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

[Alex Spindler]

Richard,
As far as I know, blind people still need to know the time.
Seriously, they make watches for blind people. They announce the time verbally, and many also include a visual reference for people that set them.

 

[Brad Vautrinot]

Well, I stand by my original post and will add that Ed Norton was sleepwalking through this one. He was almost comatose. Perhaps the best review I heard was when an acquaintance said it reminded her of a made for t.v. movie. I'm not sure it was that good.

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

I thought Norton did a workmanlike job but I did feel that, like someone said above, he seemed to fresh-faced to be the tormented veteran. Had I not been impressed with Peterson in Manhunter, however, I'm not sure whether I would still criticize the performance.

 

[Tino]

Solid film all around. It amuses me that some people think that Red Dragon is a remake of Manhunter. Huh? Two different directors, two different screenwriters adaption of the same novel.
I like Manhunter very much, but Red Dragon is a more faithful adaption of the book which I read a few times so I will give the slight edge to Red Dragon overall.
It was a well made, suspenseful two hours. Ed Norton was fine, but I agree that William Petersen captured the essense of Graham better. The supporting cast was excellent especially Emily Watson.
Recommended.:star::star::star:

 

[Jason Hughes]

Wow. How often is $38 million a disappointment? Hopefully word of mouth will keep this one around for awhile, I'd love to see a fourth one. Forget what Hopkins said, he'll do another for the right amount of cash. Let's not forget he "retired" from acting after Meet Joe Black.

USA Today had a good article last week where Hopkins mentioned that he has written a fourth Lector movie. In it, Hannibal is stalking Clarice. She wakes up one night and finds herself tied to her bed with Hannibal sitting in the shadows. It ends with her gunning him down.

 

[Carlo_M]

How could Hopkins have written a fourth novel? Do you mean Thomas Harris?

Also, with the way Hannibal (the novel) ended I would find it hard to see how your spoiler would take place.

 

[Alex Spindler]

Carlos, I can only assume that a fourth novel would follow the storyline path of the movies and not the novel. Unfortunately, that brief story summary seems to be extremely derivative of Hannibal, only with a different ending.
Having watched Red Dragon one more time, I came away with one other issue. In the novel, as well as in Manhunter, it seemed clear that Hannibal was adversarial with Graham. The wording of every exchange seemed to emphasize this type of opponent relationship (albeit one that Hannibal respected). But consider that the Hannibal's entire motive in the film is to establish a confrontation between Graham and Dolarhyde that will finish the job he didn't. I even considered the possibility that Hannibal had been working hard to cultivate Dolarhyde into the killer he was (building off the twisted framework that Francis brought to the table) strictly with the intention of turning him onto Graham when the time was right ("...save yourself, kill them all").
In Red Dragon, I received nearly the exact same vibe as Hannibal had with Clarice Starling. He seemed to be more a mentor than an adversary, reinforced by the addition of them being collaborators. I suppose what I missed was that wonderful smug look on Hannibal's face that Brian Cox really nailed that showed him in control of the entire situation. I hate to draw comparisons between the three sources, but I felt that RD nulled that aspect through the acting and the additional scenes and dialog.
The intro also undermines the concept that Hannibal had been stewing over how Graham "caught" him. Because they had been collaborating, Graham had never had to hunt him down. Literally as soon as Graham figures it out, Hannibal has already dispatched him. It wasn't as though there was anything insane about Hannibal's actions that made him easier to "catch". The logic chain was pretty clear to the audience and to Hannibal. Graham just happened to be resourceful with some arrows and a fair shot while wounded. Of course, I suppose the exchange wouldn't have been quite as nice if it went:
"Well, how did you catch me?"
"You had...disadvantages"
"Which ones?"
"You had been working on the case with me and then, as you will remember, you stabbed me."
Also, I still think the score has all the subtlety of a wrecking ball.

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

Carlos,
Jason said he had written a 4th movie, not novel. I can only assume this means a screenplay.
I'll have to watch Manhunter again so I can better compare the two.

 

[Carlo_M]

Never mind, I think I found what you referred to.

It was indeed a treatment by Anthony Hopkins (the actor, NOT the author of the books Thomas Harris) which followed Hannible THE MOVIE - which was significantly different from the novel.

It's just an "exercise" as he describes it. So I'm not sure that would ever fly, or if it would be in the vein of Harris' concept of the Lecter character.

 

[BertFalasco]

I just want to add that I immediately knew that there was some significane about his wife killing D when she was firing at Harvey K.'s "brother's" shooting range and how it went into slow motion. Too much of a give away. I need to resee it. Since no one told me if anything occurred before the opening credits I asked a bunch of people at school. My friggin *%#bag friend tells me what happens and then says "Oh..sorry..".. I friggin said specifically and for their benefit and yet I still get shatted on. Why are so many people like this?

-Bert

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Definitely more enjoyable than Hannibal. Ratners's directing style was very pedestrian though. Compare the jail sequences with the SOTL and well there is no comparison. Demme staged his scenes in the jail so much better.

Still a powerhouse cast did an excellent job here. My only quibble would be with Norton's portrayal of Graham. He came off somewhat flat. The scenes where he was thinking out loud came off as very forced.

Like the idea of him and Fiennes switching characters - that might have worked better.

The tiger scene in the original played better as well.

More than anything else I wish even more that SOTL would have had a reference or two to the Graham character included.

I give it a 3.75 out of five.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I liked it well enough, and it didn't bother me too much that the filmmakers went for cha-ching and expanded Lecter's role (like somebody before said, he was only in the book twice).

 

[Dharmesh C]

Manhunter was never suppose to be a direct adaptation of Red Dragon, it's BASED on it.

 

[Jake Gove]

Every film that uses a book as source material is "BASED" on a book. That being said, both Manhunter and Red Dragon are "BASED" on the same book, and Red Dragon is a far superior adaptation of the material it's "BASED" on. Read the book ...

The reason Manhunter does not measure up is that it leaves out all of back story of Dolarhyde. That information is crucial to understanding the character. He's a tortured soul damaged by the way he was treated by his grandmother. Ralph Fiennes is infinitely better as Dolarhyde when compared to Noonan. I didn't believe that Joan Allen's Reba would "go" for Noonan's Dolarhyde, or even find Noonan remotely menacing. I did believe that Emily Watson's Reba would "go" for Ralph Fiennes' Dolarhyde.

However, I did like William Petersen better in the Graham role, and the way he was getting into the mindset of the killers. Edward Norton is too young to be the character as potrayed in the book, Graham seemed more like a grizzled veteran.

 

[Robert Crawford]

As some of us realized, "Manhunter" and "The Red Dragon" just took different routes in telling their stories with the former focusing on the Graham's character without giving the Lecter role more screen time then necessary while the latter focused on Dolarhyde, but also giving Lecter a greater amount of attention on screen and script wise.




Crawdaddy

 

[Jake Gove]

I'm just saying that Red Dragon is a far more faithful adaptation of the book than Manhunter is, and that's why, as a huge fan of the book, I prefer Red Dragon. Manhunter is not a bad film, it's just not as faithful to the book.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I agree with Tino and Matt Stone on this one (although I take people's word on how faithful the adaptions were).

I thought that it did have a Manhunter look at times so I'm not surprised to find that the same DP was used.

I love Norton and I could see where he was going with the character, but I just don't think he pulled it off as well as Will Peterson.

I also prefer Manhunter for the fact that its not really another Hannibal film. I like that the 2 stories touch each other (Manhunter and SotL) without being about the same thing. The new script does make RD much more like SotL 2 or something. I understand why from a marketing view, but I really sympathize with why Mann wanted no part of it.

Mann put together very good performances, and while the RD ending might be better, I think that what Mann put on the screen is a very interesting take on the story.

I won't deny Hopkins is great as Hannibal, and I actually liked how his scenes were done for this film. But I think people are too quick to dismiss Brian Cox's version. More subtle but also more believable to me. Manhunter seems much closer to reality than any of the Hopkins films, which all go for larger than life instead.

RD entertains though, and was well worth the trip.

I think I prefer Hoffman as the reporter slightly. He's such a solid actor.

Noonan vs Fiennes. Tough call, both excellent yet different versions. Noonan had that larger, oafish presence that was so intimidating.

In the end what we have is the true reinterpretation that is often talked about when we debate remakes. RD and Manhunter are like different versions of Hamlet. Each with plenty to offer and each with fans that think its the better version.

 

[Matt Stone]

But I think people are too quick to dismiss Brian Cox's version. More subtle but also more believable to me.

I've made the same argument in various SOTL/Manhunter/Hannibal threads. Most of the time Hopkins comes off as a comic book character to me. Some crazy evil-genius, and someone who could never have been a psychiatrist. Don't get me wrong, I still love watching Hopkins (especially in SOTL), but I think that Cox comes off a very believable psychopath, not to mention ex-psychiatrist.

 

[Paul_D]

Jake, great post, I agree totally, but for different reasons.

both Manhunter and Red Dragon are "BASED" on the same book, and Red Dragon is a far superior adaptation of the material it's "BASED" on. Read the book ...
The reason Manhunter does not measure up is that it leaves out all of back story of Dolarhyde. That information is crucial to understanding the character. He's a tortured soul damaged by the way he was treated by his grandmother.
I did like William Petersen better in the Graham role, and the way he was getting into the mindset of the killers.

I went into Red Dragon, wanting to hate it, since Manhunter has been one of my favourite movies for as long as I can remember. But I didn't. In fact, I loved it. It may have been the 2 cups of strong coffee I had before I went in, but I was so adrenalised for the final scene, my heart was pumping like crazy.
Look at Michael mann's films. They're almost always about the central hero. Character studies focused solely around the iner-torment of the central character or characers as in Heat. Now Manhunter is about Will Graham. He is the sole reason for the film's existence. All the peripheral characters orbit around him as the planets orbit the sun. Even the Noonan's Tooth Fairy, a vivid characterisation with limited screen time, is nevertheless a one-dimensional character with the dressings of a 3D character.
Now in Red Dragon, Will Graham is an exposition tool. He is by-far the least interesting character in the film, and all his dialogue is motivated by plot-movement. I thought Ed Norton didn't look the part. But that point is almost moot, because whoever played Graham this time round would give what felt like a second-rate performance, only because the script's focus is elsewhere. Red Dragon is a plot driven film, but by far the most developed character is the Tooth Fairy, whose been given a past, and a *real* motivation.
I still *prefer* Manhunter, because of Mann's direction, the marvelous visuals, Peterson's performance, and the fact that it's been a favourite for about 7 years already. But I was impressed by Red Dragon, and its certainly a better adaptation of the source material, and slots in better with the later films.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

I finally got around to seeing it last night, and while decent - it wasn't an extremely satisfying movie experiment.

The main issue I have with this and Hannibal vs SOTL is SOTL has such brilliant use of subtlety. IN almost every scene there are some subtle detail (lighting, score, sound, character inflection, mannerism, etc) that really made a giant difference in the reality and believable of the scene.

While the characters themselves make for an interesting story, I really feel that SOTL shines because of these small subtle elements in the hands of a competent director. With Hannibal and Red Dragon- it seems that they latched on to the characters from SOTL, believing the magic was contained entirely within them- when it was really so much more.

Too bad.

Vince