*** Official "RED DRAGON" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[rhett]

I thought MANHUNTER was more stylish but RED DRAGON was more balanced and had a better payoff. I will admit Petersen was better as Graham than Norton, but Norton still did an excellent job. I liked how they expanded Lecter's role in the film, it made it seem more complete than MANHUNTER. This was easily my favorite of the series.

 

[Mark E J]

If you're intimating that RD and SoTL are very similar, you can levy that accusation at the books, not the screenwriter. Yes they are different, but the story-lines are very similar between the two novels. So this isn't Ted Tally's fault, but Thomas Harris's

Actually I have to disagree with this. The most overt similarities between the Red Dragon movie and Silence of the Lambs are created by Tally not Harris.

In the RD book Lecter is a minor character making only 2 brief appearances. There is no prior relationship between Graham and Lecter before he is caught, and Graham only goes to see him once. When he does go it is not to get information from him like Clarice in SotL (Although that is the pretext Graham uses) but to just look at him. To try and recover the mindset of a killer so he can begin to profile the "Tooth Fairy".

For the script Ted Tally almost completely dumps the whole "getting inside the mind of a killer" aspect in favor of having Graham consulting with Lecter on ALL of his prior cases even Garret Hobbs. In the book Graham never even met Lecter before he goes to his office to get some background on a murder victim who happened to be Lecter's patient.

 

[Matt Stone]

I liked how they expanded Lecter's role in the film

That was one of my major problems with the film. It wreaked of selling out and trying to whore Hannibal a little more. That's just this man's opinion...but as someone who has read the book, Mark is right, Lecter's role was minor...and making it a major role just seems to be a marketing tool.

I also liked how Manhunter dealt with Graham getting inside the killer's mind more.

As for acting...most were adequate at best. I think Fiennes had the best performance of the bunch. I came in thinking that he was too "good-looking" to pull off the Tooth Fairy, but he pleasantly surprised me.

 

[Patrick Sun]

The pop cultural realities of getting a film made with a big budget of characters that the general public is familiar with dictates that if you put Lecter in a film, and market it as such, you'd better expand his role in the film version of the book, Red Dragon. I have no problems with this as long as the film remains engaging and suspenseful for an audience seeing the film for the first time.

Sure, you could spend another 2 hours showing how tortured Graham is over having to, ironically, "become" the prey he hunts to stop them from killing other people, but in terms of cinematic flow, I think it was enough to show Graham's dangerous and almost fatal "dance" with Lecter, his recovery, his leaving the FBI and "retiring" to a more sunny locale with his family. It was perfectly evident to the audience that Atlanta would be the last place Graham would want to be looking at the evidence of the handywork of a serial killer/rapist. Graham faced his tortured soul, and got past it because his conscience could not take the alternative, further killings due to his inaction.

For a 2 hour film, the screenplay moved well, and did enough to touch upon Dolarhyde's own sordid history, and filled in enough so that the audience would understand how warped he became. Dolarhyde's date with the blind woman is very creepy and suspenseful because the audience knows the carnage that he's inflicted on 2 families, and yet, here he is, having that same awkward first date that so many normal people go through every other week or so. You never know what will set him off, and that gives him a dangerous quality, and having him engaging with a blind woman just ratchets up the drama up a few notches.

The Lecter bits were definitely used to push forward the plot (and they did differ from the book) but the changes allowed for better pacing of the film, so I'm fine with the changes. Sure, it diminishes the "manhunter" aspects of Graham's character, but not to the overall detriment of the film. Remember, the film's called "Red Dragon" not "Manhunter" so the changes are totally in step if you want to focus more on the Red Dragon in the film, than Graham's "special" insight into the minds of the psycho's he tracks down.

Also, bear in mind, Lecter is the franchise in this trilogy, he's the catalyst/glue that ties these 3 films together, so having Lecter play a cat-n-mouse game with Graham in this "prequel" just sets up the next 2 film installments of the franchise.

 

[Jordan_E]

To add my 2 cents, RED DRAGON just felt a little pedestrian. It was all right, but Petersen's Graham seemed dead on, while Norton couldn't seem to pull off the internal struggle of having to "get into" the mind of the killer. I did enjoy the beginning and the coda of RED DRAGON, but I missed listening to Iron Butterfly in MANHUNTER.

 

[BertFalasco]

Let me start off by typing that I recalled reading about Ratner directing a long time ago when the credit appeared in the very beginning. (Did I miss a stellar opening that leads into the opening credits, ie: Bond? [I will be 17 Nov. 30th and these 2 guys were giving me and my home slices a hard time about the whole "sissy" Sweet Home Alabama ticket knowing damn well we wanted in on Red Dragon so we walked in as the credits were showing]) Really shows his versatility, the DVD should be tieeeeeeet, I love seeing out-takes from serious actors/scenes.
Can someone explain to me the damn toilet paper note.. Did Hannibal read it? Did Hannibal copy it from a letter and onto the toilet paper just to savor the compliments? Please explain in full detail, my friends would not shut the fackus up.
Once I left the theater and harrassed people at the nearby club and danced the ebony (Michael Jackson/Usher dancing) for the people inside, I thought, "Was this movie intending on being a realistic or unrealistic?" What I mean is, movies like Jurassic Park and Back To the Future are movies that are not realistic, they can not happen, as opposed to a realistic murder mistery who's elements are those that can be obtained through anything realistic (not like going through time or anything anti-realistic). So, what if D did not die. Would he live up to his little self glory evolution mentality? Would he really transform into the Red Dragon? Or was it just a state of mind. Never seen a movie that can lead into 2 directions such as this3. Everything up until the end was realistic, yet the plot was much more complex then what was shown.
-Bert

 

[Kenneth]

The toilet paper was explained in the movie that he used TP so that Lector could easily eat it, if he had to dispose of the note.

As to the "transformation" into a Red Dragon, clearly he was insane and this was part of his psychosis. Manhunter did a little more blatent job of explaining this in the "power of god" speach by Lector. The gist was two fold:

1. God kills and has power, so that if one does as God (kills) then one can eventually become as God.

2. Repetition makes truth, so that if one acts out being wanted and desired then one would become wanted and desired.

I had a question about the diary of the Red Dragon. Was this in the book? It seemed derivative of the diaries in "Seven" and I was curious if they borrowed the idea or took it from the book. Also, although Emily Watson and Feines were excellent I think more directors need to watch "Wait Until Dark" for how to handle suspense with a blind person.

Kenneth

 

[Brian_J]

Manhunter is a movie that stands very well on its own (and until SOTL came out, that's all it did). But, as much as I enjoyed it, the thing that always bothered me was how they changed the ending of the book Red Dragon for Manhunter. The Red Dragon ending is much, much better.

Brian

 

[BertFalasco]

Kenneth, I also need to know everything else. What was the ordeal with the piece ripped out and why did Hannibal save the note? Was it originally written on a letter? How did it get on the toilet paper???

 

[Andy Kim]

I thought Fiennes and Watson were really great.
I have a question about the aspect ratio. I was hoping that they would keep the 1.85:1 that they did for SOTL and Hannibal to keep a continuity but it appears Ratner filmed in 2.35:1. The trailers are in 2.35:1 and the theater I saw it at seemed to be 2.35:1 also. However, media clips that have been made available such as on the net and played on shows such as Ebert&Roeper show 1:85.1

I'm almost certain that it was 2.35:1. Can anyone confirm?
Thanks
Andy

 

[Neil S. Bulk]

Was it originally written on a letter? How did it get on the toilet paper???

It was written originally on toilet paper, so it would dissolve easily if Lecter had to swallow it.
Next time, tell your friends to shut up.
Neil

 

[Patrick Sun]

It was filmed in 2.35:1 (at least that's the projection ratio I saw yesterday).

Oh, just more tidbits from Entertainment Weekly:

The voice of Dolarhyde's mother or grandmother was Ellen Burstyn.

Hopkins said this is his final film as Lecter. He'll take home almost $20 million (salary and back end points). The film had a budget of $90 million. Hopkins gets bored of talking about the details of the characters. His eyes glaze over when that starts amongst actors and directors.

Norton kept challenging Ratner in the approach of the tone of his Will Graham character. Norton wanted less, Ratner wanted more.

Ratner didn't quite know how to handle the different thespian personalities on the set, like Ralph Fiennes'.

Ratner shoots a lot of takes because basically he doesn't quite have a vision of what he wants.

Ratner got the production designer from SoTL, and the cinematographer from Manhunter to work on RD.

But all of the actors enjoyed Ratner's enthusiasm, and they know he's humble enough to surround him with good people.

The 5 minute scene between Hoffman and Fiennes took about a week where both guys where basically nude (Hoffman had his underwear, and Fiennes had his big tattoo on his backside).

The producer offered Michael Mann a shot at the remake, but he passed, saying that he liked his film, Manhunter, very much. Mann's version was more of the "Will Graham" story from RD, while the producer liked that the new remake is more closely an adaptation of the novel. Michael Bay was also approached to do the film.

Lecter's role in the novel was only 11 pages, and just one visit from Will Graham. This was expanded to 3 scenes, and some of the details alluded to in the SoTL novel are included in film version of RD.

 

[Matt Stone]

Andy,
Yes...It was 2.35:1.

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

Nice tidbits from EW. I can understand why they increased Hannibal's role in Red Dragon. He's probably the main reason why most people are going to see the film.

 

[Matt Stone]

Thank god Michael Bay didn't direct it
Yowza!

 

[Alex Spindler]

I liked the film (may see it again as well), but there are just a few comments that I had.

I found Ralph Fiennes to be very very good in his role. I've always like Tom Noonan as Francis, and was very concerned that Ralph would be too good looking for the role. The brief elements of him in the trailer reinforced that. But watching him in action I was completely taken in. Every bit of his performance, from his shyness to his power displays, was very good. The tattoo was very good as well, and Ralph met the role physically very well (in a way that was very different from Noonan).

For the very first time, I feel that Ed Norton has been miscast in a film. He wasn't miscast in terms of talent, but just in terms of the role itself. He does well in many scenes (including the active quick thinking at the conclusion), but I could never buy him as a burnout of the FBI. I suppose the Petersen just nailed the role so well, but I was able to accept Ralph as the role because he got all of it right. I suppose it was just because Norton seemed too young and fresh. It almost seemed as though he was just as young as Clarice Starling, so I never really lost myself to him in the role. I'd like to think that this would seem apparent even if I hadn't seen Manhunter, but that certainly didn't help. His interplay with Hannibal was both good and bad. I never thought he sold the "You had disadvantages" section very well, but the opening had very good interaction.

Emily Watson was a great choice. I think Joan Allen nailed the role of a sexually aggressive woman who happened to have a disability, but Emily was a godsend for the nursing home confrontation.

I think both Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Mary-Louise Parker were complete mistakes. Both capable actors (especially Hoffman), I expected that they would be shining points in the film when they showed, but they destroyed many of the scenes they were in. I hate comparing them to their Manhunter actors, but they were both failures in that department. Hoffman wasn't sleazy enough to enjoy his fate, and made Graham's outburst seem very out of place in the parking lot. Parker also didn't strike me as having a clue why she was there, especially when she was trying to convince Graham not to go.

Story-wise, I liked that they included so much more of the book in the story (especially in emphasizing the painting). Expanding Hannibal's role was acceptable, although it was clear that they were digging back into the well of SotL to expand his role. Offering his rewards for cooperation when he essentially keeps telling Graham over and over again that he's already told him how to find him. I did miss the emphasis on Graham and his gift for understanding their minds, but what was left was acceptable.

I don't know if Ratner was a mistake, but he wasn't the best choice (in my opinion, of course). I think he fumbled some scenes, such as the "rush of fear" potential scare and especially the tiger scene. It never felt as magical as I thought is should, and I can't fault Emily Watson for that. But, my fears about him as the director were mostly wrong.

The only very bad thing about Red Dragon was the score. It was like a club against my head, and one of the most distracting things I've ever been afflicted with. Perhaps it's just me, but it was very amatuerish and was eclipsed by the score in all three of the other Hannibal films. Maybe it will seem better on second viewing, but right now I think it was cringeworthy. All the worst considering it was from Elfman.

All in all, not a bad film. If I could combine it with some elements of Manhunter, I would have liked it even more. As one of the very few people who really liked Hannibal, I'm placing this last. However, it isn't for lack of effort, and is a very worthy film.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Though I've seen Manhunter, it was many moons ago, and I did not want to make direct or indirect comparisons between RD and Manhunter, so I try looking at RD as film on its own merits, without loading much Manhunter baggage that many others have decided to load onto it. I think it's the fair thing to do. In that context, I don't have as many of the objections to the casting as others have for RD.

The cool thing about having both Manhunter and RD now is that 2 different sets of directors/actors/writers/etc took Thomas Harris's novel and spun their own take on the source material and given us two different films that vary in mood and characterizations.

Manhunter will always be the more psychological of the 2 films focusing on the tortured soul of Will Graham, while RD will always be about the hunt for the Tooth Fairy killer and how Will used Lecter to help him to stop the psycho.

While being more moody, Manhunter is also more dated, always tied to the 80's and that subtracts from its power when you watch it 15 years later for me. RD is, obviously, more fresh, has more ties to pop culture, and a built in familiarity, so that will either help or hinder one's enjoyment of it as well.

 

[BertFalasco]

Neil, calm down. I did tell them to shutup but they're stubborn bastards at times, and I was with 23 people. Kind of hard.

 

[Andres Munoz]

I liked this movie very much. Not as good as SOTL but better than HANNIBAL.

True, Norton didn't shine as much as he usually does but still, he was very good. Hopkins? What can I say? He IS Hannibal Lecter, lol. He made that role his and man is he good in it!

I haven't seen Manhunter so I can't make any comparisons. I guess I will rent it now. I'm interested in seeing the similarities and differences.

Can't wait 'till RED DRAGON is out on DVD. I'd buy the trilogy box set in a heartbeat.

 

[Richard_D_Ramirez]

For me, Red Dragon was an excellent film, considering I already knew the basic storyline from watching Manhunter several years ago. I still felt anxious of Graham's fate near the finale, since
watching the greusome "slicing" William Peterson's Graham went through in Manhunter was fresh in my memory.
I do have one question: Why does Emily Watson's character wear a watch? Was this an inside joke from the film makers? It kind of ruined the scene for me when
watching the tension Fiennes' character was going through when Watson's character was "feeling" the tiger at the zoo.
An excellent prequel/remake/third in a trilogy