loix

When I first looked up "Red Dragon" on IMDb, I also got hits for "Manhunter", which I promptly looked up. I was very much impressed with the good reviews this predecessor had garnered, and almost had second thoughts about seeing the remake. But after watching both versions a week apart from each other, I have to disagree with the numerous critics and admit that "Red Dragon" is a justifiable remake (unlike so many others).

Here's a (hopefully) politically correct way to put the comparison: "Manhunter" looks like a decent play, and "Red Dragon" is the better motion picture. I must admit I very much enjoyed the modern-looking and extremely tailored feel of the sets in "Manhunter"; the attention to the slightest detail (and lights, colors, etc) is palpable, in fact almost oppressive, and distracts one's attention from the characters, which might or not be a good thing.

But I couldn't help but miss the dear old Hannibal Lecter of the Hannibal trilogy, so masterfully--some people call it jadedly, but I don't agree--played by Sir Hopkins. His Hannibal Lecter has an intimacy in his tone, in keeping with someone who can see through people and privy to their most fiercely guarded secrets, and the threat that intimacy creates is so delicious. The rest of the cast on "Red Dragon" also delivered what could be expected from their stellar resumes, and didn't give off the feel of moving about a sterile stage set, weighting every single word in their lines (a second suffocating factor in "Manhunter").

On the other hand, I disagree with the critics' dogged recitation of the resumes of each person involved in the two projects, especially the directors. Some critics blame the "Red Dragon" on the director, whose "oeuvres" include the likes of "Rush Hour". While I couldn't sing praises of the directing (which I don't feel too strongly about either way), I prefer the organization of "Red Dragon", especially the pre-credit sequence, which I found very funny (no spoilers here), and the (beginning) credits themselves, where the story of the denouement of Graham's previous episode with Lecter is told through newspaper clips, as collected by Dolarhyde. These effects were achieved, maybe not as interestingly, by the heart-to-heart father-and-son talk in "Manhunter".

The music of "Red Dragon" is also much less in-your-face than the one of "Manhunter", and very much different in style. (The friend I went to see "Red Dragon" with disagrees on this point, but then she hasn't seen "Manhunter"!)

There are some cheap shots in the plot of "Red Dragon", which I cannot disclose without spoiling the movie for future viewers (and I won't), but even these flaws are part of what one can expect from a regular Hollywood movie and therefore forgivable. If one is ever in the terrible bind where one has to choose between the two movies, I'd recommend "Red Dragon" any day.

This film is a pleasant surprise in many ways. A surprise, in that it didn't fare better at the box office; it deserved much better. The plot is well thought out (a lot of "small" details play a role in the development of the story), the performances are good, and the actors look their age (i.e., the wigs don't look too phony). This is the one movie that taught me to look beyond the number of copies left on the shelves at the video store. Also, it surprised me that so many elements fused together so well into a single movie: it is a drama of a family (and their friends) strongly held together by their love, yet it also reads like a mystery novel where all the little pieces of the puzzle come together (and very well at that), and it is a very good thriller (I kept feeling chills for the characters even after I'd already watched the film twice and knew exactly what was coming up next). It has some element of a sci-fi, such as the very premise on which the entire story is base, but except for that, I wouldn't recommend this as a sci-fi movie. A little piece of advice for future viewers out there: STAY AWAKE. The very charm of this film is that almost every detail counts. Not all of them have equally far-reaching repercussions, but the director and writer seem to have seen to it that the story is told with maximum efficiency and subtlety. This might explain the lack of appeal to one-time theater audiences; it is indeed almost impossible to catch everything at a casual one-time viewing.

Finally, don't expect from this movie everything that a good drama has. If anyone asked me to characterize this movie, it'd be as a MYSTERY. The other components, might be there, but leave room for improvement. For instance, the characters, heroic and loving as they are, are a little bit too good to be true. But that is probably the one complaint I have about this movie. I heartily recommend it to those of you who enjoy a good thriller and can stay alert for 118 minutes.

Don't get me wrong: this isn't a great movie. But it was nevertheless an entertaining choice to while away a horridly rainy day. The stellar cast alone is worth a peek, and the sometimes funny camera work and "special effects" add to the merits of this film. Greatest of all is the title, however, which is (in my humble opinion) a bit too outstanding and eloquent a choice for the rather modest movie: I like the pun on the word "quick" and even the ambiguity of the word "dead" (you'll know what I mean when you watch it).