Customer Reviews

Red Dragon (Widescreen Collector's Edition)

5 star:		(49)
4 star:		(51)
3 star:		(26)
2 star:		(22)
1 star:		(17)

 

 

Excellent movie. Anthony Hopkins is always great. Worth seeing.

Pierrette. (Mirabel, Qc. Canada)

(This movie was originally made as Manhunter)i liked "red dragon" a
lot.it was was well written and well directed.the acting was very
good,in particular harvey keitel, in a small role.the action scenes
were well done and the characters were sympathetic,so you felt their
pain and anguish.the dramatic scenes were done to great effect,not
simply filler,but actually serving a purpose.there was also plenty of
suspense,excellent in this case, since the movie take place before the
events in "the silence of the lambs"do. even though you know the
story,the director still manages to keep you on edge and keep you
interested in the story .i found the dialogue refreshing,not clichéd
and awkward, as is the case quite often.i bought "red dragon and have
watched it more than once, enjoying it each time.if this is your type
of genre,you will like this movie. 4/5

I've seen "Red Dragon" years ago but couldn't recollect it from my thoughts. Last night it reappear to me that it's a great film. This of course is a remake of "Manhunter (Full Screen Edition)," the first in the series of films centering on FBI profilers, serial killers, and the infamous Hannibal Lecter, who I suppose is the modern day equivalent of "Jack the Ripper." I haven't read the novel by Thomas Harris so I can't say which is the more authentic, but they're both very good films.

As in the original, "Red Dragon" centers around the character of Will Graham, a retired FBI profiler who is brought back to help find a serial killer (Ralph Fiennes), known as "The Tooth Fairy," preying on women with families. He kills once a month in sync with the lunar cycle, so Graham has time to investigate the two crime scenes and look for evidence that would indicate who the next target is. The beginning of the scene will capture your interest right away, because it sets up the relationship of Hopkins and Norton; it also gives Hopkins, without whom this film wouldn't exist, more screen-time.

Also as in the original, Hannibal Lecter is a supporting figure, not the main attraction, though Anthony Hopkins certainly chews up the scenery in a performance he's gotten quite good at. The relationship between Lecter and Graham never intrigued me as much and I'm not convinced that Norton was the best choice for the part of Graham. Somehow, Norton came across to me as too innocent and youthful for the kind of role he was playing. Towards the end he turns out to be a good performance. The movie doesn't play up his character as much as "Manhunter" did for William L. Petersen, but that's just a style difference in the directors. Weaknesses, though, were compensated for by a marvelous performance from Ralph Fiennes as the killer as Dolarhyde, and he's downright creepy. Michael Mann cast one of his favorites, Tom Noonan, as Dolarhyde in the original, and he played the part brilliantly. Though here, the killer is developed more and you see why he became such a twisted figure. Think Norman Bates on steroids. And that tattoo is down right gorgeous. Emily Watson did a good job as Reba and there's really not much I can say about her.

When Michael Mann made "Manhunter" in 1986, he was at the peak of his success with "Miami Vice" and the movie reflected that genre, with hip characters and rock & roll music on the soundtrack. Who could forget the ending when Will Graham crashes through the window while "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" is blasting away. Here, Brett Ratner (the "Rush Hour" films) directs "Red Dragon" as a more traditional suspense film without the flashiness of Mann's creation. Different creations of the same story, but both very good in their own way.

Then, Red Dragon is Ok, worth seeing. But, DO NOT MISS "MANHUNTER"!
Aside from some 80's stylings, most notably the closing music over the credits, while still fitting, dates Manhunter, however, appropriately.
Red Dragon is only compelling in that you "Get More", of the book.
The ending is truer.
The acting, and directing is clumsy.
It's difficult to watch Ed Norton fumble through Will Graham's wondeful legacy of Peterson's portrayol in "Manhunter".
Worse still, is watching Anthony Hopkins spew the same lines as Brian Cox, as the "Original" Hannibal Lechtor. Hideous.
Oh, Tony adds his own "Lechtorism's, but, this film is a money grab.
It's odd too, because Dino owns "Manhunter"!!
So, this movie is ONLY a Remake!
When you watch "Manhunter", you will see where Clarissa got her lines.....
"Silence", is the direct descendant of "Manhunter".
And, with Hannibal (the movie, not the book), being left unfinished, there will more than likely be another money grab, hopefully, however, from a book as brilliantly written as the first three.
Make no mistake, Red Dragon exists, simply to "fill a gap" in time, where something can be sold to those of us, who want more "Lechtor".
Manhunter is by far, the superior Movie.
The film's color, and score, all add to the tension, that was only since recaptured in "Silence".
In years to come, Manhunter will stand as the far more mature movie, as it draws on more time honored cinematic core values.

Red Dragon is difficult to watch also, with Lechtor's and Chilton's charachters, hopelessly "Made up" to look as if they're 20 some years younger than (the actors) actually are! It looks silly.
Yes, in the original movie, they were afraid "Red Dragon" would denote a karate film. "Manhunter" is derived from the fact that Will Graham, is Hunting the new serial killer, Frances Dolarhyde.
Bottom Line: I wouldn't advise you miss this movie, if you like the series. But, certainly don't choose this over the real original: "Manhunter". See them both, if you must.....
Dream much, Will?

Pete

Red Dragon, third in the line of "Hannibal Lector" series featuring Anthony Hopkins, is preceded by the 1986 Michael Mann film, Manhunter. Standing alone, Red Dragon is a good solid film from beginning to end; however, I feel those interested in buying this film or otherwise completing the legacy, should get an idea for how the two film versions of Thomas Harris' first Lector novel differ.

Red Dragon feels more like a psychological horror film than does Manhunter. Those who remember 80's police action films like Clint Eastwood's "Tightrope" or Silvester Stallone's "Cobra" will find Manhunter in common thriller territory. The tension in Red Dragon is strong throughout the film; however we see little development of the Francis Dolarhyde (Tom Noonan) serial killer (known as the Tooth Fairy). While we see the central elements that define his psychosis, we only barely glimpse at his struggle with his own humanity except for through emotion expressed in Ralph Feinnes' eyes. Tom Noonan's Francis is distant and perhaps zombie-like, and so the character is development more through subsequent scenes. Red Dragon is also more bloody -- appropriate for the times; whereas Manhunter has virtually no gore (that I can recall). Absent from Red Dragon is the 80's power pop-rock music that scores Manhunter. This is perhaps for the best as the music used in Red Dragon actually adds atmosphere to the scenes.

The central figure in Red Dragon, FBI agent Will Graham (Edward Norton) is more clearly defined as having a sixth sense that aids him in his investigations. This is less clear in Manhunter as it's arguable that Graham is just highly intuitive. However, William Petersen's portrayal of Graham is darker, more complex. This helps to enrich the drama even more since both the protagonist and antagonist seem to be living inside themselves, shut out from the rest of the world. Brian Cox portrays Hannibal Lector with confidence, but pales in comparison to Anthony Hopkins' more sinister performance. As good a film as Manhunter is, it is difficult to recommend movie fans from overlooking Red Dragon since the success of the film has been built largely on Hopkins' role as the good, er evil doctor.

The 4-star rating I gave to this DVD is not based on the caliber of the film itself but on it's presentation in the DVD and on the extras. The DVD is pretty much standard fare for today, which is a good thing; however, I didn't find myself overly thrilled about the extras.

Red Dragon was a decent movie by itself, though it relied on the prestige of SOTL too much. It starts off adding an extra scene to include Anthony Hopkins, and continues this habit throughout the movie. These scenes are not in the book and do nothing to further the movie. Red Dragon has an all-star cast, though no one seems to put effort into their role. Most importantly, Edward Norton (playing Will Graham) fails to portray the innner conflict in Graham. He seems unaffected by the case, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Manhunter was a much better movie, with much better directing and acting. In Manhunter, William Peterson plays Graham and does the part much better. Peterson plays a dark, brooding investigator who is truly sacrificing a part of himself to take on the case. This self-sacrifice is the heart of the book, and was largely lost in Red Dragon. I recommend that anyone interested in Red Dragon watch Manhunter instead.

Red Dragon is a wonderful prequel.From what I've heard it is a breath of fresh air from the 2001's Hannibal which trashed the series.Red Dragon is the second adaption from a book; the first adaption was Manhunter which I haven't seen.I'm not sure but I think this was probably a very good adaption; it scare and holds your attention.Alot of it seems very famillar yet it really is a good entry and has a good difference from Silence of The Lambs.The acting is also very good thanks to Anthony Hopkins reprising his role as Dr. Hannibal Lecter.The dialogue is good with deep thought and the riddles by Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter.Any fan of the series will be pleased to now that this film has returned the series to The Silence of The Lambs form.Make sure to check this one out.

Based on the novel by Thomas Harris, RED DRAGON stars Edward Norton as Will Graham, the intuitive FBI agent who captured the notorious Hannibal "the Cannibal" Lecter (Anthony Hopkins). When another killer, dubbed "the Tooth Fairy," begins a series of bizarre, seemingly random killings, the now-retired Graham reluctantly agrees to aid in the investigation. In order to get further into the mind set of the murderer, Graham consults the imprisoned Lecter, who offers cryptic commentary that the determined agent must decipher. However, the Tooth Fairy himself, Francis Dolarhyde (Ralph Fiennes), is also in contact with the infamous epicurean, and the case soon develops into a deadly cat-and-mouse game, with Lecter deviously playing both sides.

"Lovers of the original The Silence of the Lambs will be ecstatic to see that cinematic lightning can strike twice."
-- Brian Webster, APOLLO GUIDE

...this is a moderately entertaining upgrade of the Michael Mann cinema Manhunter with THE Hannibal Lector, Anthony Hopkins, pre-queling his role. Fiennes as Dolohyde does an adequate job. Edward Norton should have never done that Death to Smoochy movie and this within a three year span...I couldn't get him out of that purple rhino suit. In the Manhunter movie the detective was made to be a bit on the psychic side. You don't get this here. Nevertheless, it is a good movie, but not of the excellence exhibited in SOTL or, in hindsight now, Hannibal. Hannibal now is up a coupla notches because of this in my opinion...A Note: Why are all serial killers obsessed with classical literature or art? Or a parent or grandparent beat the crap out of him? I ask only rhetorically. There needs to be a new serial killer paradigm...and quickly. Also, Frankie Faison should have never been put in all three movies because his weight fluctated...A LOT..he was relatively more thin in SOTL...(that's just one of those odd things I notice.)

Loved SILENCE OF THE LAMB and was disappointed with HANNIBAL. And I remember and enjoyed MANHUNTER back in the 80's.

So I wasn't in a big hurry to see RED DRAGON, despite having such a stellar cast. Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes, Harvey Keitel AND Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lector? Now that's a cast. I watched it and enjoyed it, especially the departures it made from the novel and the original movie.
If this film came out in the mid-1980's (before MANHUNTER), would be one of the greatest thrillers of all time. Everyone's great in it.

But, despite hitting on every piston in everything else, my enthusiasm for the movie was lost because...I already knew this story.
(I think this is a huge problem in Hollywood: the acting, the technology, everything has exceeded the writing. The stories, for whatever reason, have been up there with everything else. Lack of development, rushed deals, whatever. In this particular example, the story was exhausted.)

Hannibal the Cannibal is back with a vengeance, though in fact it is his first episode. This thriller is marvellously well done. The killer aims at women, but the FBI agent who is going to solve the problem has retired after arresting Doctor Lecter, after finding out Doctor Lecter was the criminal he was looking for with the doctor's help, misguiding help, of course. It is when the cop understands that the killer kills his victims to eat them, in fact to serve them to his guests that he understands the Doctor is the killer. But this retired FBI agent who goes back into service in this new case discovers with imagination, vision, intelligence and observation some facts about and characteristics of the killer. But this is not enough. He has to profile the killer psychologically and this is very difficult. So he tries to cut the task short with the help of Doctor Lecter and this help is expensive in privileges or in manipulations. The doctor even goes beyond and becomes really dangerous, looking for his own vengeance. But this is not enough, yet, to arrest the killer. The cops have to sweep wide and comb thin to get across small details that become big opportunities. Once again it is observation that is essential, but with imagination and inspiration. Once the cops have found the small detail that is going to lead them on the road to the killer things are easier, though not at all less dangerous. And the killer plans the reactions of the cops and takes them into account in his own plans, which enables him to come with an ending that is quite different from what we are all expecting. This film, like the book behind, is interesting because it reveals that serial killers have to be intelligent, creative and extremely good chess players. They have to plan ahead enormously and foresee the reactions of the police. In other words, these killers would have been good cops if they were not moved by the desire to kill or even make other people suffer. But this film insists on the severe childhood years this killer has been through and how he inherited of his killing instinct from the mistreatment he got from his own relatives. What happens when he finds himself alone, no longer dominated and controled by these relatives ? He is haunted by them and kills in order to pacify them. And it is understanding this that makes the cop able to solve the last stage in the thriller. We can even wonder if a cop does not have to become a bodydouble or a clone of the killer to be able to find him and arrest or stop him.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU