonly Hopkins as the incarcerated Dr. Lecter is a must see as always. He is witty, dark and humorous and makes his introduction in a film that begins the series.
Rating:
Summary: Stellar Cast, Great Production...but we've seen this movie
Review: Loved SILENCE OF THE LAMB and was disappointed with HANNIBAL. And I remember and enjoyed MANHUNTER back in the 80's. So I wasn't in a big hurry to see RED DRAGON, despite having such a stellar cast. Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes, Harvey Keitel AND Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lector? Now that's a cast. I watched it and enjoyed it, especially the departures it made from the novel and the original movie.
If this film came out in the mid-1980's (before MANHUNTER), would be one of the greatest thrillers of all time. Everyone's great in it. But, despite hitting on every piston in everything else, my enthusiasm for the movie was lost because...I already knew this story.
(I think this is a huge problem in Hollywood: the acting, the technology, everything has exceeded the writing. The stories, for whatever reason, have been up there with everything else. Lack of development, rushed deals, whatever. In this particular example, the story was exhausted.)
Rating:
Summary: Do Fries Go With That Blake?
Review: ...this is a moderately entertaining upgrade of the Michael Mann cinema Manhunter with THE Hannibal Lector, Anthony Hopkins, pre-queling his role. Fiennes as Dolohyde does an adequate job. Edward Norton should have never done that Death to Smoochy movie and this within a three year span...I couldn't get him out of that purple rhino suit. In the Manhunter movie the detective was made to be a bit on the psychic side. You don't get this here. Nevertheless, it is a good movie, but not of the excellence exhibited in SOTL or, in hindsight now, Hannibal. Hannibal now is up a coupla notches because of this in my opinion...A Note: Why are all serial killers obsessed with classical literature or art? Or a parent or grandparent beat the crap out of him? I ask only rhetorically. There needs to be a new serial killer paradigm...and quickly. Also, Frankie Faison should have never been put in all three movies because his weight fluctated...A LOT..he was relatively more thin in SOTL...(that's just one of those odd things I notice.)
Rating:
Summary: Vain is the belief that criminals are insane
Review: Hannibal the Cannibal is back with a vengeance, though in fact it is his first episode. This thriller is marvellously well done. The killer aims at women, but the FBI agent who is going to solve the problem has retired after arresting Doctor Lecter, after finding out Doctor Lecter was the criminal he was looking for with the doctor's help, misguiding help, of course. It is when the cop understands that the killer kills his victims to eat them, in fact to serve them to his guests that he understands the Doctor is the killer. But this retired FBI agent who goes back into service in this new case discovers with imagination, vision, intelligence and observation some facts about and characteristics of the killer. But this is not enough. He has to profile the killer psychologically and this is very difficult. So he tries to cut the task short with the help of Doctor Lecter and this help is expensive in privileges or in manipulations. The doctor even goes beyond and becomes really dangerous, looking for his own vengeance. But this is not enough, yet, to arrest the killer. The cops have to sweep wide and comb thin to get across small details that become big opportunities. Once again it is observation that is essential, but with imagination and inspiration. Once the cops have found the small detail that is going to lead them on the road to the killer things are easier, though not at all less dangerous. And the killer plans the reactions of the cops and takes them into account in his own plans, which enables him to come with an ending that is quite different from what we are all expecting. This film, like the book behind, is interesting because it reveals that serial killers have to be intelligent, creative and extremely good chess players. They have to plan ahead enormously and foresee the reactions of the police. In other words, these killers would have been good cops if they were not moved by the desire to kill or even make other people suffer. But this film insists on the severe childhood years this killer has been through and how he inherited of his killing instinct from the mistreatment he got from his own relatives. What happens when he finds himself alone, no longer dominated and controled by these relatives ? He is haunted by them and kills in order to pacify them. And it is understanding this that makes the cop able to solve the last stage in the thriller. We can even wonder if a cop does not have to become a bodydouble or a clone of the killer to be able to find him and arrest or stop him. Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
Rating: 
Summary: Good Movie!
Review: Why am i seeing so many people criticise this movie? Who cares if it isnt a great adaption from the novel, or whatever it is some of you are saying. I personally havent read the novel, but who cares. It is a good movie.
Red Dragon has a great cast. Harvey Keitel, Anthony Hopkins and Edward Norton just to name a few. A good storyline about a serial killer known as the "tooth fairy" who seems to have taken a liking to Hanibal Lector. Kind of similar to that of the story of "Silence of the Lambs"
I thouroughly enjoyed this film, and i would recomend it to anyone who enjoyed "Silence of the Lambs".
Rating: 
Summary: Stale white bread in slick packaging
Review: An extraordinary cast and top-notch production values can't redeem this exercise in rehashed mediocrity. Watson, Fiennes, Norton, Hoffman, Hopkins, & Keitel--rarely has so much A-list star-power been gathered together to so little effect. We have seen it all far too many times before, and both SILENCE OF THE LAMBS and the B-grade MANHUNTER did it much better. No matter how slick the packaging, there's still a loaf of stale white bread inside. Even a gourmet like Lector would be hard-pressed to concoct an interesting dish from such bland ingredients.
|
