Rating: 
Summary: Not enough fire in this Dragon
Review: Red Dragon created as much hype, if not more, than Hannibal did. Deservedly so, but there are problems. Red Dragon was not by any lengths a "great" movie. To be perfectly frank, I enjoyed Hannibal a lot more than Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs. The reason that Red Dragon didn't catch me was because there was nothing left that I haven't seen from this film series. Look at the Jaws series; each movie got worse than the one prior (in most people's opinion anyway; I myself found Jaws The Revenge to be second best). There was just nothing else to surprise you. In Lambs, it grossed you out and sickened you. And that was breakout stuff back then. Seeing people eat people was just unimaginable. But now, we've seen brains eaten and things to that effect. There is nothing "shocking" left. Don't get me wrong, Red Dragon is a good movie. It has terrific acting and pretty stable directing. There was something that really bugged me though; it's the fact that the movie had very little to do with Hannibal Lecter himself. It appears to me that the movie could have been a movie on its own and not have to be a part of this film series. It just felt that Hannibal was thrown into the movie to make a few bucks. Which, it did. The ending is something to stick around for though. It caught me off-guard and really surprised me. Don't ask me why. It really made the movie seem to be a lot better than it actually was. 4 Stars
Rating: 
Summary: It wasn't Manhunter;SO WHAT!
Review: I first off would like to tell any of Michael Mann's fans, who are slobbering that Manhunter was superior to Red Dragon, NO IT WASN'T! I have always thought that Manhunter was too Miami Vice to be really scary. Also, Mann leaving out the twist ending of the novel was not good. Anyway, fast forward to 2002. I absolutely would recommend Red Dragon to not only anyone who is a fan of Thomas Harris or Anthony Hopkins, but to anyone who would like their nerves jangled a little. As I have read the book, I went in somewhat knowing what to expect. What I didn't expect was another great performance by Sir Anthony as Hannibal. He did play it somewhat over the top, but in an interview published around the release, Hopkins says that this version of Hannibal is still a little more hostile because he hasn't gotten used to confinement that well yet. The film was very enjoyable, scary, and suspenseful. I will say that I enjoyed Silence better, but that's ok. Dragon stands as its own film. Ralph Fiennes was great also as Dolarhyde. He seems to portray psychos and sociopaths well, but I hope he doesn't get typecast. Edward Norton, one of Hollywood's best character actors, is superb as Will Graham, and spars well with Hopkins in their scenes together. The supporting cast was sufficient, but underused. (Also, I would have rather had Scott Glenn back as Crawford.) All in all, Red Dragon is a great, suspenseful film from a director I would not have expected it from. (I was hesitant to see this movie ONLY because I heard that the director of Rush Hour was directing.) Ted Tally, Oscar winner for "Silence", gives us another great screenplay, not only adding a back story that was not in the original novel, but expanding Lecter's role as well. The cinematography by Dante Spinotti, who did Hannibal and Manhunter, excites as well as thrills. Danny Elfman's score, drawing from Bernard Herrmann's book a lot, finishes out a fantastic production, and one nerve-jangling movie.(By the way, the very end bit between Chilton and Lecter brings us full circle.)
Rating:
Summary: Really, really creepy
Review: First of all, I've seen Silence of the Lambs, (I skipped Hannibal), and saw Manhunter. I've always read the book. Let me just say this: when I heard they were remaking the book into a film, I knew that if they stuck to Thomas Harris' pages, it would be a genuinely scary film. And thank God, that's exactly what the filmakers did, and that's exactly what the movie is--scary. I saw Manhunter and to tell you the truth, I thought the ending was derivative and anticlimatic. Francis' backstory was completely dropped as was much of his love affair with Reba. All that's left in this movie and we get to see the two contradictory sides of Francis: his madness and his human-ness. I thought the added scenes with Hannibal were wonderful and provided some comic relief. Yeah, it's kind of hard to get past Hannibal looking so much older when he's supposed to be younger, but that doesn't matter. One of the greatest villains in all of cinema is back on the screen in a story that's about characters and terror, and not about gross-out shocks. All in all, the amazon review got it right: a lot could have gone wrong with this movie, instead a lot went right. I wouldn't have picked Edward Norton to play this role but he did a surprisingly good job and Ralph Fiennes is perfect as the "Tooth Fairy." Even though I knew the story, it still had me on the edge of my seat. the director captured the mood and atmosphere as the book and while some say this may be blasphemous, I thought "Red Dragon" was slightly better than "Silence of the Lambs." The killer was much more terrifying and the characters were a bit more interesting. Hannibal's relationship with Will was more hostile and had more energy I thought than the flirtagous one with Clarice. But take my opinion for what it is. "REd Dragon" is heads above the other October releases and is perfect for Halloween.
Rating:
Summary: Oodles
Review: Anthony Hopkins is one of the finest actors to ever have appeared on the screen. With this third outing as Hannibal he is joined by the strongest cast of any of the three films. I had seen the first version of this film, but this time is very different from, "Manhunter", and both were well interpreted by their directors. I will remain more favorable to this version for Anthony Hopkins will always represent the good Dr. Lecter for me. This is really not a film that centers on Hopkins, whenever he is on screen he owns it, rather Edward Norton who has proven himself to be a marvelously versatile actor is the focus of the film, and when he shares the screen with Hopkins he comes as close as any actor can to holding his own against Sir. Anthony. Ralph Fiennes is outstanding as the dragon even though he again is not the center of attention throughout the film. Harvey Keitel and Emily Watson also add all that can be expected from talented performers in supporting roles. There is a particularly smarmy reporter who meets his end at the hands of the dragon and it is in these details that one movie may be chosen by some over the other. The method by which the person is dispatched is the same in both films, but, "Manhunter's", version is more powerful. In the earlier film the sequence ends in a dimly lit underground garage as opposed to a street in broad daylight. The parking garage version is much stronger and unsettling than the same scene in this film. I don't know why this film is doing so much less business than its predecessors. It may be this film is much lighter on gore than the second installment, or perhaps people who may have seen the previous film disliked it. This film would take second place amongst the trilogy for me. In any event it is a film that could have been long on talented performers and very short on substance. This is not the case and the film is very worthwhile.
Rating:
Summary: GOOD MOVIE OR NOT????
Review: This review will be short... the movie was good but it is exactly like the original movie MANHUNTER just with new actors and Anthony Hopkins playing Dr. Lectar!!! So if you liked MANHUNTER you will like Red Dragon, if you didn't like MANHUNTER , you won't like Red Dragon.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent!
Review: Red Dragon is an excellent movie and does a great job completing the story of Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal. I was a bit skeptical as Silence of the Lambs is one of my all-time favorite movies, but this intense, captivating movie held my interest and kept me on the edge of my seat throughout. One of the best movies I have seen this year!
Rating: 
Summary: Predictable Psychoanalysis
Review: I have always been an ardent fan of silence of the lambs and especially Hannibal, and I went to see Red Dragon in great anticipation. I must admit I felt somewhat let down, its not a bad film per se, an accurate adaptation, but was lacking in comparison with the others in the Hannibal trilogy. Firstly the dialouge was poor and condescending to the intellect of a good proportion of Hannibal fans, full of psychological cliches like "castration anxiety", "maladaptive familial upbringing" etc. The opening sequence was fantastic, however it fell into the all too staid and predictable "detective story". The acting with the exception of Hopkins seemed not up to par, considering the calibre of Fiennes, Norton and the supporting cast, and at certain points it appeared comical and caricaturish like Fiennes saying "No, no you cant have her" etc. There was a pervasive lack of subtlety and I didnt find the cinematography outstanding nor the esteemed Danny Elfman's soundtrack particularly fascinating. More importantly, as opossed to the later two sequels, no emotive themes were dealt with, the realtion between hopkins and fiennes was entirely contractual and insipid, and Fiennes did not look "tortured" at all, and there was no emotional weight with him and his family. Dr Lector appered very vulnerable and this takes away some for the awe and fascination accorded to him, and at certain points I wondered if I was actually watching a continuum of the trilogy. Nevertheless, as a film on its own its worth watching, definately, it just seems to lack the psychological tension, paranoia, second guessing, imagination and most of all intellectual content dealt with so magnificently in the later offerings. I think its an above average movie but like so many sequels or prequels (Star Wars), its a relative disappointment.
Rating:
Summary: OUTSTANDING!
Review: I watched "Silence of the Lambs" several years ago, to my own trepidation. I suspect I'll get blasted for saying this, but I enjoy watching "Red Dragon" OVERALL more than SOTL. Please note I said "overall." SOTL was quite gory - graphic autopsies, pickled severed heads, human skin outfits, the butchering of those guards in Lecter's escape. Further, there are quite UNPLEASANT scenes, such as all the ones with Buffalo Bill's latest victim begging to be let out, or with Bill himself tucking his penis between his legs after he dresses and primps like a very bizarre transexual ...let's not forget the inmate ejaculating on Clarice's face or the million other unpleasant details. I agree with most that SOTL is the superior movie; however, I find myself wishing for an edited version to watch that did not have so much of the aforementioned. Heck, I found "Hannibal" easier to watch than SOTL ...except for the infamous dinner scene, of course! Which brings me to "Red Dragon." Norton was top-notch; it's not his fault he's not an older actor, and he comes off quite convincingly, thank-you-very-much. Quit comparing it to "Manhunter"! Norton gave a convincing and sympathetic performance, forcing the audience to wince, bristle, cringe and start as his protagonist faced each new turn. Hopkins was in rare form -- cruel, suave, cold, subtle, cunning, brilliant, perceptive, chilling, daunting -- even in his cage and restraints, a snake caged but very poisonous. This is a return to form after a far more subdued performance in "Hannibal" and an almost "anti-hero" status which fit very badly. I have nothing but rave compliments for his performance in "Red Dragon" and wish that he gets every single conceivable award this year. He was far more Hannibal than he was in the third episode which -- ironically -- bears his moniker. The "Tooth Fairy" character was moving and chilling and far more REAL and sympathetic than Buffalo Bill ever was, let alone the deformed guy in the third installment. He was chilling because he was far more REAL, the kind of person like Dahmer where the persons who interacted with him would say "He was so quiet and polite, I can't imagine he'd do these things." Yet he was threatening and unstable and emotional and deadly, a perfectly believable serial killer. I appreciated the way this movie was directed, with much less showing off, with less "full-of-yourself" sleight-of-hand and with less side trails of "pat-on-the-back-itis" which "Hannibal" suffered from. This movie is well-paced, cleanly directed, brilliantly performed and flawlessly scored. In summary, while I admit that SOTL is the superior movie, I find myself enjoying this one more than the others.
Rating:
Summary: I Love it,,, but their is a little downside
Review: This movie will keep you in your seat the whole time, well I left once since I have read the book and knew what was comeing......... This is Great and is a must see..
ALOUGH!! I think their shuold have more of dr.Lecter in it before he is thrown in jail h is behind bars the enitre time during the moive. IT is very intresting but a tybical cerial killer, not a real twist behind of how he murder's his victems...
It is very a good and is a gret but unfortnitly the final chapter in he Hannibal seris,, but if they are to ever reconsider!!!!! Make even a more pre-qual, I hope 1 day more about Dr.LEcter will be shown or atleast written.
Rating:
Summary: 1st movie, not nr. 1
Review: I had been looking forward to watch this movie. I must say it turned out to be a bit dissapointing. The movie jumps from one scene to another, without any logic explanation. This is especially the case with Francis Dolarhyde, it is not till the end of the movie that you slightly understand his change because of Reba. In the book it is made more clear what causes the change in Dolarhyde, in the movie it's too jumpy, they assume you know it, but how can you know without having read the book? Then the thing with Lecter. For me it is clear that this movie is made only because of the succes of the earlier two. You can see that at the start, the producers again assume that you know who Lecter is and what he has done. I can very well understand that, but it's not correct, if you consider that's it's the first book in the trilogy. Okay, that's a lot of criticism. I must say I did like watching it, but it just neither had the suspense of Silence of the Lambs, nor the class of Hannibal. And I think Hopkins wasn't at his best in this movie.
So if you want to see it, go ahead, but it's not really a thing for the theater, more for a video-evening, when you've decided to get a break...
|
