Red Dragon
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
- Release Date: October 4, 2002
- Directed by: Brett Ratner
- Written by: Ted Tally
- Runtime: 2 hours 4 minutes
- Series: Hannibal Lecter
My relationship with Red Dragon is a little all-over-the-place. When I first watched the movie when I was young, I thoroughly enjoyed it. As I got older and rewatched it a few times, there were even points where I would debate whether I liked it or The Silence of the Lambs more. In my opinion, it was a pretty suspenseful prequel story that was worth watching because of the performances of Anthony Hopkins and Edward Norton. When I later watched the previous adaptation of the Red Dragon novel, Manhunter, I found myself a little underwhelmed by it and decided I would stick with this movie if I wanted to see this story told. As the years went on, I heard several people close to me say that they preferred Manhunter, and that Red Dragon was a pointless remake that paled in comparison. I spent a long time wondering if I was missing something when it came to comparing the adaptations, so I finally decided to watch both of them back-to-back to see which one was the better telling of the tale. Having done that, I can now say that while I still really enjoy this movie on its own, I finally understand why some people feel like this is the inferior version.
One common opinion that I hear about this movie is that it's nothing but a cash-grab remake that was only made to have a film version of the story with Anthony Hopkins in the role of Hannibal Lecter. Even though the cash-grab statement may be true, I've never been disappointed by a Hopkins performance, and he's just as good in this movie as he is in the previous ones. His eyes, facial expressions and hypnotic voice are just as captivating as before, and because of numerous scenes that were added to the script, he gets a lot more screen time to work with than Brian Cox did in Manhunter. However, this is a case where the addition of more Lecter scenes is a detriment to the movie's impact. Lecter was never intended to be the main villain of this story; its focus was on Will Graham's hunt for Francis Dollarhyde with Lecter acting as a side character. This movie adds an entirely new introduction showing Will's traumatic encounter with Lecter, several scenes between the two of them where Will is looking for information, as well as a tacked-on ending that is just a massive fanservice nod to The Silence of the Lambs. While many of these scenes are well-acted and pretty entertaining, they take the focus away from the core conflict between Will and Dollarhyde, and this makes the movie feel very padded-out. It's only about five minutes longer than Manhunter, but its slowed momentum makes it feel like it has an extra 25 minutes or so. The makers of this movie seemed to forget that sometimes less is more, and the various additions definitely impacted the movie's pacing.
As for the other main characters, Edward Norton is a good Will, but he's not as damaged as William Petersen's version of the character. His tone of voice and mannerisms make it feel like while he definitely has personal trauma, he's still a mostly put-together person. My girlfriend pointed out that he comes across as a "good-boy dad", and I think that's a pretty accurate description of this portrayal. He really needed some moments where his PTSD and emotional swings were shown a bit more, and I'm sure that Norton would have done a great job portraying that if he had some better direction. As it is, he's a little one-note at points. As for Dollarhyde, Ralph Fiennes is a little too handsome for what the character is supposed to be like, but his story is still pretty well done. His relationship with Reba gets a few more scenes of development here, which makes the moment where he finally snaps on her all the more tragic. However, he does get his fare share of over-the-top points, such as one where he's lifting weights in his big mansion, or another where he rips apart and eats the painting that he is obsessed with. He's less of a realistic psychopath and more of a stylized Hollywood serial killer, and while some may see that as cheap, I'm always very entertained by his parts of the movie.
Finally, while the movie is competently made when it comes to its cinematography, it just isn't as fun to look at as Manhunter was. Even though both movies share the same cinematographer, the hyper-saturated colored lighting is nowhere to be seen, and everything is shot in a pretty standard fashion. In addition, the grimy and moody synthesizers of Manhunter's soundtrack have been replaced by standard orchestral and vocal arrangements. Everything looks and sounds fine, and I think that's the problem: it's just "fine." It feels like the filmmakers were playing it as safe as possible after the trainwreck of the previous year's Hannibal, and wanted to make the movie feel as close to Silence as they could. Because of this, it lacks an identity of its own, and it feels like Brett Ratner was just painting-by-numbers in the director's chair.
I realize I've been a bit negative in this write-up, but that doesn't mean that I hate Red Dragon by any means. It's still an engaging thriller film that is sure to please any fan of the Hannibal movies, and I still look back on it fondly because my Mom showed it to me when I was young. It's perfectly serviceable, but when you compare it to Manhunter's bold use of colors and its emotional complexity, it just doesn't have that same spark. It just shows that when it comes to filmmaking, taking a chance and forging a vision of your own pays off so much more than simply playing it safe.