Dragon rouge

Will Graham (Edward Norton) is a retired FBI agent invited to participate in the chase of a serial killer named 'The Tooth Fairy'. He asks Hannibal Lecter to help him to develop the profile of the killer and foreseen the next crime.

The original story of "Red Dragon" was terrific: Michael Mann's Manhunter is a violent and scary low paced movie, with well-constructed characters. William Petersen is great in this movie. This remake, with a greater participation of the character of Hannibal Lecter, famous actors and actress, and a different beginning and end is not bad. But the original movie is better and better. Therefore, why the remake? My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Dragão Vermelho" ("Red Dragon")

This film is about Will Graham catching Hannibal Lecter, and subsequently recruit Hannibal Lecter's help to solve a serial murder case.

"Red Dragon" is almost a copy of "The Silence of the Lambs", as both films feature FBI requiring Hannibal Lecter's help to solve serial murder cases. Both have intelligent exchanges of words, and both are thrilling. "Red Dragon", has a stellar cast, and all of them give memorable performances. I particularly like the performance of Ralph Fiennes; he is very convincing as a socially inept person.

Though "Red Dragon" is not as suspenseful and thrilling as "The Silence of the Lambs", it is certainly much better than the meaningless meanderings of "Hannibal".

Having seen the disappointing Hannibal, I was a bit reticent about seeing this. The original Manhunter film was simply on the edge and excellent, and another prequel could have gone either way.

Prequels are the fashion of the moment aren't they?

This was actually very good, and most enjoyable. Fiennes and Norton added much to the story, and were both absolutely excellent.

Hopkins gave the performance you'd have expected from him in his role, and this was also notable for a fine performance as Fiennes' blind girlfriend of the bird that appeared in the ever-so-nauseating and vomit enducing Angela's Ashes [which gave a whole new meaning to stereotypical grim films].

Don't be put off by Hannibal, definitely see this one.

This was a fantastic film, but it slipped under many people's radar for three reasons:

1) The critics said (and rightly so) that it is not as good as the Silence of the Lambs. However, I find it difficult to compare the films, largely because Will Graham (Norton) is completely different to Clarice Starling (Foster). The different dimension they bring to the investigation is enough, by itself, to distinguish them beyond comparison.

2) This was the third film in the series. The problem with the Hollywood pumping out an absurd number of sequels and prequels (even when the original film was terrible to begin with) is that it alters the public's attitude towards them. People are usually happy to see the "part 2" but beyond that, you're usually down to loyalists. In fact, this situation has been made worse due to the fact that many of the sequels made are shockingly bad (eg, the American Pie sequels, the Highlander sequels). Some are so terrible that they can actually tarnish the memory of the original (eg... Matrix Revolutions). So a third Hannibal film was always going to be an uphill battle.

3) This followed an awful sequel: Hannibal. People who thought Hannibal was terrible (and there's no shortage of them) are likely to turn their nose up at any further sequels or prequels. That's what Hollywood always overlooks - once you pump out one bad sequel (eg, Ocean's Twelve 2004), fewer people will even consider seeing the next sequel, unless it receives almost unanimous critical acclaim.

I did not like Hannibal either and I think that many stars in Hollywood would have turned it down after reading the script. Jodie Foster, with the offer of reprising her academy awarding winning role, and Jon Demme (director of Silence of the lambs) walked away from the Hannibal after disagreements with author (Harris) over the character directions. Hopkins nearly left when Foster and Demme walked, but was persuaded to stay (probably with a nice salary increase!). In any case, key elements were gone and in my view, they ultimately failed to attract a strong supporting cast.

By contrast, I think many actors would have been falling over themselves to land one of the roles in Red Dragon after reading the script. Accordingly, we ended up with Hopkins (reprising his academy award winning role to absolute perfection), Norton (who is the rightful winner of the academy award for American History X in my view, even though the academy went to someone else that year), Harvey Keitel, Ralph Finnes and the brilliant, but under-rated, Phillip Seymore Hoffman. They combine to breath tremendous life into this investigative/thriller. And the opening 5 minutes is magnificent.

However, I have two criticisms that cost it a star. First, it wasn't quite dark enough. Perhaps that masterpiece, the Silence of the Lambs, used up all the visceral attributes that were so pathetically contrived in Hannibal and present, but not powerfully present, in Red Dragon. There certainly was a dark edge, but it just didn't get under my skin the way Silence of the Lambs did (if you'll forgive the pun).

Second, I felt that there were a few off-shoots to the main plot that could have been worked around or seemed to play no real role in the film whatsoever. For example, the tense relationship between Norton and the reporter (Hoffman), Finnes taking the blind girl to listen to the sedated tiger (or lion or whatever it was), Norton teaching his wife to shoot ... and many others. Most of the time, I felt that they should have been left on the cutting room floor as they were of little interest, had little (if any) role in the context of the story and accordingly, unnecessarily bulked out the running time of the film.

Otherwise, terrific viewing. Don't be dissuaded by Hannibal - this sequel achieves where that one so dismally failed.

Of the Hannibal Lecter films, the best will always be The Silence of the Lambs to me, a masterful film and one of the best of its genre. Red Dragon is a remake of the 1986 Michael Mann-directed adaptation Manhunter and also a much more literal adaptation of the book, and again from personal opinion both are very good films, Red Dragon being one of the rare instances where the remake is almost on the same level as the original(though the two have components that are both better and worse than the other). All three films are vastly superior to Hannibal and Hannibal Rising, both of which were disappointing.

Manhunter has some things that are done better than in Red Dragon. It is generally grittier, more menacing and more atmospheric and the performances of Will Graham and Jack Crawford are superior. I personally didn't care for Edward Norton, who had the potential to be every bit as dark and haunted as William Peterson, but this was a rather ordinary and phoned-in performance which unusual for a great actor like Norton. Harvey Keitel is another talented actor but doesn't play Jack with anywhere near the same amount of heart as Dennis Farina did and seemed out of place.

Red Dragon on the other hand also does things that are superior to Manhunter. I am actually of the opinion that Manhunter is still a well-made and directed film, but the budget was noticeably bigger in Red Dragon meaning it has a more expansive cinematic feel and a slicker look. It may lack the wonderfully grim look of Silence of the Lambs, but it didn't look that clean to me. Danny Elfman's music score, while not anywhere near among his best, fits very well and is very haunting and energised, much improved over the rather dated and often out of place and intrusive music in Manhunter(my only problem with that film). Dollarhyde's also better developed here(though a little less frightening), giving the character some poignancy while not ever forgetting how much of a monster he is, with the relationship between him and Rena beautifully done and played.

Brett Ratner's direction is surprisingly good here, have never thought of it particularly highly as a director before but he brings suspense and palpable tension to the very engrossing and chillingly atmospheric story without letting the visual style get in the way. Performances are fine apart from Norton and Keitel. Anthony Hopkins reprises his most iconic role as Lecter and has the right amount of creepiness, nuance, sophistication and twisted hamminess without falling into cartoonish caricature. Emily Watson's Rena is superb and very touching, far more memorable than Joan Allen for Manhunter, and Phillip Seymour Hoffmann is amusing. Ralph Fiennes, despite reservations initially about him being too handsome and not imposing enough, is every bit as frightening as Tom Noonan, if not as much as a monster, and gives an emotional unstability that comes over in a way that allows one to sort of sympathise with him.

Other than Norton and Keitel, my only other complaints are the ending and some of the script. Not all of the script is problematic, most of it is tightly structured, makes sense and very respectful to the style of the book's writing, also managing to be dynamic and thought-provoking, not ceasing to be suspenseful or entertaining. The film definitely could have done more with Graham's character, who lacked the colour and dimension that went visibly into Lecter and Dollarhyde, Graham was too dull, too ordinary and too clinical to me here. More of a problem is that it starts a little too heavy in the exposition, some of it being written in a sloppy and over-explanatory way, as well as going for blunt maximum drama and throwing subtlety out the window. With the ending, the climax is rushed and ridiculously over-the-top and the end twist to me felt very tacked on and reeked of studio executive interference.

In summary, Red Dragon is a more than worthy remake to Manhunter and is a very good film in its own right. 8/10 Bethany Cox