Genres

Visitors Review

Arif Karmali 2012-05-21 00:14:26

The doctor is back. Goody Goody

First of all I must say Trailer Alert. This movie loses a lot of its goodone-liners in the trailer but the one thing the trailer doesn't spoil arethe plot twists and the surprise ending. In comparison to the Silence oftheLambs and Hannibal, Red Dragon is by far superior. This was a rivetingmoviethat won't make you cringe in disgust or jump in fear but will make youthink. Don't overanalyze, but details are critical in this psychologicalthriller.The acting is absolutely phenomenal. Not Oscar worthy but stillimpressive.Ralph Fiennes plays the "Tooth Fairy" to perfection. He is an insaneserialkiller who kills entire families. Sir Anthony Hopkins allows us to seewhata genius Hannibal Lecter is, which was first shown in Silence of TheLambsbut later lost in Hannibal. Edward Norton as always puts out a brilliantperformance as the FBI agent who thinks out of the box and who uses hisimagination to catch master serial killers. In Red Dragon the audiencefearsDr. Lecter more and more despite him being in a secure cell. His dictionandtone are perfect and when he speaks you see what a complex character heis.He is insane yet brilliant and watching him work with the detective thatcaught him makes this manhunt even more exciting.Most people see movies for the laughs or the blood and gore but if youenjoyseeing movies that make you think even after you have left the theater,RedDragon is a good choice. This year I have only enjoyed 3 movies; MinorityReport, The Count of Monte Cristo and Red Dragon. Blockbusters like Mr.Deeds, Star Wars, Spiderman and MIB2 have all been disappointing for me.Soif you are tired of special effects and hundred million dollarproductionsand you just want to see a movie that will truly be worth the ridiculousadmission, see Red Dragon.

2012-05-20 23:00:50

Better than Manhunter

A lot of people insist that the original movie Manhunter was far superior than this movie. I am forced to disagree. In this film the characters are far more gruesome. Their is no real sense of fear or awe of Hannibal in Manhunter. In the Red Dragon Anthony Hopkins reprises his role and does an awesome job of it.Edward Norton plays Will Graham the agent that caught Hannibal Lecter. He is brought out of retirement to hunt down the latest serial killer "the tooth fairy" played superbly by Ralph Fiennes. Fiennes gives the tooth fairy the haunting presence that Manhunter sorely lacked. The movie basically follows Graham's hunt for the tooth fairy as well as visiting with Hannibal on several occasions for help. It is a good movie that would have deserved 5 stars if it were not for the Silence of the lambs being so superbly done.

RGA008 2012-05-20 18:51:23

"i am becoming..."

just a quick word about ralph fiennes. what is he doing in this role?!?yesto quote the last person he does play Dolarhyde to an eerie perfection,andthe audience does sympathise with him in how the Dragon has such apowerfuland relentless hold over him. the Dolarhyde side of the character is fine,its just his "becoming" i have a problem with! i guess i just see D as achastised little "shy boy" and not the vicious killer he reallyis.having said that, all other performances were great. ed norton brings afresh twist to the bundle of neuroses that is will graham, and harveykeitelis a welcome sight ( the last movie i saw him in was reservior dogs, butthen i saw that for the 1st time 2 weeks ago!!). anthony hopkins' lastlineis FANTASTIC, forcing you (or just me?) to go home and watch "silence ofthelambs" all over again.delicious...

sooneron 2012-05-20 00:18:24

Grest casting and big budgets do not equal perfection

I approached Red Dragon with a little trepidation. I really enjoyed theoriginal "Manhunter". I am really not sure why they made this movie.It's not as if they were remaking a movie from 30 years ago. People ragon Michael Mann forMiami Vice, but if there is one thing that Mann does well, it'scharacterdevelopment, just watch movies such as ; Heat and The Insider. He knowscharacter/script driven film. Brett Rattner did the rush Hour movies,films that rest on actors and quick predictable banter. Stuff that JoeLunchpail eats up. This is something of , more of the same. He justwent more high-brow this time. Thecast is first rate with Hopkins, Norton, Fiennes, Hoffman, Keitel, andWatson. I won't even touch ML Parker as Norton's wife, she's utilizedas the typicalHollywood prop wife. Hopkins seems to be doing just what the studioasked of him, give the idiots in the seats what they want, the same oldHannibal. Now I know what he (Hopkins) is talking about when he refersto occasionally doing the "BIG" Hollywood films for the money. Ratnerseems to have decided not to regress Hannibal to a role that would havegrown into the latter Hannibal. I guess he substantiates this lack ofinitiative by having Red Dragon roll right into TSOTL, chronologicallyspeaking. Whereas, in Manhunter and the book, the story takes place 6yearsprior to Silence, Dragon ends with Starling's arrival. We never seeher, ofcourse, ooh! Chills! I guess this makes the "fans" of the series feellike they're privy to something. Norton's presence begs for attention,but it seems that Ratner didn't seem to challenge him. He does an OKperformance, but he feels a little hollow andthere are glances at what Graham could have been. Which leads toKeitel's role as Crawford. I never felt like I could sense hismanipulation of Graham. It seems that Ratner asked him to play his coprole from Thelma and Louise with a touch of Bad Lieutenant thrown in(not enough). Fiennes portrayal of Dolarhyde is the best of the film.This isn't saying a lot, as the other actors seem to be efforting alittle more than nothing. Possibly, with the exception of Watson.Fiennes really seemed to immerse himself in the role of a torturedsociopath. I think that this was Ratner's biggest area of focus. Justbring in Harvey,Tony and Ed and let them fend for themselves and dowhat they do. Ralph's performance really lets you inside the mind of a psycho andhe'sbelievable. I gained new respect for him. You can really see somethingbehind his eyes that something's not right about him. Nice job. This ispossibly the only thing that I can see that's really better than theoriginal. Although, Tom Noonan would get more than a passing grade forhis turn as Dolarhyde.Emily Watson does a decent job as Dolarhyde's love-interest. Itsometimes feels like she's doing her turn in Wait Until Dark. A fineand another believableperformance in the cast. Hoffman's performance is OK, but you want moreof him as the disgustingtabloid reporter. The film seems to repeatedly pick up steam and thenvanquish it. Ratner shows some proclivity for creating suspense, but itfalls to the side with hollowperformances by the protagonists. The writer took a lot of license byincluding Lector more. The scene at the beginning where Lector iscaught by Graham istotally useless. It's not in the book or in Manhunter. More of thestudio line of, "Give the adoring public what they want." It could havebeen better served as glimpses of a flashback. Nothing brings outcuriosity and disdain like a scar and the one that Graham is renderedwith could have served that purpose just byshowing it and referring to it. This film isn't as stylish orintelligent as the original or Silence. Sometimes the public thinksthat it's an intelligent film if it's about smart people that say wittylines from time to time. This is one of those films. With the castinvolved, it deserves to be a better film. But I have to question whymake this film in the first place? Manhunter stands alone on it's ownfeet. Oh yeah, the almighty dollar that comes with a Hollywoodfranchise can answer that question. That, and I guess the EntertainmentWeekly, Access Hollywood following public had to see Hopkins in theLector role in this one.

Claudio Carvalho 2012-05-17 18:32:36

Michael Mann's Manhunter was better and better

Will Graham (Edward Norton) is a retired FBI agent invited toparticipate in the chase of a serial killer named 'The Tooth Fairy'. Heasks Hannibal Lecter to help him to develop the profile of the killerand foreseen the next crime. The original story of "Red Dragon" was terrific: Michael Mann'sManhunter is a violent and scary low paced movie, with well-constructedcharacters. William Petersen is great in this movie. This remake, witha greater participation of the character of Hannibal Lecter, famousactors and actress, and a different beginning and end is not bad. Butthe original movie is better and better. Therefore, why the remake? Myvote is seven.Title (Brazil): "Dragão Vermelho" ("Red Dragon")

2012-05-16 23:22:00

Great Movie

I would have to say that I was surprised with this film. Anthony Hopkins give off yet another wonderful performance as Hannibal Lecter (maybe one of the freakiest characters in cinema). Hopkins and Ed Norton led an amazing cast that included Harvey Keitel, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Emily Watson, and Ralph Fiennes. Norton, Hopkins and Fiennes had amazing performances.The movie starts out with Hannibal helping out FBI agent Will Graham (Norton) in solving a case which involves cannibalism. Soon Norton figures out that its Hannibal, then Will turns around only to get a knife in the liver. With barely enough strength he picks up arrows and jams it into Hannibal and then shoots him in the shoulders and chest. A great opening scene, good enough to get anyone interested. Several years later Graham is visited by Keitel and decides to help the FBI with the current murder case. From there the movie just takes off. It might move slow at first but it picks up and turns into an intense thriller.Brett Ratner proves his directing talent. This movie will open him up more projects. He also has the Rush Hour movies working for him. Overall a great movie, not as good as The Silence of the Lambs but much better than Hannibal.

Nadia 2012-05-12 00:18:16

Extraordinary performances.

Well, this film was MUCH, MUCH better than Manhunter. That's what I thoughtanyway. Anthony Hopkins' work as Hannibal Lecter does not even need to bedescribed anymore. There just couldn't be anyone better. Edward Norton'sexpressions are excellent, he's a very gifted actor and deserves all thepraise he gets. BUT, Ralph Fiennes was just extraordinary. His work hasalways impressed me in every way and whatever role he plays, he plays it toperfection. I still couldn't decide whether it was Fiennes' portrayal ofFrancis Dolarhyde or the Dolarhyde character himself which made me almostwish that they never catch him. Even though the character is so evil, youcannot help but feel sympathetic towards him. And besides, let's be honesthere, he LOOKED GOOD. (even though they described his character as 'ugly' inthe movie - at which point I thought, "WHA???") He developed a pretty goodbuild too. Brett Ratner's done a great job in getting this film together. It's justfilled with so much tension that you actually jump whenever one thecharacter's gets a shock of some sort. The movie has a very eerie look toit, which makes it even better because that's what this is all about...theintroduction of Hannibal Lecter...one of the creepiest fictional charactersof all time.

2012-05-11 14:42:44

best of the bests

This review is from: Red Dragon (Widescreen Collector's Edition) (DVD) I was nervous about this movie for many reasons - mainly because they did such a great job on Silence, and I thought Hannibal was great (I'm in the minority, I know), but I really wanted another installment of my favourite trilogy that I would never get bored of watching. To my great relief and undying gratitude, they pulled it off. The technical aspects of this movie are artful and expert, while the dramatic side also turned out beautifully. Somehow, they managed to complete the circle, and I will definitely watch this movie over and over again. There is even evidence of Lecter's character developing over *all three movies* if you care to pay some attention. What a piece of genius this movie is, I couldn't extol its virtues enough.Even if you don't care for the rest of this story arc, this is a great standalone movie with a fantastic cast, all veteran actors who give the movie the feel of understated brilliance. The cinematography, lighting, direction, score - all excellent. I'd love to see multiple nominations for this one - Fiennes, Ratner and Elfman stand out in particular.

2012-05-10 15:14:03

Inferior To The Original

This is an almost word for word remake of the 1986 film "Manhunter." While watching this one I kept asking myself why. Why did someone decide to remake a prefectly good film? This remake adds nothing, in fact it is inferior to Manhunter in many ways. Poor casting is just the beginning of the problem. I never bought Anthony Hopkins as a psycho in any of these in the series. In this one he plays it way over the top in an almost cartoonish manner. Ed Norton does an OK job as Will Graham, but this role could have been done equally well by anyone. Most annoying is Ralph Fiennes as the Tooth Fairy. This guy sleepwalks through the role and is about as authentic as a wooden nickel. The film concludes with a lame "he's not really dead" cliche. This was the choice to make it different from Manhunter? Silly. Two stars for the always interesting Harvey Keitel. Skip this one and rent the far superior Manhunter instead.

2012-05-10 09:49:29

Terrific

Red Dragon truly lived up to all that I anticipated it to be. Thepreformances by Edward Norton, Mary Louise Parker, Emily Watson, RalphFiennes, and especially Anthony Hopkins were outstanding. The movieitselfwas riveting, exciting, and was about 100 times better than I thought itwould be. If you like the Silence of the Lambs movies, this is one to gosee. It's worth the six dollars to get in

2012-05-09 08:27:51

The Horror.....The Horror

Attention Hollywood. Stop remaking movies that are already good i.e. Psycho(1998) and Red Dragon(2002) formerly known as Manhunter. This movie was slow and boring. Ralph Fiennes failed miserably measuring up to Tom Noonan's performance as Francis Dolarhyde and in this go around Anthony Hopkins is outperformed by Brian Cox's previous portrayal of Hannibal. The film had no sense of urgency or suspense like Manhunter had. The cast even "acted" like they had a case of deja vu (hasen't this story been told once before?) Granted having seen Manhunter I knew what the story was so there were no real surprises. but at least give it the college try for entertainment. It even failed there. Avoid this movie at all costs. If I could give this movie zero stars I would. Do yourself a favor and watch Manhunter.

pep3 2012-05-09 01:16:26

What the heck were they thinking when they but the director of the "Rush Hour" films at the helm of "Red Dragon"?

I was entertained by "Red Dragon", but after thinking about it forawhile, I must say that the movie was average at best. Theperformances of all the leads are rather flat. Keitel is especiallylifeless, Hopkins goes way overboard, and Fiennes just didn't getit right. These are all fine actors so I believe that the director is atfault. The fascination of Hannibal is that he is elegant andintelligent 99% of the time but is capable of the most appallingviolence the other 1%. In Red Dragon, he just comes across asvulgar most of the time. Sure his antics get a few laughs from theaudience, but this material deserves more respect. I'm surprisedto find myself thinking that "Manhunter", despite its "Miami Vice"veneer, is the better film. In "Hannibal", Hopkins was still dead-onin his characterization, and the movie as a whole is superior. Inthe end, "Red Dragon" helps to confirm that "Silence of the Lambs"is an absolute masterpiece. Too bad Deme didn't direct this one.What the heck were they thinking when they but the director of the"Rush Hour" films at the helm of "Red Dragon"?

osubluejacket 2012-05-01 18:06:38

Near perfect adaptation of the book.

I, like many people, went into the movie "Red Dragon" with a very specificway I expected the movie to be. I expected it to be true to ThomasHarris'outstanding novel of the same name, in a few words, itwas.The story follows the investigation of the "Tooth Fairy" led by un-retiredFBI investigator Will Graham (incredibly portrayed by Edward Norton). Inthe course of the investigation, Graham attempts to get a psychologicalprofile from Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), and the real adventurebegins in the sadistic triangle between Graham, Lecter, and FrancisDolarhyde (Ralph Fiennes).While many will say that Lecter is not in the movie enough, I must retortthat he is only a minor character in the book, and while a fan favorite,isnot the central character of the story. The ONLY reservation I had about"Red Dragon" is that Ralph Fiennes is not nearly big enough to portrayFrancis Dolarhyde. In the book, Harris implies that Dolarhyde is a weightlifter and absolutely huge. While Fiennes is in great shape, and did putonmuscle for the role, I don't feel the physical fear of an imposing figurethat should come from Dolarhyde.All in all, though, this is an OUTSTANDING movie, with chills, sublimeacting, good directing, and a great script. If you're a fan of the book,and/or Silence of the Lambs go see this movie.9/10

Chris_Docker 2012-05-01 05:18:16

Overall, a worthy prequel

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 therethough – 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 beforgiven for thinking it could hardly fail and, in this case, you would beright. Whilst not quite on a par with ‘Lambs', this new version of the RedDragon / Tooth Fairy story comes complete with plenty of excellent shocks,both of the predictable and of the less-predictable, edge-of-seat-white-knucklevariety.FBI agent Will Graham (Edward Norton) seeks the help of Dr. Hannibal ‘TheCannibal' Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) to help solve a series of gruesome serialkillings. Hopkins turns in the adequate performance that he has perfectedbeforehand – sufficient for this Saturday-night shock-fest even if it's notup to the standard of his greatest work – the sensitive nuances ofShadowlands, the multi-faceted and memorable characterisation of Amistad, orthe sheer newness of the present character from ‘Lambs'. His performance isnicely served up, but we know that it is ‘one he has made earlier', andforgive him for over-acting it with such glee. Edward Norton is less hammyas the thoughtful detective who never overestimates his own abilities.Harvey Keitel is effortlessly laid back as his police boss, helping to add atouch of realism and believability that too easily gets lost in Americanmovie police roles. Ralph Fiennes plays the demented serial killer, castingup a persona he has polished a little earlier for the rather lacklustreCronenberg movie, Spider. He is a slimy, screwed up, repulsive character –the sort of person you want to shrink away from. Someone has to interactwith 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 furtherelement of counterpoint is provided by a superb supporting role filled byPhilip Seymour Hoffman as the spineless, lecherous and unethical reporterwho gets in too deep and still manages to make us feel sorry for him. Thefine acting from Hoffman, Keitel, Norton and (most of the time) Watson,throw into sharp relief the caricatures provided by Hopkins and Fiennes. Theoverall concoction is a very acceptable thriller, better than you would haveanticipated perhaps. A solid – if rather less than thought-provoking – pieceof entertainment.

kstephens 2012-04-30 16:18:10

Worthy prequel to "Silence"

I was probably in the right frame of mind when I saw this movie. I had no real expectations (HANNIBAL was the film that elicitethose expectations) and was looking only for entertainment. Ishould say that I am a big SILENCE fan and was thereforesurprised and delighted that RED DRAGON was so visuallyconsistent with the earlier Jonathan Demme masterpiece. Not justthe visuals, but the tone and mood of this film were also faithful tothe first. I also happen to be a big fan of MANHUNTER (the firstadaptation of RED DRAGON years before SILENCE was made)and was pleased that this scipt--well-crafted by Ted Tally--occupied its own space and explored the characters andcharacter dynamics differently. Of course how could we complainto have MORE screen time from Anthony Hopkins's delightfulcannibal! Brett Ratner obviously owes a debt to Demme's earlierwork, yet still managed to tell the story stylishly and with his ownsignature touches. He did a fine (though probably keenlyreverential) job and he can feel that all the bumps and challengesalong the way were worth it. This is a tight, compelling story thatnicely complements SILENCE and works with the strengths of thatmovie: Hopkins's restrained, leonine, menace, a sense of peril forthe protagonist, the well-observed mechanics of FBI procedure.And the cast! How can we not enjoy Ralph Fiennes's articulateportrayal of a monster like Dolarhyde or Emily Watson's guilelessyet sensual Reba? (You have to love a movie where PhilHoffman's sleazy performance is just the icing on the cake!) Myonly regret is that we couldn't see Scott Glenn reprise JackCrawford. He was one of SILENCE's best strengths. All together,though, this was a worthy last entry in the "Hannibal" trilogy and anice balance to the previous excesses of HANNIBAL.

joshuabsa 2012-04-30 10:53:44

Not Silence of the Lambs

Red Dragon is a very thrilling film, but not really original, or scarybecause we know Hannibal Lector, and one of the scariest things abouthim was how little we really knew, he now lacks that. The story isstill genius coming from the great book. The acting is amazing, AnthonyHopkins Hannibal Lector is one of the best characters/performances everputt on screen, while Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes, and Emily Watsonare all also great. The direction is is good, but not great, sometimesit seems frantic and paced in the wrong way. The visual effects are thenot its strongest point, only several really work, but thous do really,really work very well. The dialogue is amazing, just as good as Silenceof the Lambs, on the other hand the rest of the film is not reallyanything to Silence.

roberto dandi 2012-04-26 09:26:42

not satisfied

I'm not satisfied. "The silence of the lamb" and "Hannibal" are bothbetter than this prequel. Why? First the story: is that new? I'm notreferring to the fact that this is a remake of a movie (Manhunter) butthat the story itself is quite dejà-vu. We have Hannibal again as aconsultant, the hero that does not want to come back to work butfinally he accept to exploit his great skills and courage. We havestupid ways to make the audience shocked (when the hero - Norton -checks the victims house he thinks of the murder and suddenly there arefew shots with shouts and blood; when the hero interviews Hannibal whenhe is having a walk outside of the cell Hannibal tries to shock him -and the audience - with a simulation of a bite. Folks, here we are atthe BOOO-level!!). The acting: Hannibal has no more the charme of thefirst Hannibal. I don't know, probably he says things I have alreadyheard in the first two movies. Norton: I couldn't image him in the roleof the good boy and maybe it is a bias I have. However his acting forthe first time is not so exceptional. His character is not so...Norton, I mean it could be anyone, not Edward Norton, one of the bestactor I have ever seen. Fiennes as the monster is very good, as good asEmily Watson, whose character is truly sweet and during the film we allprey God to not let her die. The final has nothing so special. It isonly a link with "The silence of the lamb". I think "Silence" is thebest of the trilogy, "Hannibal" the second best (at least is quitedifferent from the first and there are a lot of incredibly goredeaths). This one unfortunately is not at that level. I haven't seenManhunter yet, now I have the curiosity to see if there is a chance todo a good movie with this script.

2012-04-26 03:09:29

Unpalatable

Was this siamese-prequel even necessary? Aren't there enough out there already? If you're interested in the pre-Lecter years then see 'Manhunter' - a far superior film. 2 stars ONLY because of Hopkin's performance. Edward Norton's portrayal of agent Will Graham is so weak and girlish you wish Lecter would have succeeded in killing him at the beginning. I guess Hannibal doesn't like quiche.

claudemercure 2012-04-24 07:21:19

the very definition of 'unnecessary remake'

There is nothing wrong with a remake, in and of itself. But if you'reremaking a good movie, you better have something new of your own toadd. And that, in a nutshell, is why Red Dragon is a disappointingmovie. Brett Ratner kept bragging that his version would be closer tothe book than Manhunter was, but that's irrelevant. In his hands,Thomas Harris's brilliant story turns bland. You get the feelingeverything Ratner touches turns bland. His idea of innovation is togive his characters weird, bad hair (Edward Norton's and Emily Watson'sis dyed, and Anthony Hopkins has a little ponytail in the prologue) -that's as deep as he gets.Michael Mann, who directed Manhunter, may have altered the book'sending, but he understood that what drove the story was the maincharacter's intensity. The most disturbing aspect of Manhunter was WillGraham's ability to get inside the killer's head, and William Petersen,who played Graham, understood this too. Norton would have been morethan up to the task, but Ratner chose to ignore this, one of the book'smost compelling elements! So basically, instead of adding something ofhis own, the Brett Ratner style is to SUBTRACT! And it's a real shame, because he had some of today's greatest actorsto work with - Norton, Hopkins, Watson, Ralph Fiennes, Philip SeymourHoffman. When a director manages to drain the life out of as great aperformer as Edward Norton, you know something's amiss. As for Hopkins,his performance seems to deteriorate a bit each time he plays thischaracter (right along with the quality of the movies). And you get thefeeling Hoffman could have gone to town with his character, but he'sgiven very little to do. Only Fiennes escapes unscathed - he turns in amemorable, unsettling performance, and he is the reason there is anysuspense in this film at all (the highlights are his scenes withWatson, who also does a good job).Two other concepts Ratner doesn't seem to be acquainted with are styleand subtlety. For instance, (and screenwriter Ted Tally shares theblame for this) Graham tells his wife that after reading the killer'sjournal he felt sorry for him. This is a classic example of a filmmakerwho doesn't respect his audience's intelligence. If you've ever taken acreative writing class, you might remember that the first rule is 'showdon't tell'. A good director would have noticed that Fiennes does agood job of eliciting sympathy, and that the audience doesn't need tobe told about it. Something else the movie should have shown us insteadof spelling it out is Graham's boss telling him he has a gift forfinding killers. When poor Harvey Keitel has to deliver that line, itstinks of cheese.Red Dragon is not a boring movie; it's not even a bad movie. The storyand the actors (as diminished as they are by Ratner's ineptitude)prevent that from happening. It's simply not a very interesting movie.Imagine how good it could have been if a real director had made it...

2012-04-24 00:54:31

Once more, with feeling---& Anthony Hopkins!

I'm not at all opposed to a good remake of a classic film, but I believe it should have something new to say, something that makes it relevant to the modern age and time. Almost a shot-for-shot remake of the original and woefully underrated classic "Manhunter", "Red Dragon" fails on this score, and lacks the tortuous internal struggle of its detective and the trancelike, music-video pacing that made the original so creepy, poetic, and melodic. "Red Dragon" comes across as a bloodless, boring, dispirited, dreary, and mechanical cloning of the first film, directed by Michael Mann, which told the same story back in 1986 with style, wit, horror, and cinematic aplomb. Trouble is, Anthony Hopkins hadn't signed on to the role as society psychiatrist-turned-serial-killer Hannibal Lecter at the time, and Hollywood didn't have two massively successful Hannibal Lecter movies under its belt to capitalize on. The solution: remake "Manhunter", this time casting Hopkins as the cannibalistic Lecter."Red Dragon" introduces Hannibal Lecter by way of Will Graham (Edward Norton), an FBI profiler brought back to work on the case of a new serial killer nicknamed "The Tooth Fairy" by a yellow journalist (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) at the National Tattler. Graham, nearly killed by Lecter, needs help in tracking and identifying the killer, and, like Clarisse Starling in 'Silence', visits the good doctor to get a 'scent for the hunt'. There are some slight alterations, none of them for the better. Where "Manhunter" was about the internal voyage of the troubled Graham into the soul and mind of a serial killer, "Red Dragon" is Hannibal Lecter's movie. The first scene of the movie, which replaces the far eerier flashlight introduction to the Tooth Fairy in "Manhunter", is an account of Will Graham's near fatal encounter with Lecter. The scene is amusing, well-paced, and akin to the baroque sensibilities of Ridley Scott's "Hannibal", and earns the one star I've offered in this review; the viewer would do well to cut off the movie at this point and go watch "Manhunter." In every comparison with Michael Mann's original, the movie falls far short; having seen "Manhunter" and watching this workmanlike copy is like looking at your uncle's yellowed polaroid of the Mona Lisa, after having seen the original on display. The treatment of the villain in "Red Dragon" is similarly flawed; the Tooth Fairy is introduced too soon, Ralph Fiennes (who does a competent job with what little he is given) is unable to evoke the bestial Dolarhyde, and even one of the film's horrific centerpieces, the flaming-wheelchair scene, comes off as a disinterested photocopy of the horrifying original. Gone is the mounting suspense of Graham's troubling inner journey into his own wounded psyche and his terrifying relationship with Lecter; in its place we have Norton's complacent banter with a visibly mellowed Anthony Hopkins, who manages to make a cannibalistic serial killer look like a purring, content kitten. Gone too is Mann's use of contemporary music to evoke the Lecter's nihilistic universe and Graham's tortured one; notable in its absence is the modern equivalent of Iron Butterfly's 'Anna Gada Da Vida', used to startling effect in the original to make the culminating sequence of that movie approach Italian grand opera. What do we have in place of all this? A clumsy, contrived 'explanation' for the Tooth Fairy's depravity, a psychosexually abusive relationship with his dead mother that could have been lifted directly from "Psycho." "Red Dragon" is a technically competent movie, and to those viewers unfamiliar with the cinematic source material Rattner has pillaged it might serve as 2+ hours of pleasingly bland serial killer fare. But the viewer is best served to go out and buy "Manhunter" for a glimpse of true horror and a better perspective into the mind of a psychopath; "Red Dragon" is tapwater to "Manhunter's" chianti.