Red Dragon....

[Ash]

I just read Roger Ebert's review of this film and he gave it 3 1/2 out of 4 stars.  I haven't seen it yet but I can tell you one thing......I finished the book 2 weeks ago and I must say IT WAS AWESOME!!!!  IT IS A MUST READ and from what I've heard, the movie follows it very closely.  This IS NOT a movie about Hannibal Lecter and anyone going to it expecting it to be will be very disappointed.  He is merely a supporting character and in the book he gets around 20 or so out of 454 pages.

[Susan]

Don't always go by what one critic says. I don't know if i'm the only one who's notices but ebert damn near gives EVERYTHING 3 stars these days. Just check out his recent reviews on the chicago times page.

A place I like to visit that gets more of a "consensus" of critics opininions is:
Bored Movies

Personally i'm curious, it has an interesting cast. OF the 3 books I liked "red dragon" the best and it was merely an introduction of hannibal, really. I'm wary because
A. I easily get annoyed by details, anthony hopkins looks much older and this movie is a prequel of years prior to the first film. Plus in Hopkins became a charaterature of Hannibal in the last film (that movie was a joke anyways)
B. I honestly don't think i've ever seen a ralph feinnes movie i've liked?
C. All star cast movies scare me, sometimes they suck really bad.
D. Many who simply love the hannibal franchise might be giving it good reviews just because...hannibal is cool.
E. and perhaps most unforgiving - the director is responsible for the Rush hour franchise,.......And a mariah carey video.

But on the other hand Edward norton is fantastic. "Silence of the lambs" followed the book exactly and if anything I didn't like Clarices character because I don't think the author really understands women. That is a case where the movie is better because since it follows so close the film offers the visuals.

I loved the "red dragon" book. I never saw the "manhunter" movie, to my recollection. But I suppose I'll see this, even tho I wanted to throw a chair at the viewing of "hannibal" ;-)

[Ash]

In my opinion Ralph Feinnes was best as Amon Goeth in Schindlers List.  
    "Herr Commandant, I'm only trying to do my job."
"Yeah, I'm doing mine.  Shoot her here on my authority."
    "It will take more than that."
"I'm sure your right."     BANG!!!!

[Susan]

Ah yes, he was good in "schindlers list", but i haven't been a real fan of his movies since. And it's not just because he can't pronounce his first name! :)

I do enjoy Emily Watson. As for harvey keitel i just haven't gotten past all his "nude scenes" in films that..frankly, i never needed to witness.

As for the "hannibal" movie this is on the opposite end of the "guilty pleasures". This is a movie I detest ever being made as a sequel. I kept hearing how much people liked it, mainly because it went over the top with the brain eating I think and hannibal was cartoonish. For me the fear suspense came in the the "Lambs" movie because through most of the film we were afraid of the idea of hannibal. We saw to an extent what he could do, he was intelligent, seemingly a gentleman, but the depth of madness of reasoning behind the urge for him to kill and consume was frightening because I think it's our worst fear. That the boogyman doesn't always look like 'Buffalo Bill'. When you start to see TOO much of what the villian can do it takes away the fear factor. (prime examples could be in the numerous sequels of freddy krueger and michael meyers where the killing incited laughs from the audience) The book sequel (and movie) was an unecessary over indulgance in the violence of Hannibal. Less is more.

I think the author was too anxious at hitting the jackpot again and wrote a book that didn't need to be written. In fact the book itself was far worse than the movie for those who remember the proposterous ending..that was one read i wanted to hurl out the window. Few are aware "red dragon" was ..well not really a prequel but the book that introduced Hannibal, and is really a superior book.

[Chadzilla]

Red Dragon is an excellent novel, I read it years ago and still have a sharp, clear, and very disturbing memories of.  While I enjoyed both follow up novels The Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal very much, neither really grabbed you by the short hairs the way RD did.

[Ash]

I think that Ralph Feinnes is an underrated actor.  He is capable of enormous talent.  (The Avengers excluded)  I read the Red Dragon novel before I saw the theatrical trailer.  The physical look of Francis Dolarhyde I had envisioned while reading it was very different than what the movie portrays.  I saw him as an ugly disgusting looking pervert.  When I first saw the preview and saw Ralph Feinnes cast as Dolarhyde I was dismayed.  I then thought to myself that he does indeed fit into the psychopathic character and profile of Dolarhyde.  He looks inocent but evil at the same time.  Which is what the book went for.  Thinking on it now, I don't think anyone but him could've portrayed Dolarhyde.  Then again, I still haven't seen the film.  This issue is still to be decided..................

[John]

>I never saw the "manhunter" movie, to my recollection.

 I only recall parts of it, mainly the guy tied to a wheelchair, set on fire and pushed down the ramp into a parking garage. The guy in the garage hearings screaming and turns around to see this flaming guy rolling down the ramp.

[Susan]

I saw "the red dragon" tonite, is ok. It's no "silence" and thank god it's no "Hannibal". (I posted a review on my site) I'm curious to rent "manhunter" - if anything just to see an alternative lector performance.

And John, the firey wheelchair scene is in this movie too. And the guy in the wheelchair is Philip seymour hoffman!

[Anonymous User]

I just out of the midnight showing of Red Dragon . . . just wanted to let everyone know it is not that bad . . . Go ahead, let out that sigh!
Keep in mind that it is -- not that bad -- meaning it will entertain at the base level. Retner does not give anything to this film and it seems like he is merely a money making puppet who has yet to handle challenging characters. Most of the characters were already established, he just moved them like figures.
I look forward to seeing ManHunter tomorrow night (my intention was to watch them back to back but tomorrow will have to do) and I am interested how the other actors will portray Hannibal as well as the Tooth Fairy.
It did do it's job of entertaining in the month of Halloween.

[TC]

I own Manhunter and it's a great flick......except for the awful 'Miami Vice'-like soundtrack.  If you can get past that, you should enjoy it.

[Haze]

 It has been my observation  that people on the internet who have seen both films have a clear stand point depending on which one they saw first.

I was looking at a review from someone who saw Manhunter first and stated that Red Dragon was boring and wore out the abused and it's not his fault motive.

People who saw Red Dragon first seemed to think that the movie was fair to decent in it's work. People think it's better than Manhunter mainly because they have gotten so use to seeing Hopkins playing Hannibal and I conceed that I feel that way as well. Hannibal was a sociopath and Hopkins reminds me of one even when not playing the role.

But any way, I haven't seen either and it seems that the plot is alot like Silence of the Lambs anyway. I find that Silence is more than likely the best of the series although I enjoyed Hannibal for it's light weight and sometimes just plain cheesy play out. either way good stuff. I'll probably hunt down Man Hunter before seeing Red Dragon just because...

[Mofo Rising]

**SPOILERS!**

Well, I went and saw RED DRAGON a couple of days ago, and thought it was pretty good.  Nothing amazing, I still liked MANHUNTER better.

So I think everybody knows that RED DRAGON is the story that takes place before SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.  Hannibal is a supporting character in the film, most of it is about the special agent Will Graham and the killer Francis Dolarhyde.

So they both take their basis from the book, I'm going to have to compare the two movies.

First, RED DRAGON has the bonus of featuring Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal.  Brian Cox's Hannibal is a good performance, but there's a pretty good reason that Hopkins' version has become an icon.  He's spooky as hell, so that's a plus.  However, I think the current version is a little worse wear if you've already seen MANHUNTER.

MANHUNTER was very stylized.  It was made back in the eighties when director Michael Mann was fresh off of Miami Vice.  And the movie is very, very eighties.  It has that high gloss look to it, and a soundtrack to match.  But, if you can swing with it, I think it works to fantastic effect.  It sets its mood and keeps up with it.  (Although at times it does seem like a television drama.)  The stylized approach I liked a lot, as it seemed to bring more to each scene.  Compare the two movies where the blind girl meets the tiger.  MANHUNTER's stylized approach with the music makes it all seem very exotic.  RED DRAGON just kind of shows the scene, like here's the girl meeting the tiger.  The perfomances in both scenes are good, but in MANHUNTER it seems to have that extra oomph.

So back to the music for one second.  Lots of people bemoan the eighties music in MANHUNTER, but I liked it.  Check the "Strong As I Am" song when Dolarhyde discovers the girl (seemingly) with another man.  The score in RED DRAGON often seemed a little too obvious.  No need to beat us over the head.

And it's weird if you watch the two movies.  Some scenes seem to be shot in the exact same way.  Like the photolab where the blind girl works.  It's almost match shot for shot.

But in RED DRAGON's favor.  Both movies undervalue Dolarhyde's horrid development from the book, but RED DRAGON explains a bit more.  MANHUNTER changes the ending drastically, RED DRAGON keeps it.  But I sort of find the original ending unsatisfactory.  Movies have sort of trained us to expect a show down between the two principal characters (protagonist and antagonist).  When Dolarhyde supposedly shoots himself, we're let down as an audience because the two principalities didn't interact.  Then we follow up with the "he's not really dead!" scenes, which seem sort of a gimmick plot point.  So it seems kind of forced.  At least in the movie, I think it works well in the book.  But reading a book and watching a movie are two different things.

So I like the MANHUNTER version better.  Maybe it's because it's the first version I saw, as has been suggested.  The acting is roundly good in both movies.  I like Hopkin's Hannibal and I like Tom Noonan's Dolarhyde.  I still believe it's that stylistic edge that made me view MANHUNTER as the better movie.  I don't know.  It's sort of like Rattner just showed the movie happening while Mann actually told the story.  If that makes sense.

Sorry this post was so long, I don't feel like editing at the moment.