Rating: 
Summary: Well worth seven years of waiting
Review: That's right...I've been waiting for this movie since 1995, when I first read Thomas Harris's brilliant "Red Dragon" and instantly proclaimed it my all-time favorite novel (which it has remained ever since). I, of course, rushed out to rent Michael Mann's "Manhunter" because it was based on the novel in question. After viewing it, I sat slack-jawed throughout the entirety of the closing credits of this appalling degradation of a sublime piece of fiction, offering only "What in the name of God was THAT?" to the friends who were viewing it with me. Having not read the novel, they did not understand my disappointment with the film, which excised many of the major plot points, including some of the most fascinating elements. It was then that I began hoping and waiting for a faithful film adaptation of my favorite novel.Well...it's here. This film excels in every aspect in which "Manhunter" failed. First off, it gives us insight into the character of Francis Dolarhyde. Apparently, Mann felt that Dolarhyde's psychology and background were unimportant, despite the fact that they fueled his rage and simultaneously made the character far more sympathetic and infinitely more frightening. This is rectified in Ted Tally's new screenplay...which goes into the abuses that Dolarhyde suffered as a child. It also restores the novel's ending, which was mercilessly ripped away when Mann made "Manhunter," which substitutes a "Miami Vice" style showdown for the novel's incredible denouement. In fact, at least 98% of what's in Tally's script is taken almost verbatim from the novel, a pleasant rarity in the world of book-to-film translations. In all honesty, the new film's advantages over the previous alleged adaptation are far too numerous to go into here. So suffice it to say that the new "Red Dragon" film is one hundred times more faithful to Harris's novel than "Manhunter" ever was...and one hundred times better. Despite what other reviewers (who haven't even seen the film yet) have said about Brett Ratner directing this film, he does a fantastic job with what must have been for him an unbelievably intimidating project. The atmosphere, casting, and direction in this film are top-notch, rivalling (and at times even surpassing) "The Silence of the Lambs." Being that this is the first serious dramatic project Ratner has undertaken, I find his accomplishment here to be substantial, and feel that it will open new doors for him as a director of serious films. Also, the cast is superb. Edward Norton, though too young to be Will Graham, is exceptional in this film. Far better than William Petersen (who was also too young) in "Manhunter." Norton's Graham is a world-weary man who is intensely jaded and reluctant to help his old friend Jack Crawford, but quickly finds himself sucked into the mind of a serial killer once again. He cannot escape, after all, the curse of his unique insight. Norton's performance here ranks among his best, worthy of his turns in "Primal Fear," "American History X," and "Fight Club." Ralph Fiennes, however, is the star of the show here. His Francis Dolarhyde is a tortured wonder, filled with self-loathing and feelings of inadequacy...and also, with a deep and unabiding rage. Fiennes is as unsettling here as he was in "Schindler's List," where he played a cruel and sociopathic SS Commander. Dolarhyde's tattoo, teeth, and lip are also very well done, another respect in which this newer film is far superior to "Manhunter." But getting back to Fiennes's performance. He is a better Dolarhyde than I ever could have hoped for. He is capable of showing the audience, within moments, both Francis's human side and the pathology which drives him to murder so brutally. The supporting cast is fantastic as well. Phillip Seymour Hoffman IS Freddy Lounds, as far as I'm concerned. He turns in a performance worthy of the Freddy Lounds which I've held in my mind since the first time I read the novel. He was absolutely perfect, from the moment he appeared onscreen. Harvey Keitel also turns in a good, suitably subdued, performance as Jack Crawford. Anthony Hopkins is once again wonderful as the brilliant Hannibal Lecter, injecting into his performance much of what made him so great in "The Silence of the Lambs." Anthony Heald also returns as Dr. Frederick Chilton, and outdoes his performance in "The Silence of the Lambs," without question. Emily Watson and Mary Louise Parker are also very good in their respective roles as Reba McClane and Molly Graham. In fact, there isn't a poor performace to be seen in this film. Great cast, all around. Bottom line: See this film. For someone like me, who's been awaiting its release since long before it was even in the making, "Red Dragon" is a Godsend. I've read the novel six times, and would have been extremely disappointed if this film had strayed too far from the text. But as I said, it was well worth seven years of waiting. Truly, it would be impossible to transform Harris's novel into a better film than this. It is every bit as good as the film version of "The Silence of the Lambs" was...possibly better. And that, I believe, speaks for itself. One final note: To the reviewer who asks how a 40-year-old Jodie Foster could play a character who would be high school aged in "Red Dragon"...she couldn't. Luckily, Clarice Starling does not appear in this film. If she had, it would have been very disappointing to me, seeing as how she wasn't in the book.
Rating: 
Summary: Ordinary
Review: I had low hopes for this movie when Brett Ratner was attached to direct this, not because the Rush Hour movies were bad, he just wasn't the reason they were good. And as I expected, he failed. I had low expectations for this, so I thought there was a chance I would be pleasantly surprised, maybe there would be a scene that showed the mastery that Ratner and the cast were capable of. But there is no such scene. This movie is a hyper-fast emotionally void movie, where there should be some time to take a breath take in the scenery, get to know the characters, there is a 2 minute scene between wife and husband consisting of whats needed to move the plot forward. I saw the potential of a windy farmhouse scene as an ideal setting for a little exposition, some blowing hair and gaunt faces, instead its wasted, I barely even saw where they were. Basically I'm comparing this movie to Manhunter, because I knew it would be butchered. Manhunter was a slow methodical police procedural. William Petersen played Graham as a hardened investigator who has seen too much and looks sick of it all. Norton looks like the hardest thing he has had to endure is a tetanus shot. More comparisons between the two, the searching of the house by Graham to find clues in the beginning. Michael Mann and the crew of Manhunter amped up the dread to absolutely unbearable levels, and when you hear Graham say, "The killer was headed toward the childrens room." It's horrifying. Instead, Ratner elects to show everything, the blood-stains on the mattresses in the childrens room, little flashes of the killings, its way too much. And the fact that the rooms look like a Hollywood studio doesn't help matters. Hopkins isn't worth talking about, I can only take so many puns and slurps before I get bored. Another thing about Ratner's direction. Why do those "home videos" look like they were shot with a professional camera crew, oh perhaps because they were. Did you block those, Brett, you did a poor job. They looked fake, poor poor poor. Right now, I'm sounding like a film snob. But if you have seen Manhunter before you see Red Dragon, the flaws in the latter become painfully and glaringly obvious. I do like Silence of the Lambs, not as much as Manhunter, basically because in SOL the scenes with Jodie and Tony are the only ones of any worth. Hannibal was a different beast, horribly over the top, but it wasn't to be taken seriously. So I think Red Dragon is by far the worst of the Thomas Harris movies, it isn't scary, it isn't intelligent, and it isn't entertaining. Three things I want from a thriller, or at least the first and the last.
Rating:
Summary: Concerning 'Red Dragon'
Review: A character I was raised up knowing as one of the most terrifying madmen of contemporary filmmaking was humiliated in front of my face this evening. I felt tremendous sympathy for Anthony Hopkins and Jonathan Demme, for the character that they had crafted together that once struck fear into the hearts of film goers was made a loveable and laughable joke by Brett Ratner, who surely doesn't realize the atrocious crime which he has committed. Lecter is not someone who we should laugh at when he comes on screen, rather someone before whom we once trembled.
The intensity that was present in Hopkins first Hannibal outing is gone in this film, and even the suave psycho role that Hopkins played in 'Hannibal' has fallen by the wayside so instead we are left with the smiley and playful Lecter. I ask myself, 'Why would anyone ever let a character with such potency turn into something that we love? How has the Lecter role become something we enjoy? Is this a sign of the progression of human nature, that we connect more with our anti-hero than our hero? What is it about the evilness in Lecter that we love so much?
I feel bad for Hopkins, but at that same time, I praise Finnes for his phenomenal turn as Francis Dolarhyde, where we are once again terrified by a human being and the animal qualities they are capable of. The internal struggle of Dolarhyde is clear throughout and with Finnes' inward intensity we are taken back and terrified by what he is capable of.
I had feared that director Brett Ratner would compromise the power of the story and character of Dolarhyde, however thanks to some above average visuals and great acting by Finnes we are left with a picture that kills an American legend but gives birth to another...
There seems to be magic missing here. While acceptable, the film lacks the individuality that is needed on a project of this magnitude. Red Dragon is to introduce us to Lecter and the world in which he lives, rather we are forced to know his world and have a feeling for Lecter. This film should have been independent in all ways to 'Silence', instead we are given a character that has developed over two films instead of being an introduction.
In closing I feel that this film was so promising that it had to fall in some way or another. It just so happened that the film killed an American Legend. Who do we blame for this? I cannot say. Should the film have not been made in the first place? Perhaps ... Lecter needs to be put to rest, or else he must be resurrected one final time with one hand and the terrifying evil presence that once inhabited the character in 'Silence'.
Rating: 
Summary: Hannibal Lecter is back again
Review: Red Dragon is based on the book by Thomas Harris,like the other two and it's the prequel to The Silence Of The Lambs and it's just as great as the first one.Of course,Anthony Hopkins is back as Hannibal(and like TSOTL,he's was only in for about 30 to 40 minutes)he's more chilling in this one then Hannibal,I don't know who was more creepy in the movie Hopkins or Ralph Fiennes,who was scary he gave me the willies.Edward Horton who is always a pleasure to watch was a great chioce for the role of Will Graham.Phillip Seymour Hoffman is annoying but good,Harvey Keitel is just ok as the role of Jack Crawford,which was greatly played by Scott Glen in Silence Of The Lambs.But the real treat was to see Anthony Heald as the head of the Baltimore Mental Clinic.Wonderful performances,great story and more scary then gory make Red Dragon a really enjoyable movie to watch in the dark and after you'll choose who's more creepy,The Tooth Fairy(Fiennes)or Hannibal(Hopkins).Have fun and bon-appetite
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing Thriller ...
Review: When I saw Silence Of The Lambs, I was a little child that should not have been watching such a movie. To say it scarred me in an understatement, but now that I'm older, I can appreciate how intense the movie was and what a great job everyone who worked on it did. In 2001 when I was 17, Hannibal the long awaited sequel came out. Replacing Jodie Foster as Clarice Starling was Julianne Moore, one of my favorite actresses and a nice welcome since I'm not that big of a Jodie Foster fan. I was surprised when I not only enjoyed Hannibal, but thought it was even scarier and better than the original. Now, a year and a half later Red Dragon is out in theaters. A prequel based on 1986's Man Hunter. I had high expectations for this film; figuring it was going to be as brutally frightening as the other chapters in the Hannibal Lecter trilogy. I was wrong. This movie which has so far gotten mixed reviews deserves each and every one of them. Not only is Red Dragon no where near as clever or as suspensful as Silence or Hannibal, it also moves very slowly. You could hear chairs in the theater shifting as people moved back and forth forced to sit through the tired dialogue and predictable plot. The cast in this film is what saves the movie from being terrible. Anthony Hopkins is a legend in my book and could play Hannibal with his hands tied behind his back ... and he does. Edward Norton has to be one of the most brilliant actors of my generation. He saves this movie almost all on his own making his character realistic and giving the audience a reason to feel sympathy and care. Ralph Fiennes does a great job at being menacing and making you think he's gonna do something so horrible it's gonna make your stomach turn. Don't get your hopes up for that either. Emily Watson, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Mary-Louise Parker and Harvey Keitel also round out the cast nicely as potential victims or suspects. Emily does an outstanding job giving her character a likable charm that didn't seem to be in the writer's plan. In one scene she goes down on someone after knowing him for only a few hours which made many people around me uncomfortable and kind of gave me the impression that the writer expects us to believe that blind people are so insecure that they'll do anything to have someone like them. It's about halfway into this movie that you realize there aren't gonna be any scenes like the one with Ray Liotta at the end of Hannibal which is what I think people expect and want out of a Hannibal Lecter movie. I only hope there's one more sequel that ties up the loose strings that were left undone in Hannibal.
Rating:
Summary: OH, GOODY, GOODY, SWEET BREADS!
Review: For those of us who like the thriller, the edge -of -your -seat -gripping, look between the fingers, movies! Well, this is not it. But it is a movie that will grab you with the first scene and take you on a ride you will not forget very soon. With its great acting and tantalizing musical score. Not for the faint of heart. But, still not as riveting as "Silence of the Lambs." Don't forget ,' Silence 'came out in '91' and everyone scoffed at the thought of a Hannibal, much less a weird crossdresser that made clothes out of human skin. A year later Jeffery Dahmer broke the news. Now with that in mind and if you saw "Silence,'Hannibal 'and now 'Red Dragon 'You will know what I mean. Although Red Dragon is gripping, it would not hold up if Anthony Hopkins had not played his role to the hilt. You cannot escape those steel-piercing eyes and that flat non-emotional tone in his voice. And without him the movie would have been okay, but, not nearly as titillating. We have 'Dino De Laurentiis ' to thank for talking Hopkins into showing up in this great movie . If you want another point of reference re: this movie, rent "Manhunter." 1986 , Directed by Michael Mann which was based on the book 'Red Dragon ,' by Thomas Harris. This is our first viewing of Lecter, played by Brian Cox, but he is not nearly as mesmerizing as Hopkins. Ralph Fiennes ,(Frances Dolarhyde) , 'The English Patient,' ' Sunshine ,' is a very complex and scary guy and plays the new kid-on-the-block serial killer. And plays it to the max. Great actor! Edward Norton , ( Will Graham) ,'American History X,' ' Fight Club ,' is the FBI agent who has helped catch Lecter at a great cost. He retires only to be brought back to give some thoughts on the new killer. He is very spooked and has to do face to face confrontations with Lecter. And his fear is what drives Hannibal on...As he praises Will on controlling his fear. Emily Watson, ( Reba McClane) , 'Gosford Park ,' 'Angelas Ashes ,' plays the blind women that Francis befriends. Philip Seymore Hoffman, (Fredie Lounds) , 'Almost Famous,' 'Flawless,' is the sleazy reporter. And meets Francis. Harvey Keitel (Jack Crawford), 'Reservoir Dogs ,' Pulp Fiction ,' plays the FBI agent, who brings back Will to assist in the case. In conclusion, then, I really liked this movie and I give it a straight 5/5 ...
Rating:
Summary: A truly horrific prequel to the other Hannibal Lecter films
Review: "Red Dragon," directed by Brett Ratner, could be considered a "prequel" to "The Silence of the Lambs," in which Anthony Hopkins so memorably portrayed cannibalistic serial murderer Dr. Hannibal Lecter. Hopkins reprises the role in "Dragon." Here he is joined by Edward Norton as Will Graham, the FBI agent who puts Lecter behind bars. In this film, Graham seeks the imprisoned Lecter's advice in capturing another serial murderer, Francis Dolarhyde (played by Ralph Fiennes). Suspenseful and well-acted, "Dragon" is a superb companion piece to "Silence" and its follow-up, the way-over-the-top "Hannibal." "Dragon" contains some really startling, horrific scenes that match the other films in intensity. The film is marked by superb production details, including some really dramatic makeup effects. The story is well-paced. Because of the characters' shared history, the dynamic between Lecter and Graham is much different than that between Lecter and Agent Starling, the doctor's sparring partner in the previous two films. This new dynamic gives a different twist to the film. Norton and Hopkins are superb in their roles. They are joined by a truly amazing cast. As the murderous Dolarhyde, Fiennes shows us just enough of the man inside this bizarre, ritualistic monster. Harvey Keitel brings effective gravity to his role as Graham's supervisor. And Emily Watson is stunning as Dolarhyde's blind co-worker, Reba; this is a compelling character, and the humanity of Watson's performance really helps ground the film. To sum up, "Red Dragon" is a potent blend of horror, suspense, and gripping human drama.
Rating:
Summary: THE BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR!!!
Review: I went to the advance screening yesterday night and it was so awesome! The people who are saying this was a bad movie have definitely not seen it and are making assumptions. This movie was full of twists and turns. Keeps you literally on the edge of your seat! I love movies like this where they give you clues and lets the audience try to figure out the mystery themselves! Stars Anthony Hopkins, Ed Norton, and Ralph Fiennes. Won't say anymore than: It will keep you awake at night and conscious of who is watching you!
Rating:
Summary: Don't miss Michael Mann's movie!!
Review: Ignore the rating above, think I am too scared to see this version, and would not read the book or I might have to drink coffee 24/7. "Manhunter" with Will Petersen was very impressive, scared me to this day. I never knew anyone that saw it! Sometimes I hear some music that reminds of it -- eek. Was that Iron Butterfly? Yikes, I'm chilly just thinking of it.
Rating:
Summary: Now cannibals are widescreen heroes - help U.S.!
Review: I'm sad to say things that people should know but unfortunately often don't or don't want to know, but remember this: the action of "Red Dragon" takes place before "The Silence of the Lambs". Thomas Harris published "Red Dragon" seven years before "The Silence..." and tells the story of Will Graham, his real hero, the one who managed to arrest Lecter. At this moment, Clarice Starling is only a teen girl, still in her farm. So forget about "The Silence", forget about Jodie Foster, forget about Jonathan Demme, forget all about this film which takes place in a future, after "Red Dragon", also forget about the awful and useless "Hannibal"; and watch Michael Mann's "Manhunter" instead, starring William Petersen, Brian Cox, Dennis Farina and Tom Noonan, before watching its remake, let's not be afraid of words. Because this is one more Hollywood remake above all, before being a so-called 'prequel', and produced with an obvious commercial purpose. And frankly there's not much to think about the presence of too cool Brett "Rush Hour 1&2" Ratner behind the camera to direct such a movie. Because he's first a comedy maker, he doesn't know anything about the thriller genre. As a beginning, it's rather strong and heavy... Another sad thing to be said: America is more and more fond of criminals... on the screen. As Freddy or Jason, Dr. Lecter is about to be as popular as Superman or Lady Di. The best thing is, he's a cannibal...
|
