Dragon rouge

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.

Red Dragon takes place just before the events of The Silence of the Lambs. In this movie, a deranged serial killer is killing entire families every month on the night of the full moon. Jack Crawford of the FBI calls in retired agent Will Graham to help catch the killer. Graham left the FBI after being critically wounded while capturing the cannibalistic Hannibal Lecter. Now, Graham must interview Hannibal, to see if he can shed any knowledge on the case. Meanwhile, the killer struggles with himself when he begins to fall in love with a fellow employee. This movie is closer to Silence of the Lambs than Hannibal in quality and style, and therefore is more entertaining.

This movie is basically a reworking of the film Manhunter, except with Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal, so it connects better with the others. This movie sticks closer to the book than Manhunter did, which will please fans, except that it ads way more Hannibal Lecter interview scenes than were in the book, most likely to bank on Anthony Hopkins' name. The movie has the same suspenseful style as Silence of the Lambs, making up for the fact that Hannibal hardly had any suspense at all. The dialogue and overall fast paced style of the movie made it really worth watching, and if this movie had been released a year before Silence rather than a year after Hannibal, they would be great together. The characters are great and engaging. They seem more realistic than they were in Manhunter. I'm glad this movie managed to be far more successful than Manhunter, because I don't think I could deal with two bad Red Dragon adaptations.

The acting is superb. I was kind of annoyed with Anthony Hopkins in Hannibal, because he played the role way too differently than the way he played it in Silence. Now, in this movie, he gets back to basics. Edward Norton is great as Will Graham. The role of the Red Dragon/Francis Dolarhyde was made for Ralph Fiennes. He takes the role and makes it his own. Whenever I think Ralph Fiennes now, I think Red Dragon.

Overall, this is an awesome psychological thriller, and any fan of Silence of the Lambs should definitely see this movie.

7/10

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.

Only having seen "Manhunter" once, years ago, and not remembering much about it, I won't attempt to compare that film to it's remake, "Red Dragon". I've also never read any of the Thomas Harris novels that they are based on, so I won't compare them to the books either. But I will compare it to the other, more recent films in the Hannibal Lecter series, "Silence of the Lambs" and "Hannibal".

I think most would agree that, "Silence..." is a classic. It's one of those movies where everything came together beautifully. The director, the actors, the story, etc. It's to serial killer, suspense films as "The Godfather" is to mafia movies. I feel the only other movie of it's type to have even come close after "Silence of the Lambs"' release was "Se7en" with Morgan Freeman & Brad Pitt. So, it was with a lot of disappointment that I left the theater after seeing the long awaited sequel to "SOTL", "Hannibal". Jodie Foster didn't return to play the part of Clarice Starling, Jonathon Demme didn't direct, and worst of all, Sir Anthony Hopkins' portrayal of Dr. Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter was almost cartoonish. On top of that, the film was just "ugly". It felt nastier and dirtier than it's predecessor. More concerned with gore and blood than telling a decent story.

Well, I'm happy to report that "Red Dragon" has put the series back on track. This time around, Hopkins plays Hannibal, more as we first remember seeing him in "SOTL". meaning more subtlety and slyness and less of the scenery chewing and over-acting that went on in "Hannibal". Edward Norton is just fine as FBI agent, Will Graham, who puts Lecter behind bars and then comes out of retirement to help solve the case of "The Tooth Fairy". Ralph Fiennes gives a very creepy and effective performance as Francis Dolarhyde, so good is he IMHO, that I expect him to get an Oscar nomination for best supporting actor next year. It helps that his character is more fleshed out, pardon the pun, than Ted Levine's serial killer in "SOTL".

The director, Brett Ratner, has done a fine job of ending, (hopefully), this series on a high note. I say, hopefully, because as much as I enjoyed "SOTL" and now, "Red Dragon", one more trip to this well, will probably produce nothing but mud.

The only thing that stands in the way of higher praise on my part, is that it's a sequel, er prequel, to a well loved and admired film. We've seen some of these characters and situations before. The meetings between Graham and Lecter are good, but they don't enthrall me the way they did between Starling and Lecter. All in all, a fine job on everyone's part. It may not be as groundbreaking as the original "SOTL", but it has helped to wash away the "bad taste", sorry, left behind by "Hannibal".

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