Red Dragon(2002)

$hubes

5/10

This was not an Edward Norton role. IMO, he didn't even come close to pulling off the role of an FBI agent, before or after Hannibal. It just didn't work. Aside from that glaringly obvious fact, this whole film was your basic FBI vs Serial Killer story...with Anthony Hopkins thrown in to add the Hannibal Lecter character, and nothing more. Do not go into this thinking this is a movie that involves the Hannibal Lecter character/person: It does not. It wasn't a bad story, mind you, just a plain vanilla storyline that someone thought they could sweeten by adding Anthony Hopkins' "Hannibal the Cannibal" character to it. As a movie, it was very ho-hum, not really anything to get excited about. Nothing to get angry or _"What a waste of my time"_ about, but certainly nothing to really get hyped about. Was it a waste of time? No, really, it wasn't; it was a good enough film but just way too much like any other run-of-the-mill .... I mean, watch the TV series _Criminal Minds_ and here you have a full-length episode that runs for almost 2 hours. That's it in a nutshell. Nothing elaborate, nothing drab or dull, but nothing really exciting either...and CERTAINLY nothing that involves the Hannibal Lecter character. This was just plain vanilla. Watch it if you have a couple hours to kill and you enjoy a good serial killer film; just don't expect a third "Hannibal" film. This was no such thing.

drqshadow

6/10

A very loyal, by-the-numbers adaptation of the first Hannibal Lecter novel, strangely saved for last in the Anthony Hopkins trilogy. It's about as direct a cut from page to screen as I've seen, which is refreshing, but something about the mood doesn't feel right. This is more of a procedural thriller than a psychological one, and that's fine if the screenplay is able to adjust appropriately. Instead, it keeps trying to push both sets of buttons, which makes this feel like two different movies under the same marquee. The lead casting is regrettable - Ed Norton feels flat and babyfaced as troubled ex-detective Will Graham and Harvey Keitel is terribly misplaced as Jack Crawford, his stiff supervisor - and even the more dependable act isn't completely up to snuff. Hopkins is a mild disappointment in his final turn as Lecter, over-enhancing many of the nuances that had always made him so harrowing in the role, and it's a reach to buy this as a prequel when he's so visibly aged in the interim. Ralph Fiennes is excellent as the madman Francis Dolarhyde, though, and Philip Seymour Hoffman nails his small role as a smarmy, mouth-breathing tabloid reporter. The film is mostly played for fan service, honestly, and at that it's generally very successful. It's far from essential, though, which is a shame. This could've been so much more with a better director and a few alternate casting decisions.

CinemaSerf

0/10

Retired FBI man "Will Graham" (Ed Norton) finds himself back working with "Hannibal Lecter" (Sir Anthony Hopkins) at whose hands, years earlier, he only narrowly escaped death - this time on the hunt for the elusive "Tooth Fairy" (Ralph Fiennes) who is running amok in downtown Baltimore using each full moon as an excuse to slaughter two - seemingly unconnected - families. Norton is great in the role; he treads the line between emotionally embattled agent and dedicated, almost obsessed, detective with considerable skill. Hopkins features less frequently, but still exudes menace as only he can and Fiennes, too, has a look of madness and evil about him that, alongside Ted Tally's adept adaptation of Robert Harris' novel, creates a wonderfully tense, suspenseful couple of hours of drama. It hasn't the style, or pace of it's 1991 sequel - but perhaps that's because we have had ten years to absorb just how potent these original characterisations actually were; but this is still is good watch combining horror and wickedness in an, at times, edge of the seat story.

Gimly

0/10

This might seriously be the only good thing Brett Ratner has ever done. I don't even mean movies he's made, just like, thing he's done. Ever. In his life. Doesn't live up to the book, or to _Silence of the Lambs_ (though that second part took me a while to figure out), but I watch this thing semi-regularly and I haven't gotten sick of it yet. _Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

John Chard

0/10

I am not a man. I began as one, but now I am becoming more than a man, as you will witness. Red Dragon is based on the novel of the same name written by Thomas Harris and is directed by Brett Ratner and written by Ted Tally. It stars Edward Norton, Anthony Hopkins, Ralph Fiennes, Emily Watson, Harvey Keitel, Mary-Louise Parker & Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Dante Spinotti is on cinematography and Danny Elfman scores the music. Red Dragon is a prequel to the hugely successful Silence of the Lambs. The story had already been filmed as Manhunter in 1986 directed by Michael Mann. The signs weren't particularly good for Red Dragon. The previous year had seen Ridley Scott tackle Silence Of The Lambs follow up, Hannibal, with tepid results. While at the helm here was the director of such fodder as Rush Hour 1&2, and of course Mann's take on the story is viewed as a grainy and skin itching cult classic. Nice to report then that even tho it's hardly in the same class as "Lambs," it's a willing entertainer that genuinely manages to unease. Firstly one has to get past the Hannibal Lecter factor to fully enjoy (and dampen expectations) the movie on its own terms. Lecter (Hopkins enjoying himself but going through the motions) is a secondary character. Important? Yes! But still secondary to Norton's troubled but gifted FBI agent Will Graham and Fiennes bonkers serial killer Francis Dolarhyde (AKA:The Tooth Fairy). Red Dragon is first and foremost a ripping good old detective story, with Ratner and Tally wisely using the bits that made Harris' novel such a page turning success. They have added their own bits of course {the pre-credit sequence involving Lecter & Graham sets things up perfectly}, but ultimately it's a loyal enough telling of a gripping and goose flesh inducing story. The makers have wisely filled the film out with quality performers. Norton underplays Graham nicely, a character unable to stay away from the job that threatens his family, he becomes an easy guy to root for as things start to get troubling. Fiennes too doesn't go over the top, in great physical shape and with piercing blue eyes, he exudes menace without resorting to being a cackling caricature. Hoffman was a shoe in for a weasel reporter since he does it so well, while Keitel, tho not having to stretch himself, offers up a stoic turn as Jack Crawford. But the main performance, and sadly unheralded, comes from Emily Watson as the blind Reba. With Reba acting as both a romantic and redemptive foil to Dolarhyde's split-personality, Watson gets the tough gig, and comes up trumps with an affecting turn featuring the right amounts of spunk, sadness and needy tenderness. It's a bit too polished to be a nerve shredder, with Ratner unable to give the film an atmospheric feel befitting the darkness at its core. But it does deliver on the promise of not only that opening segment, but also on Harris' fine procedural narrative. 7/10