Red Dragon (2002) User Reviews

Great prequel.

[theshadow908 · 7/10 · 12 July 2006]

Red Dragon takes place just before the events of The Silence of the Lambs. In this movie, a deranged serial killer is killing entire families every month on the night of the full moon. Jack Crawford of the FBI calls in retired agent Will Graham to help catch the killer. Graham left the FBI after being critically wounded while capturing the cannibalistic Hannibal Lecter. Now, Graham must interview Hannibal, to see if he can shed any knowledge on the case. Meanwhile, the killer struggles with himself when he begins to fall in love with a fellow employee. This movie is closer to Silence of the Lambs than Hannibal in quality and style, and therefore is more entertaining.

This movie is basically a reworking of the film Manhunter, except with Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal, so it connects better with the others. This movie sticks closer to the book than Manhunter did, which will please fans, except that it ads way more Hannibal Lecter interview scenes than were in the book, most likely to bank on Anthony Hopkins' name. The movie has the same suspenseful style as Silence of the Lambs, making up for the fact that Hannibal hardly had any suspense at all. The dialogue and overall fast paced style of the movie made it really worth watching, and if this movie had been released a year before Silence rather than a year after Hannibal, they would be great together. The characters are great and engaging. They seem more realistic than they were in Manhunter. I'm glad this movie managed to be far more successful than Manhunter, because I don't think I could deal with two bad Red Dragon adaptations.

The acting is superb. I was kind of annoyed with Anthony Hopkins in Hannibal, because he played the role way too differently than the way he played it in Silence. Now, in this movie, he gets back to basics. Edward Norton is great as Will Graham. The role of the Red Dragon/Francis Dolarhyde was made for Ralph Fiennes. He takes the role and makes it his own. Whenever I think Ralph Fiennes now, I think Red Dragon.

Overall, this is an awesome psychological thriller, and any fan of Silence of the Lambs should definitely see this movie.

7/10

I am not a man. I began as one, but now I am becoming more than a man, as you will witness.

[hitchcockthelegend · 7/10 · 8 August 2010]

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 thru 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

Good Re-Make Of 'Lecter Film'

[ccthemovieman-1 · 8/10 · 1 August 2006]

This is a very good "remake" of Manhunter" which was the first Hannibal Lecter movie but didn't get the press the others did because it didn't have Anthony Hopkins as the famous criminal. After "Silence of the Lambs" became so popular, and the sequel, "Hannibal," it was decided to re-do that first film and this time obtain Hopkins' services.

It worked because not only do you have the incomparable Hopkins at Dr. Lecter but you have one this generations best actors, Edward Norton, as the leading character "Will Graham." Norton, as always, gives a solid performance. And - look at the backup cast: Ralph Fiennes, Emily Watson, Harvey Keitel, Mary Louise Parker and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Not bad.

This is one of those movies that gets better and better with each viewing. On my first look, I was disappointed Hopkins didn't have a bigger role but, after I knew what to expect, subsequent viewings made me appreciate the film's effort as a whole, and it's an underrated flick and a fine addition to the "Lecter" series.

Nothing on Silence of the Lambs and the novel it's based on, but a decent thriller in it's own right.

[The_Void · 7/10 · 20 January 2008]

After the return of the infamous Hannibal Lecter to our screens in 2001 with Ridley Scott's film version of the best novel in Thomas Harris's Lecter trilogy, it's not surprising that a new version of the first novel in the series got an update a year later considering that it's previous screen version, Michael Mann's Manhunter, doesn't fit in with the other two films in the series. I do have to say that this version is both more true to Harris' novel and an overall better film than Manhunter; though it does have numerous shortfalls and has nothing on the masterpiece 'Silence of the Lambs'. The plot is quite similar to the one in Silence of the Lambs, and features a cop on the hunt of a serial killer and receiving help from the incarcerated Hannibal Lecter. FBI Agent Will Graham, the captor of Hannibal Lecter, is called out of retirement to help catch a serial killer dubbed "The Tooth Fairy" by the media. The killer has already slaughtered two families and the FBI believes that another one is soon to join them; meaning that Will Graham has no choice but to ask Hannibal Lecter for help with the case.

The casting is one of the things that many critics pick up on, and that's not surprising. Anthony Hopkins effortlessly slips back into the role that he will always be associated with; although he's far more comical here than in previous Lecter films. As anyone who has read the book will tell you, Edward Norton is completely wrong for the role of Will Graham as the role needed a grittier actor. Harvey Keitel is a great actor, but Scott Glenn from Silence of the Lambs fit the role of Jack Crawford much better. There's nothing wrong with the rest of the supporting cast, however, with Ralph Fiennes, Emily Watson and Philip Seymour Hoffman all fit into their respective roles well. There's not a great deal wrong with the plot pacing, although the film is a little slow at times and the book is much more exciting on the whole. Certain parts of the plot could have been cut out to streamline the film for the screen, although Ted Tally's screenplay is good in that it does encompass most of the important parts of the book. Obviously this film is always going to come under criticism for not being as great as Silence of the Lambs and it does have nothing on the book, but overall Red Dragon is a decent enough thriller in it's own right and I cant say I dislike it.

Another great film that slipped under the radar of most

[mattrochman · 9/10 · 3 July 2006]

This was a fantastic film, but it slipped under many people's radar for three reasons:

1) The critics said (and rightly so) that it is not as good as the Silence of the Lambs. However, I find it difficult to compare the films, largely because Will Graham (Norton) is completely different to Clarice Starling (Foster). The different dimension they bring to the investigation is enough, by itself, to distinguish them beyond comparison.

2) This was the third film in the series. The problem with the Hollywood pumping out an absurd number of sequels and prequels (even when the original film was terrible to begin with) is that it alters the public's attitude towards them. People are usually happy to see the "part 2" but beyond that, you're usually down to loyalists. In fact, this situation has been made worse due to the fact that many of the sequels made are shockingly bad (eg, the American Pie sequels, the Highlander sequels). Some are so terrible that they can actually tarnish the memory of the original (eg... Matrix Revolutions). So a third Hannibal film was always going to be an uphill battle.

3) This followed an awful sequel: Hannibal. People who thought Hannibal was terrible (and there's no shortage of them) are likely to turn their nose up at any further sequels or prequels. That's what Hollywood always overlooks - once you pump out one bad sequel (eg, Ocean's Twelve 2004), fewer people will even consider seeing the next sequel, unless it receives almost unanimous critical acclaim.

I did not like Hannibal either and I think that many stars in Hollywood would have turned it down after reading the script. Jodie Foster, with the offer of reprising her academy awarding winning role, and Jon Demme (director of Silence of the lambs) walked away from the Hannibal after disagreements with author (Harris) over the character directions. Hopkins nearly left when Foster and Demme walked, but was persuaded to stay (probably with a nice salary increase!). In any case, key elements were gone and in my view, they ultimately failed to attract a strong supporting cast.

By contrast, I think many actors would have been falling over themselves to land one of the roles in Red Dragon after reading the script. Accordingly, we ended up with Hopkins (reprising his academy award winning role to absolute perfection), Norton (who is the rightful winner of the academy award for American History X in my view, even though the academy went to someone else that year), Harvey Keitel, Ralph Finnes and the brilliant, but under-rated, Phillip Seymore Hoffman. They combine to breath tremendous life into this investigative/thriller. And the opening 5 minutes is magnificent.

However, I have two criticisms that cost it a star. First, it wasn't quite dark enough. Perhaps that masterpiece, the Silence of the Lambs, used up all the visceral attributes that were so pathetically contrived in Hannibal and present, but not powerfully present, in Red Dragon. There certainly was a dark edge, but it just didn't get under my skin the way Silence of the Lambs did (if you'll forgive the pun).

Second, I felt that there were a few off-shoots to the main plot that could have been worked around or seemed to play no real role in the film whatsoever. For example, the tense relationship between Norton and the reporter (Hoffman), Finnes taking the blind girl to listen to the sedated tiger (or lion or whatever it was), Norton teaching his wife to shoot ... and many others. Most of the time, I felt that they should have been left on the cutting room floor as they were of little interest, had little (if any) role in the context of the story and accordingly, unnecessarily bulked out the running time of the film.

Otherwise, terrific viewing. Don't be dissuaded by Hannibal - this sequel achieves where that one so dismally failed.

Michael Mann's Manhunter was better and better

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 28 July 2003]

Will Graham (Edward Norton) is a retired FBI agent invited to participate in the chase of a serial killer named 'The Tooth Fairy'. He asks Hannibal Lecter to help him to develop the profile of the killer and foreseen the next crime.

The original story of "Red Dragon" was terrific: Michael Mann's Manhunter is a violent and scary low paced movie, with well-constructed characters. William Petersen is great in this movie. This remake, with a greater participation of the character of Hannibal Lecter, famous actors and actress, and a different beginning and end is not bad. But the original movie is better and better. Therefore, why the remake? My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Dragão Vermelho" ("Red Dragon")

A Terrific Thriller!

[ackstasis · 8/10 · 6 October 2006]

On paper, it looked a bit uncertain. The long-awaited prequel to 'The Silence of the Lambs' and 'Hannibal' was to be directed by Brett Ratner, most famous for the two 'Rush Hour' movies (1998, 2001).

However, the final result is pleasantly surprising. 'Red Dragon' opens with a wonderfully suspenseful prologue detailing the infamous Dr. Hannibal Lecter's (Anthony Hopkins) capture, and the unbearable tension rarely lets up for the remainder of the film.

Lecter's capturer, Will Graham (Edward Norton), is coaxed out of retirement by Jack Crawford (Harvey Keitel) to help track down a ruthless serial killer nicknamed the Tooth Fairy (Ralph Fiennes), who is murdering seemingly-random families in their sleep. Graham believes that Lecter may hold the key to capturing this killer, and, in order to prevent any further murders, he must revisit his old demons.

The acting performances are first-rate. Hopkins is good (as always) as the cold, calculating serial killer Lecter. Norton handles a demanding role exceedingly well. Throughout his career, Fiennes has excelled at portraying loathsome villains (i.e. Amon Goeth in 'Schindler's List,' 1993), and here he turns in perhaps his greatest performance. The facially-disfigured, mentally-unstable Francis Dolarhyde is shown not to be an inherently evil killing machine, but an emotionally-troubled young man who is still battling the overwhelming demons of an abusive childhood.

Strong supporting performances from Emily Watson ('The Proposition,' 2005), Harvey Keitel ('Pulp Fiction,' 1994) and Philip Seymour Hoffman ('Capote,' 2005) round off a terrific thriller, and one for which widespread recognition is long overdue.

Appropriately Dark, Gory and Violent, It Also Feels Strangely Empty and Trivial

[drqshadow-reviews · 6/10 · 18 February 2015]

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.

Not as good as "SILENCE...", but better than "HANNIBAL".

[badguy-1 · 8/10 · 4 October 2002]

Only having seen "Manhunter" once, years ago, and not remembering much about it, I won't attempt to compare that film to it's remake, "Red Dragon". I've also never read any of the Thomas Harris novels that they are based on, so I won't compare them to the books either. But I will compare it to the other, more recent films in the Hannibal Lecter series, "Silence of the Lambs" and "Hannibal".

I think most would agree that, "Silence..." is a classic. It's one of those movies where everything came together beautifully. The director, the actors, the story, etc. It's to serial killer, suspense films as "The Godfather" is to mafia movies. I feel the only other movie of it's type to have even come close after "Silence of the Lambs"' release was "Se7en" with Morgan Freeman & Brad Pitt. So, it was with a lot of disappointment that I left the theater after seeing the long awaited sequel to "SOTL", "Hannibal". Jodie Foster didn't return to play the part of Clarice Starling, Jonathon Demme didn't direct, and worst of all, Sir Anthony Hopkins' portrayal of Dr. Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter was almost cartoonish. On top of that, the film was just "ugly". It felt nastier and dirtier than it's predecessor. More concerned with gore and blood than telling a decent story.

Well, I'm happy to report that "Red Dragon" has put the series back on track. This time around, Hopkins plays Hannibal, more as we first remember seeing him in "SOTL". meaning more subtlety and slyness and less of the scenery chewing and over-acting that went on in "Hannibal". Edward Norton is just fine as FBI agent, Will Graham, who puts Lecter behind bars and then comes out of retirement to help solve the case of "The Tooth Fairy". Ralph Fiennes gives a very creepy and effective performance as Francis Dolarhyde, so good is he IMHO, that I expect him to get an Oscar nomination for best supporting actor next year. It helps that his character is more fleshed out, pardon the pun, than Ted Levine's serial killer in "SOTL".

The director, Brett Ratner, has done a fine job of ending, (hopefully), this series on a high note. I say, hopefully, because as much as I enjoyed "SOTL" and now, "Red Dragon", one more trip to this well, will probably produce nothing but mud.

The only thing that stands in the way of higher praise on my part, is that it's a sequel, er prequel, to a well loved and admired film. We've seen some of these characters and situations before. The meetings between Graham and Lecter are good, but they don't enthrall me the way they did between Starling and Lecter. All in all, a fine job on everyone's part. It may not be as groundbreaking as the original "SOTL", but it has helped to wash away the "bad taste", sorry, left behind by "Hannibal".

Not bad but nothing special

[rosscinema · 6/10 · 13 October 2002]

You can't help but to keep thinking of Manhunter and I went into this film thinking what did they have to offer that the first version didn't already do on another level? Well, it is more faithful to the book. There's no denying that. But Manhunter is clearly a much more superior film. Lecter's role is of course expanded and thats okay but lets compare the rest of the film. Edward Norton and William Petersen. Petersen's Will Graham is a very complex person with psychological problems and his family also suffers because of it. Norton's version has none of that, he's just dutiful to his job. Mary Louise Parker as his wife just sits there and nods her head! Where was the development of her character? The biggest flaw for me was Ralph Fiennes as Dolarhyde. Fiennes is really not very tall. In fact when he stands next to the wee Emily Watson he's not that much taller. Tom Noonan was a much better Dolarhyde. He stands like 6'7" or something, a real monstrous presence. Fiennes is maybe 5'9", MAYBE!! And now to Brett Ratner. He does a decent job here but does this film have any real style or vision? Not really, and we all know Michael Mann is a genius with his visionary style. Noonan's character was a real monster. Fiennes seems to come off as just a kook. While I didn't dislike this film, it just seems to be made by the numbers. It looks good, has great actors and is faithful to the original story. But where is the heart and vision? Manhunter had all of that, and more.

A Very Well Done Prequel

[KillerLord · 10/10 · 5 October 2008]

The Silence of the Lambs introduced to us among the most complicated characters of all times - Dr. Hannibal Lecter, brilliantly played by Anthony Hopkins. The portrayal was so strong that one would have felt that there was a need to remake the Manhunter and so it was done - The Red Dragon is worthy remake this time with Anthony Hopkins in another brilliant portrayal as Dr. Lecter. But this movie is different from Silence of the Lambs in many ways. I would not prefer making the comparison and lowering credit for this movie because it is different from the Silence of the Lambs.

Let us have a small comparison to begin with. The Silence of the Lambs is more about Agent Starling and her interaction with Dr. Lecter rather than about the man they are trying to catch. Dr. Lecter's interest in the FBI trainee and Starling's apprehension of dealing with a man of Hannibal's reputation is the central theme of the Silence of the Lambs. We are not keen on exploring the past evolution of the Buffalo Bill character. He only defines the purpose that brings the two central characters together. On the other hand, the Red Dragon is more about the guy they are trying to catch and also the intense feelings the two lead characters have for each other. Hannibal was scary in the first movie and a great part of the scariness came because Starling was scared of him as well. But here you have Will Graham who is not completely scared of him though discomforted by his presence. Will Graham is more bold and straight in his approach making Hannibal's presence less effective but that is how it ought to be because somebody who has faced the worst with Hannibal already cannot be expected to fear him as much as an FBI trainee with a troubled past. Moreover, Will Graham also has a similar gift like Lecter which allows him to explore minds other than his own. So, honestly, the fear and tension of Silence of the Lambs will not be found here. But I feel that this toe-to-toe standing up of Lecter and Graham to each other is the treat of this movie.

The character who is being chased is a complex character indeed. He has emotions but is disturbed enough to commit brutal crimes to bring about what he believes to be the most important transformation in his life. He is not an average serial killer who is killing out of sadistic motives. He has a complex motive and the very attempt to step inside his shoes and imagine what he is thinking is a thrill. Ralph Fiennes fits the role of Francis Dolyerhyde beautifully. His love interest Reba again wonderfully played by Emily Watson plays a very important few minutes on screen as well. Overall, he proves himself to be a complex and a scary villain in his own right.

The direction of the movie is very decent. A changed director can easily lead to a steep fall of the effectiveness of the franchise. But Brett Ratner does a wonderful job. The way the first scene has been shot is simply brilliant. The camera shows a crowd and there is something about the way it has been done but your eyes cannot but catch hold of Lecter sitting in the middle and his expressions are so rich.

Overall, I loved the movie and I think that down rating it because it does not have the element of fear that Silence of the Lambs had is not fair. I cannot think of a better way of doing this movie. I simply love it when Hannibal finds a near equal in Will Graham and deep down inside knows that he are Will are matched rivals.

A splendid movie indeed! My personal all time favorite.

Unnecessary

[gabrielbergmoser · 6/10 · 6 April 2007]

There are many reasons for remaking a classic, apart from just making money. These reasons include contemporary relevance (War of the Worlds), the original was the directors favorite film (King Kong), experimentation (Psycho), re imagining the original (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) and a 6/6/06 release date (The Omen). However, one of the worst reasons ever is so that Anthony Hopkins can replace Brian Cox and take the originals place in a classic horror franchise.

Manhunter is a classic, as is The Silence of the Lambs. The problem is that Anthony Hopkins is more well known as Hannibal Lecter, and as such he needs to appear in the 'official' Manhunter remake, rendering the original obsolete in the series.

So how is the film anyway? Well, it goes without saying that Manhunter was far better. As far as remakes go, Red Dragon is OK, but nowhere near as good as the original two.

Anthony Hopkins is terribly overused. His performance is good, but his effect in the previous films came from his hardly appearing.

Edward Norton is good in his simple everyman role, and Harvey Keitel brings a solid supporting character. Ralph Fiennes is an excellent villain, easy to both detest and feel sorry for.

The direction is par, without any of the style of the previous films. The script is very good, keeping close to the novel.

In all, Red Dragon is a good film, but wholly unnecessary. Stick with the brilliant Manhunter.

Joins van Sant's "Psycho" on the Growing List Of Horrible Remakes.

[Vassago · 1/10 · 30 September 2002]

I knew "Red Dragon" would never match "Manhunter", but I had some faint hope that it might turn out not *too much* worse, and that it might preserve some of the spirit of the book, in spite of Brett Rush Hour's directing.

Unfortunately, it's on par with Gus van Sant's remake of "Psycho". It's painfully clear, too clear, that the only reason for its making were the dollar signs in Dino de L.'s eyes. It's a (bad) school play on the steroids of a big budget. Everyone, literally everyone in the film is stiff and wooden, except for Hopkins, who is hammy.

Where Brian Cox was caged evil, Hopkins is a clown. Where William Petersen was a tormented agent, Norton is a bored yuppie. Where Tom Noonan portrayed a man of a demented yet fascinating psyche, Fiennes is a bumbling cartoony villain who behaves like a village idiot and seems as dangerous as a bumblebee, while pitifully trying to look like Harrison Ford. Keitel chews his dialogue as if to say "let's get this trash done and go home already".

The dialogue is lifted from "Manhunter" and sometimes (less often) from the book, and I felt extremely bored, because every minute I knew exactly what would follow and what words would be said. The few scenes that were thrown in The ridiculous, ubercliched "Jason Voorhees syndrome" ending doesn't help much, either.

Of course, Manhunter had *a real director*, and a damn good one, too - Michael Mann, one of the few directors who have *and care for* their artistic visions; Brett Rush Hour cared primarily for the check, apparently.

Suspenseful

[Gordon-11 · 4 December 2008]

This film is about Will Graham catching Hannibal Lecter, and subsequently recruit Hannibal Lecter's help to solve a serial murder case.

"Red Dragon" is almost a copy of "The Silence of the Lambs", as both films feature FBI requiring Hannibal Lecter's help to solve serial murder cases. Both have intelligent exchanges of words, and both are thrilling. "Red Dragon", has a stellar cast, and all of them give memorable performances. I particularly like the performance of Ralph Fiennes; he is very convincing as a socially inept person.

Though "Red Dragon" is not as suspenseful and thrilling as "The Silence of the Lambs", it is certainly much better than the meaningless meanderings of "Hannibal".

Behold I See A Great Red Dragon

[DylansFearFiles · 6/10 · 17 February 2009]

This is a loose remake of the critically-acclaimed film, Manhunter. Which was based on the book that Dr. Hannibal Lecter first appeared in, Red Dragon, by the New York Times bestselling author, Thomas Harris. This, I have to say, though many will disagree with me, is an equal match to its original and better than The Silence of the Lambs.

To compare this to Manhunter is a completely unfair comparison. The two are very different. But, the two are both masterpieces of the thriller genre.

Michael Man (Manhunter) used music and acting to accelerate the tension of his film. Brett Ratner uses good acting and gritty cinematography to create suspense and tension. Both Hannibal Lecters were great (Anthony Hopkins and Brian Cox), as well as both Francis Dolarhydes (Ralph Fiennes and Tom Noonan), though Tom Noonan was scarier than Fiennes, but I found Fiennes as more sympathetic and tortured. Edward Norton also did a fine job, but did not come even close to recreating the Will Graham that William Peterson portrayed in Manhunter and the Graham that Thomas Harris created in his novel.

The plot of the film is very similar to The Silence of the Lambs. Will Graham (Edward Norton) is a retired FBI profiler who worked under Jack Crawford (Harvey Kietel). Graham retired after capturing the diabolical and cannibalistic psychiatrist, Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins). Now Graham is called by into the job by Crawford to aid in the capture of a ritual killer that brutally murders entire families called the Tooth Fairy (Ralph Fiennes). Graham decides to seek Dr. Lecter's help in catching the Tooth Fairy.

Their is also a subplot about the tortured killer, Francis Dolarhyde. Dolarhyde was shaped by his traumatic early life into a human monster and also idolizes Hannibal Lecter. He also has an obsession with the William Blake painting, The Great Red Dragon and the Women Clothed In Sun. Francis Dolarhyde knows that Will Graham is coming and he intends to stop him. By killing, Dolarhyde believes, he can become the Dragon. But now Dolarhyde's killing spree is put on hold when he falls in love with a blind co worker, Reba McClane (Emily Watson). Will he stop his murder spree and his search for Graham or will he become the Dragon? This film is sure to please the fans of The Silence of the Lambs.

There is quite a bit of "battle" going around about which cast was better. But that can't be decided by them, but you as the viewer. Please, sit back and see what Dr. Hannibal Lecter is up to this time in Red Dragon. If you enjoy this film, I recommend you the original novel as well as the original version of this film, Manhunter.

Much better!

[redkiwi · 8/10 · 6 November 2002]

Having seen the disappointing Hannibal, I was a bit reticent about seeing this. The original Manhunter film was simply on the edge and excellent, and another prequel could have gone either way.

Prequels are the fashion of the moment aren't they?

This was actually very good, and most enjoyable. Fiennes and Norton added much to the story, and were both absolutely excellent.

Hopkins gave the performance you'd have expected from him in his role, and this was also notable for a fine performance as Fiennes' blind girlfriend of the bird that appeared in the ever-so-nauseating and vomit enducing Angela's Ashes [which gave a whole new meaning to stereotypical grim films].

Don't be put off by Hannibal, definitely see this one.

Stupidly entertaining

[Leofwine_draca · 7/10 · 1 February 2013]

RED DRAGON is a prequel to THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, featuring Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal 'the Cannibal' in a supporting role. It was made ten years after SILENCE and boy, does Hopkins look a lot older (and bigger) despite the best efforts to disguise it.

If you can get over this bizarre turn of events, then you might just find yourself enjoying RED DRAGON, which is a damn sight better than Ridley Scott's over-the-top slice of Grand Guignol sequel, HANNIBAL. I should mention that Thomas Harris' novel was already adapted back in the 1980s as MANHUNTER, a much different adaptation. I'd say that both are equally entertaining with their own merits and detractions.

RED DRAGON benefits from a typically intense and dedicated turn from Edward Norton as the criminologist hunting down a serial killer, played with eerie relish by Ralph Fiennes (much more effective than he was as Voldemort). Hopkins is unusually subdued and relegated to the sidelines, except in the outstanding opening sequence which makes little sense but really works as a piece of cinematic spectacle.

The format of the movie follows that of a typical police procedural for the most part, with a particular emphasis on the psychology of murder. There are also a handful of stand-out set-pieces, including a ferocious bit involving a wheelchair which has to be seen to be believed. Things build to an appropriately frenetic climax and as a whole RED DRAGON is a success.

This first serving of Hannibal may prove to be the best

[tinmra · 9/10 · 2 October 2002]

The movie going public is obviously well acquainted with the most famous serial killer, cannibal, in cinematic history, Hannibal Lecter. In 2002's 'RED DRAGON,' Hannibal is back with force and vengeance, thanks to the brilliant portrayal of Sir Anthony Hopkins and inspired writing of screenwriter Ted Tally. He's got some of the best lines in the business. 'RED DRAGON,' for the most part is a remake of Michael Mann's 1986 'Manhunter.' Obviously there isn't a lot of variation between the two since they are both adaptations of Thomas Harris' book 'RED DRAGON.' But that is were the simularity ends. Sure, some scenes are structed the same, but to be fair this latest installment is closer and more true to the novel. For those that read the book or saw 'Manhunter,' it's no surprise that Hannibal had a rather small role. Ted Tally took some license and beefed up the character for some crucial scenes, adding a very interesting and inventive twist. From the onset, we see the capture of Hannibal by FBI Agent Will Graham, played flawlessly this time around by Edward Norton. We are also privy to a rather more intense Lecter, anger and resentment for being caught and put away. Hopkins doesn't need to do much to convey his distaste for Graham, the true talent of an excellent actor. Lecter is not over the top as many say he was in the third film 'HANNIBAL.' But this is really not a Lecter story. It is focused more on Graham and the new killer on the block, Francis Dolarhyde (played to an eeriely perfection by Ralph Fiennes). One not of advisement, if 'The Silence Of The Lambs', or 'Hannibal,' gave you nightmares, you may not be prepared for 'Dragon.' It is absolutely brutal in it's visuals and psychological mind games. Dolarhyde, aka the 'Tooth Fairy' is a brutal serial killer who has killed two families and may be on the hunt for a third. It is this that brings Jack Crawford (Harvey Keitel) on the quest to seek out a retired Graham. Reluctantly, Graham decides to help with the investigation. Graham does possess a certain gift, he can think like the killer. But it does cause a dilemma. The one person that could really give our detective the insight he needs is the one man who tried to kill him, Lector. As Clarice in 'Silence' Graham must once again delve into Lecter's world of the asylum. Frederick Chilton is back as the head of the asylum, again played by Anthony Heald (the 'old friend for dinner' guy). Heald is an absolute delight in a awkward sort of way. He's definetly a one off. Basically, he's not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. Possibly the most disturbing character of the film is played by Fiennes. He is essentially a sympathetic killer, and yet you really want to see this guy go down. Fiennes is stunning in this role and adds his own spark to the role. Emily Watson plays Fiennes uninformed love interest who happens to be blind, lucky for her. Philip Seymour Hoffman is the sleazy tabloid reporter who in time is destined to get his comupance. It is really unfortunate that the Academy Awards does not hand out status to ensemble casts. If they did, 'RED DRAGON,' would probably be the only nomination in the catagory. There hasn't been a cast like this in many years. There is an equal balance between the three main characters, Lecter, Graham, and Dolarhyde. Lecter was in it just enough to keep it constantly fresh and on edge. Dolarhyde takes it over the edge and Graham brings it subtly back. Brett Ratner as the director did an excellent job in setting the scenes, the creepy atmosphere, and letting the actors do what they do best. This film is a winner all the way around. If any thriller were put up against 'Silence,' this may be the one that could surpass it in regards to thrills, chills and just plain excellent storytelling. Though the 4 movies are destined to be lumped together, 'Manhunter,' 'The Silence Of The Lambs,' 'Hannibal,' and now 'The Red Dragon,' which is completely understandable, 'Dragon' stands on it's own. And does so extremely well. This movie is obviously not for everyone. There is graphic violence that is disturbing. Yet in this vehicle it is not overplayed as say, your average slasher movie. If you're going to plunk down your hard earned cash for a movie, 'Red Dragon,' is the one. It is a good solid interesting movie that never lets go. Once it's got you, it's got you. And that ride starts as the lights in the theater go down. There's not too many movies that can boast that.

T. Mrazik

Take a bite out of crime

[=G= · 7/10 · 6 April 2003]

"Red Dragon", a prequel sequel (or something like that) to "Silence of the Lambs", keeps Hannibal (Hopkins) in his cell while it pushes an FBI Agent (Norton) and a new whacko cannibalistic nemesis D. aka "The Tooth Fairy" (Finnes) into the spotlight. The film is seems somewhat more contrived than it's trio of siblings and may be somewhat the lesser member of the family. Nonetheless, it features lots of star power, solid stylistics, a hook at the end, and dovetails neatly with "Silence...". Recommended for Hannibal fans, cannibals, and those into flicks about psychos killers. (B)

Better than "Hannibal", but not up with "Silence of the Lambs"

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 9/10 · 7 September 2004]

But it was pretty damn close. "Red Dragon" was a great movie to watch. I have to admit that I had my doubts. I heard some bad things about this movie from my friends. I had bought the movie for my mom, and she said just to give it a shot. I'm glad I did. "Red Dragon" goes back into the roots that "Silence of the Lambs" did. It had high action and drama. I was very impressed. And Anthony Hopkins does a great job as his most famous role as Hannibal Lector. I really have to say that I didn't stick to my friend's opinions. This was a great movie. I would recommend for the "Silence of the Lambs" fans.

9/10

Overall, a worthy prequel

[Chris_Docker · 7/10 · 7 October 2002]

Silence of the Lambs was generally regarded as an excellent and scary movie. The follow up was laughably below par. Lots of good material out there though – what about a prequel? It will have to be good! Enter, stage left, Anthony Hopkins, Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes, Harvey Keitel, Emily Watson. With that amount of actor talent rising to the challenge you could be forgiven for thinking it could hardly fail and, in this case, you would be right. Whilst not quite on a par with ‘Lambs', this new version of the Red Dragon / Tooth Fairy story comes complete with plenty of excellent shocks, both of the predictable and of the less-predictable, edge-of-seat-white-knuckle variety.

FBI agent Will Graham (Edward Norton) seeks the help of Dr. Hannibal ‘The Cannibal' Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) to help solve a series of gruesome serial killings. Hopkins turns in the adequate performance that he has perfected beforehand – sufficient for this Saturday-night shock-fest even if it's not up to the standard of his greatest work – the sensitive nuances of Shadowlands, the multi-faceted and memorable characterisation of Amistad, or the sheer newness of the present character from ‘Lambs'. His performance is nicely served up, but we know that it is ‘one he has made earlier', and forgive him for over-acting it with such glee. Edward Norton is less hammy as the thoughtful detective who never overestimates his own abilities. Harvey Keitel is effortlessly laid back as his police boss, helping to add a touch of realism and believability that too easily gets lost in American movie police roles. Ralph Fiennes plays the demented serial killer, casting up a persona he has polished a little earlier for the rather lacklustre Cronenberg movie, Spider. He is a slimy, screwed up, repulsive character – the sort of person you want to shrink away from. Someone has to interact with him to give him depth though – so we have the blind working girl, played by Emily Watson, who falls for the monster that no one understands. Poor girl! – this time the Beast doesn't turn into a prince! A further element of counterpoint is provided by a superb supporting role filled by Philip Seymour Hoffman as the spineless, lecherous and unethical reporter who gets in too deep and still manages to make us feel sorry for him. The fine acting from Hoffman, Keitel, Norton and (most of the time) Watson, throw into sharp relief the caricatures provided by Hopkins and Fiennes. The overall concoction is a very acceptable thriller, better than you would have anticipated perhaps. A solid – if rather less than thought-provoking – piece of entertainment.

One of those rare instances where the remake is almost on the same level as the original

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 7 June 2015]

Of the Hannibal Lecter films, the best will always be The Silence of the Lambs to me, a masterful film and one of the best of its genre. Red Dragon is a remake of the 1986 Michael Mann-directed adaptation Manhunter and also a much more literal adaptation of the book, and again from personal opinion both are very good films, Red Dragon being one of the rare instances where the remake is almost on the same level as the original(though the two have components that are both better and worse than the other). All three films are vastly superior to Hannibal and Hannibal Rising, both of which were disappointing.

Manhunter has some things that are done better than in Red Dragon. It is generally grittier, more menacing and more atmospheric and the performances of Will Graham and Jack Crawford are superior. I personally didn't care for Edward Norton, who had the potential to be every bit as dark and haunted as William Peterson, but this was a rather ordinary and phoned-in performance which unusual for a great actor like Norton. Harvey Keitel is another talented actor but doesn't play Jack with anywhere near the same amount of heart as Dennis Farina did and seemed out of place.

Red Dragon on the other hand also does things that are superior to Manhunter. I am actually of the opinion that Manhunter is still a well-made and directed film, but the budget was noticeably bigger in Red Dragon meaning it has a more expansive cinematic feel and a slicker look. It may lack the wonderfully grim look of Silence of the Lambs, but it didn't look that clean to me. Danny Elfman's music score, while not anywhere near among his best, fits very well and is very haunting and energised, much improved over the rather dated and often out of place and intrusive music in Manhunter(my only problem with that film). Dollarhyde's also better developed here(though a little less frightening), giving the character some poignancy while not ever forgetting how much of a monster he is, with the relationship between him and Rena beautifully done and played.

Brett Ratner's direction is surprisingly good here, have never thought of it particularly highly as a director before but he brings suspense and palpable tension to the very engrossing and chillingly atmospheric story without letting the visual style get in the way. Performances are fine apart from Norton and Keitel. Anthony Hopkins reprises his most iconic role as Lecter and has the right amount of creepiness, nuance, sophistication and twisted hamminess without falling into cartoonish caricature. Emily Watson's Rena is superb and very touching, far more memorable than Joan Allen for Manhunter, and Phillip Seymour Hoffmann is amusing. Ralph Fiennes, despite reservations initially about him being too handsome and not imposing enough, is every bit as frightening as Tom Noonan, if not as much as a monster, and gives an emotional unstability that comes over in a way that allows one to sort of sympathise with him.

Other than Norton and Keitel, my only other complaints are the ending and some of the script. Not all of the script is problematic, most of it is tightly structured, makes sense and very respectful to the style of the book's writing, also managing to be dynamic and thought-provoking, not ceasing to be suspenseful or entertaining. The film definitely could have done more with Graham's character, who lacked the colour and dimension that went visibly into Lecter and Dollarhyde, Graham was too dull, too ordinary and too clinical to me here. More of a problem is that it starts a little too heavy in the exposition, some of it being written in a sloppy and over-explanatory way, as well as going for blunt maximum drama and throwing subtlety out the window. With the ending, the climax is rushed and ridiculously over-the-top and the end twist to me felt very tacked on and reeked of studio executive interference.

In summary, Red Dragon is a more than worthy remake to Manhunter and is a very good film in its own right. 8/10 Bethany Cox

It comes close at times but nowhere does this movie reach a level of true greatness.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 7/10 · 12 February 2006]

"Red Dragon" certainly is no bad movie but it most certainly isn't great either. On every level, the movie is nothing more than an above average one.

Main problem with "Red Dragon" is that the movie is too formulaic made. It's has all the typical Hollywood aspects in it. Nothing in the movie comes as a real surprise and everything is build up too simple. It's a average thriller that certainly satisfies but never really impresses. It feels as the movie comes one step too short with everything. It comes really close at times to a level of greatness but it never fully reaches it, the movie is too averagely constructed for that. I think man to blame for this is director Brett Ratner. He made the movie casually but without much style or flair.

Yes, it's still a worthy addition to the series of Hannibal Lecter movies and like I said before the movie is certainly an above average one. One reason for this is thanks to the good cast of the movie. Anthony Hopkins returns as Dr. Hannibal Lecter, although his role isn't as big as in the other movies. Ralph Fiennes plays the real 'psycho' in this one and he does this very well. Other fine roles are being played by Edward Norton, Harvey Keitel, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Bill Duke and Frank Whaley.

The movie never really becomes truly scary or tense, the style and atmosphere is too lacking for that but still the story fascinates enough. The movie begins well but after that it loses some of it's realism and credibility due to the way of storytelling. Still so, the presence of Hannibal Lecter in this movie certainly is reason enough on its own to make this movie a recommendable one. Yes, I still could recommend this movie to you simply because it's still a better movie than 75% of the thrillers released present day.

Fans of the thriller genre will not be disappointed by the movie and its story but it's too formulaic and forced to make this movie a truly memorable one.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

= The Tooth Fairy to Manhunter's Red Dragon

[crookback · 2/10 · 30 May 2006]

I'm sitting here in absolute horror watching Red Dragon: I never expected it to be as good as Manhunter, not in a million years, but this is just terrible - Edward Norton was great in AHX, but he's appalling in this, weak, insipid, boring, William Petersen was fantastic, sure, but there's no excuse for a performance as embarrassing as that...I was expecting some of the secondary performances to be better, but no: the new Reba isn't as good as the old Reba, Anthony Hopkins isn't a patch on Brian Cox (even though they've expanded his part, ridiculously so in fact) and totally ruins the telephone scene, Fiennes is okay but not remotely in Tom Noonan's league, the new Lounds is horrible, Harvey Keitel is barely even there as Crawford and the less said about Graham's family, the better. It's almost mesmerising seeing a film so comprehensively inferior to its original, it feels like Michael Mann had someone on the inside to deliberately sabotage proceedings - the nearest comparison I can think of was Van Sant's remake of Psycho, but even that had the merit of adding one interesting subliminal image to leaven its awesome crappiness.

Some incomprehensible omissions for a film which is ostensibly more faithful to the novel than Manhunter, too - for some reason they don't show Graham placing his hand on Lounds in the Tattler photo (that's the entire point), and they completely eliminate all the tensions in Graham's family (again, that's kind of the point). Lecter is so up his own fundament in this film it's unbelievable: in the novels he's clearly fallible for all his brilliance and makes calculated errors at least some of the time, but in this one he's like some kind of pantomime wizard.

Even the music is off - Danny Elfman, for goodness' sake? Maybe they should have shot it as a claymation with Wallace and Gromit as crossover characters.

Nowhere Near As Good As 'Silence of the Lambs' but A Decent Watch Mainly For The Actors

[Chrysanthepop · 25 April 2008]

I saw 'Manhunter' ages ago so I won't bother with making comparisons. Ratner's 'Red Dragon' is smeared with blood, gore and violence (obviously to pull a crowd). It's nowhere near as good as 'Silence of the Lambs' but an okay watch, mainly because of the cast (which range from very good to awful). We'll come to that later.

What bothered me most about 'Red Dragon was the use of clichés and silly twists (I mean how many times do we have to see the killer return from death in the last moment just to die in the hands of the hero?). The writing too does not convince. Crawford and his team's indifference towards Hoffman's Freddie's death didn't settle quite well with me. After all, they were responsible for it. Ratner's film is pretty much like an average slasher thriller with some strong characters (like Emily Watson's Reba and Ralph Fiennes's Francis) famous actors and good technology.

Now speaking of the actors, Anthony Hopkins really seems to go over the top this time almost as if he's spoofing Hannibal Lecter. Perhaps he's fed up of playing the cannibal. Ralph Fiennes looks miscast as Francis but he's brilliant in his scenes with Watson. Harvey Keitel is quite bad. Edward Norton does a good job overall. He's exceptional in a few scenes but Graham's indifference towards Freddie's death takes away from his performance. I don't understand why an actor like Philip Seymour Hoffman chose to play a typical character like Freddy Lounds who's a jerk whom we know will die. Mary-Louise Parker makes good use of her little screen time. Emily Watson is excellent (she clearly acts the best of all).

Overall, if it weren't for the actors, I wouldn't have liked it as much. There are some scenes that are very effective and it is the actors who convince. Examples include the scenes with Watson and Fiennes, the last scene with Norton and Watson, Parker and Norton's scenes and the first scene with Hopkins and Norton.