Just saw "Red Dragon" (Caution.....really long post)

[wheresthecarrot]

Being a HUGE "Silence of the Lambs" fan, I'm suprised I waited until "Red Dragon" came out in our dollar movie theater (it runs movies about a month after they come out in other cinemas, 3 dollars, 1 dollar on Tuesday!), but that's how cheap I am.

I was not disappointed.  The acting was extremely well done, and the story held up pretty well in the transition from novel to film.  It was believeable (as believable as something like tht can be), and the cinematography was excellent.  Also good was the music.  Very appropriate suspence type music, but with a little something extra, very "Psycho"esque.  Actually, there was a lot about the movie that held close familiarity with "Psycho," right down to the old scary house and conversations Dollarheim (our "crazy guy"), has with his grandmother.  All in all, I think, taking only versions of Thomas Harris' trillogy in which Anthony Hopkins is Hannibal Lechter, the trillogy ranks in the following way:

"Silence of the Lambs"  You can't beat a classic.  That's the simple answer.  to delve into it more completely, SotL is much more of a psychological thriller.  There is very little gore, but an awful lot of suspence.  The acting was superb, and perhaps Hopkins' best performance.  The cinnematography was well done, though grainy and a bit too dark at times (the opening credits should not have been white, which rendered them almost illegible).  All in all, down to the music, it is an incredible film, and still my favorite.

"Red Dragon"  Relied slightly more on sensationalism and gore for effect, however, most of it was post mortem, in photo form, or reminicent crime scene blood stains (to me there is nothing creepier than old blood stains in movies, after the action has taken place).  Edward Norton (our hero, ladies and gentlemen) did an absolutely outstanding job.  There was a lot of psychological profiling going on as well with this movie, which is the interesting part, the "hook" if you will, to the Lechter trillogy.  A few good, though slightly predictable, plot twists rounded this out into a very respectable film.

"Hannibal"  Great film, don't get me wrong, but there were some big flaws in this one.  First off, "Hannibal" the novel was much too long to be made into one movie.  They really had to fight for time between Lechter being chased in Europe and Lecter being chased in America.  There was so much plot to get through, none of it was able to be treated with the care and detail of the other two films.  For the sake of the integrity of Harris' painstaking attention to detail, "Hannibal" would have been much better off as two movies.  Also, lost due to length was the gripping psychological aspect of the story.  To keep viewers interested, gore had to be substituted, which also sacrificed the integrity of some of Harris' work.  Well acted, the character did the best with what they had.  Also disappointing was the need to replace some of the characters in SotL, most notably Clarisse Starling, played by Jodi Foster in SotL, and Julianne Moore in "Hannibal."  The imagry was wonderful in this movie, and it had some incredible scenes, but it just didn't pull off the novel as well as the other two.  

Anyway, that's what I have to say about that.  Sorry if I have exhausted anyone.

[str0ntiumd0g]

I agree. Red Dragon was a top movie. A lot of people compared it to Silence of the Lambs and panned it but they should read the book. Of the three Red Dragon stayed closest to the novel which also didn't have any particular gore in it. They did sanitise the movie ending a bit and the inclusion of that little cheesy Hollywood moment right at the end with Lector and the arrival of Starling took the shine off an otherwise well done movie. I also agree about Hannibal. They did take a lot out of the book to fit it into a movie but it was still a great movie. Again though they should have left the ending alone but they had to put an open ending for another sequel.

[Neville]

Just seen it as well. What kept me from watching it the first weeks was director Brett Ratner, and the fact that I don't like "Red dragon" as much as the other novels Harris wrote on Hannibal. I wasn't dissapointed. Actually, I liked it better than the first "Silence of the lambs". I've always thought that film was too overrated. I mean, it is a good movie, but besides the acting there's nothing that extraordinary about it. I enjoyed "Hannibal" as well, because it was a complete departure from the first movie, and Ridley Scott respected the spirit of the novel (dark humour specially), plus offering plenty of eye candy.

About "The Red dragon", as I said, I really enjoyed it as well. Rattner has made a very good job, he has been working really hard on it and it shows. Actors were very good as well, and the script was tight and moved at the precise pace. My only complaint was that the background for Dollarhyde was drastically reduced, but since I still had the novel in my head, it wasn't very annoying. I also liked the introductory scenes where Lecter is shown free and how he is captured. Always missed that in the novel.

[wheresthecarrot]

The one thing that kinda made me angry about Red Dragon was yeah, the part at the end where starling came in....also, how there was no mention of Lechter's attack on an orderly, which is important in the other two films.

Also, in Hannibal, some of the sound clips they used from SotL did not match what was in the film at all, even though they were supposed to.  It was obvious that they had been redone, as the tone and voice inflection were all wrong.  

But yeah, that is still one of my favorite trillogies, both novels and films.

People who liked red dragon should also check out manhunter, which was the first attempt at red dragon, but with all different actors and things.  Im not sure hw many, but there are a few movies out there based on the novels that do not start anthony hopkins.