Red Dragon?...gimme Manhunter

Dotsie~tmp

This is a prime example of how bigger budget and more stars make, for me a poorer film. It was said to me that this was nearer to the book than MH. Haa. Hannibals role has been beefed up out of all proportion to comic proportions. Brian Coxs Hannibal is far more subdued and menacing. If you think someone talking overly cryptic psyco bullshít and makeing the odd frightning lunge at people scary you may like Hopkins performance.

This is nothing more than a money remake that pales compared to the original, which imo was a genre devining for serial killer movies.

Im a huge fan of Ed Norton but watch William Petersen as Graham and tell me that there are some rolls this guys simply hasnt got the experience for yet! Petersen is deep in this role.



Now onto R Fiennes as the killer himself, the biggest let down. The guys hasnt got a chance. For me he convayed no sense of what is was to be this man who enjoys murdering people. He plays it po faced all the way through. Tom Noonans portrayal of Dolarhyde is the second best killer ive seen on the screen (yer man who played Henry in Portrait of a Serial Killer is first). Watch him in MH hes fantastic.



This is all likewise for Keitel and the rest of the cast. Two films about the same thing. One stylish, gritty original and an under rated classic form Michael Mann the other, glossy big names yet completely uninteresting from sequal churning music video directing B Ratner.

Thes some awful cliches in here too. Using sudden blasts of sound and frame changes to frighten you etc. that were burned out long ago. Its just lazy. Hannibals jokes are annoying too, i could tell by the people that laughed at them. Another thing that i found wierd is that the same guy that did MH cinematographer is doing RD but it now feels like some shítty mix of Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal??

Dont bother going to see Red Dragon just rent Manhunter instead. Or do go and compare! Or read the book which is better than the other two books or all four films.

__________
Dotsie.

Samson

As you say, this is a cash in alright.
As I had suspected in this thread:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62358

I'm gonna go see it anyway, to compare as you mentioned.
I had high hopes for this, as I'm a big fan of Norton, Fiennes and Keitel.
It's such a pity to hear what I had hoped would not be the case.

Manhunter was a good film alright, and William Petersen was excellent as the tortured Will Graham.
Good point about the books too.

Dotsie~tmp

I read this comment over in the reviews at Amazon and for me it sums it up.

Petersen looks grizzled - a man who's seen things, things he doesn't want to talk about. Norton? Looks and sounds like a college student. How could he be cast as profiler who had to get out?

Im far too illiterate to communicate how intelligent this film actually is. Take a look at some of the reviews here and see what people think about it. It anyone is looking for a brillant night of cinema get Manhunter and Silence Of The Lambs on special edition DVD and watch em. They are so different in style yet arrive at the same place. Just try to put the notion that Lektor is the centre of everything out of your head as it gets in the way of two brilliant films.

_________
Dotsie.

dagerbil

Sorry! I gotta say I thought that Red Dragon was a very enjoyable film. RE Manhunter, enjoyable as it was/is, it cannot compare to the slickness of the big budget production. If quirky is what does it for you, you will not like RD, stick to Manhunter, if some class actors and the whole Dr Lector genre is what you enjoy, go see the film and dont stand on ceremony harking back to the bygone days of Manhunter (of which I am a fan), compare not the two. It would be akin to comparing Lord of the Rings (animated) to the latest version. Both are different yet enjoyable. As the post above says, Lector is not the focal point.

Karl Hungus

Hey, I was impressed!

It was suprisingly good, and different enough from Manhunter.

Although, I must say, I didn't like Ralph Fiennes as the killer. He was way too typical: Abusive Mother, blah blah blah. Very tiresome, cliche'd approach altogether. You could feel for him, and feel sorry for him, which was something I didn't like. Noonan was simply cold, and had no redeeming features whatsoever, and that really chilled me in the first film. I also think it's far too typical of the whole "Oh, he's shy with women, so there must be something wrong with him..." thing nowadays.

Bottom line, Noonan was a far colder killer that truly scared me.
Fiennes was just a Norman Bates rip-off.

But this is as much to do with the writing as it was with the actors.

Dotsie~tmp

it cannot compare to the slickness of the big budget production.......if some class actors and the whole Dr Lector genre is what you enjoy

Stupid me...i forgot me basic Laws Of Film Making
BIGBUCKS$$==EXCELLENT FILM!!

Class actors yeah maybe but you wouldnt know it watching this stuff.

dont stand on ceremony harking back to the bygone days of Manhunter.......compare not the two

So admiring a film made a mere 15 yrs ago makes you a movie snob. Pearl Harbour IS the greatest film ever. If you cant compare and contrast these two movies btw what movies can you?

It would be akin to comparing Lord of the Rings (animated) to the latest version.

Pass. Is your name Brett Ratner btw?

Sorry!

You should be.

__________
Dotsie.

Goodshape

I liked Red Dragon - better than that Michael Mann pish.

It's not an amazing film, but niether were SOTL or Hannibal. There just enjoyable films for the most part... blown out of proportion recently for some reason.

Michael Mann is overrated; Manhunter seemed to drag on relentlessly IMO, plus one of the worst soundtracks I've ever heard.

Karl Hungus

Originally posted by Goodshape
one of the worst soundtracks I've ever heard.

I'll agree there. Danny Elfman's effort was far better.

DrizztIE

Originally posted by Goodshape
I liked Red Dragon - better than that Michael Mann pish.

It's not an amazing film, but niether were SOTL or Hannibal. There just enjoyable films for the most part... blown out of proportion recently for some reason.

Michael Mann is overrated; Manhunter seemed to drag on relentlessly IMO, plus one of the worst soundtracks I've ever heard.

...... but I enjoyed that film, but I think Manhunter was better. :cool: What do you think? Could "Red Dragon" have more gore or improvements from Hannibal? - Who knows?

ObeyGiant

I wasn't really going to get drawn into this debate until I read this line...

Originally posted by dagerbil
RE Manhunter, enjoyable as it was/is, it cannot compare to the slickness of the big budget production.

To this I must ask: why not?
Let me tell you what I saw that the 'big budget production' brought to the party.
1. Big-name actors
Anthony Hopkins, Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes, Harvey Keitel, Emily Watson and Philip Seymour Hoffman!? Certainly a large proportion of the budget was spent on securing the ensemble cast. This was, for the most part, wasted. Every one of those listed above (apart from Philip Seymour Hoffman) spent the film trying desperately to deliver a performance. So much so, it was almost distracting at times - Charlton Heston's acting legacy lives on, even if his own memory does not.

The advantage of casting little-known actors (as opposed to established, Big-Name Movie Stars) is that it puts the audience on edge - they do not know what to expect. Because people are used to seeing established Big-Name Movie Stars play not-wildly-dissimilar roles, they are somewhat prepared when entering a movie. When you cast relative unknowns, or even someone unexpected (as is the case in Manhunter, and Silence of the Lambs), the audience is unprepared. Score one for the low-budget movies.

2. A 'Glossy' Appearance
Coating every single thing in Red Dragon was a beautiful, expensive, big-budget sheen. Don't get me wrong - this is not necessarily a bad thing. A lot of mediocre films have been saved by this very same wonderful veneer. Unfortunately, for a film dealing with such an issue as Red Dragon, this is a bad thing, in my opinion. It undermines everything the movie is dealing with - Ooh, isn't that man evil, but ooh - doesn't it look pretty?

With a lower-budget film, you almost always end up with a gritty look. This has ruined many low-budget films, and is the number one cause of Hollywood remakes. In the case of Manhunter (and, again, Silence of the Lambs), it suited the subject matter perfectly.

3. A pointless, greedy exercise in cinematic prostitution
I am not alone in thinking that Anthony Hopkins' portrayal of Hannibal Lector was at its best in Silence of the Lambs. This comes down to the fact that across numerous sequels, recurring characters tend to become more and more exaggerated - none more so than in the horror genre. This can ruin whatever seriousness a film is trying to establish. By the time 'Hannibal' was released, the character of Hannibal Lector had been assimilated by popular culture, all of his traits from Silence of the Lambs had been consumed into everyday speech. Who can buy a bottle of Chianti without thinking of liver and fava beans? The makers of the movie 'Hannibal' knew this, and we saw the Lector of that film become a caricature of the Lector from Silence of the Lambs - very few things were brought to the character in this film. In Red Dragon, Lector has become almost farcical. I wholly expect the next step will be for the filmmakers to follow in the footsteps of Friday the 13th, and have Lector cryogenically frozen, only to be rewoken and cause havok on a space station in the twenty-fifth century. In Silence of the Lambs, we saw a complex, multi-faceted character, with a fascinating history. In Red Dragon, certainly, we got to learn some of this history (but nothing we didn't already know from Manhunter), but what happened to the character? Two sequels failed to bring much to the character of Hannibal Lector that hadn't already been established in the first film. Perhaps the writers are 'pacing themselves', so as not to reveal everything about this character too soon - but the character we glimpsed in Silence of the Lambs could surely stand up to close inspection across many films. Perhaps, instead, the filmmakers are pulling a fast one, taking the money and running before too many people realise they're being presented with half of what they've already been given, but ooh - doesn't it look pretty?

Which brings me to another point - The very fact that you are talking about an entire Lector 'genre' is incredibly depressing to me, for the simple reason that the character of Hannibal Lector was once a truly inspired character, one of the most memorable in cinematic history. To see him streched out like this, across two pointless sequels, is disappointing, to hear of an entire 'genre' verges on disheartening.

Elmo

Red Dragon was basically Manhunter with a change in the ending and not enough about The Tooth Fairy.

I missed "In The Garden Of Evil Baby".

Hannible in ManHunter was so much better then Red Dragon. I.e. you don't need that much of Hannible. And that is why for the main part SOTL is the best of the Four Films.

ManHunter was more Violent.

But the best Serial Killer Movies Still remain with SOTL, SE7EN and Psycho.

Bard

Never saw Manhunter.

Thoroughly enjoyed Red Dragon.

Thought it filled the role of "prequel" very well.

Practical

I second that ,

Red Dragon was a class film and it had me on the edge of my seat for the best part of 2hours

plastic membrane

While its a perfectly good film, its a completly pointless one. Manhunter did the job just as well (and better) not such a long time ago.

eth0_

I watched about half an hour of Manhunter last night on film4 and switched off, I thought it was a bit rubbish tbh, the acting seemed quite OTT. Definitely preferred Red Dragon

fisty

oh maaaan - manhunter was like, so better, cause it was like, so low budget, and like all red dragon did was rape a dead horse.

Grow up, Red Dragon was a great flick and well worth the few euros i threw at the greasy kid on the desk to watch it.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by fisty
oh maaaan - manhunter was like, so better, cause it was like, so low budget, and like all red dragon did was rape a dead horse.

Grow up, Red Dragon was a great flick and well worth the few euros i threw at the greasy kid on the desk to watch it.

There is absolutely no way to retort to such a well-thought-out and reasoned argument.

So I won't bother.

dagerbil

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
There is absolutely no way to retort to such a well-thought-out and reasoned argument.

So I won't bother.

I would be most interested in hearing your retort......

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by dagerbil
I would be most interested in hearing your retort......

I just said there was absolutely no way to do it. You read this. You quoted this. What is the problem?

BLITZ_Molloy

I thought it was watchable but not very good. The whole thing was too like Silence, but not anywhere as good as silence.

Norton was rubbish, he never looked afraid of Hannibal.

Hopkins's dialogue was rubbish. In Silence he mentions Clarences cheap shoes once, in Red Dragon he whines about Nortons aftershave 3 times.

TeRmInAlCrAzY

I'm sorry, but RD simply fails the TerMiNaLcRaZy NumbBUTT (tm) test.

If a movie can make me forget how danged uncomfortable the movie seat is, then it's a good movie.

This pile of steaming rat droppings had me squirming and wishing I'd gone to see xXx (at least 1.5 butt cheeks) again. It can't hold a candle to MH, which was a simple, direct and uninflated movie. RD just fell all over itself to suck up to SOFL, I mean, come on, Lecter is just a bit part in the movie, not the whole dang thing!

Red Dragon NumbBUTT (tm) rating - zero butt cheeks

neway, that's my €.02

rgds

Alan