Red Dragon
- Thread starter Stecchino
- Start date
Manhunter is good too...but I think Red Dragon is better...
Michael Mann's style doesn't leave a lot of room for warmth, which I suppose may seem like an odd requirement for me to focus on...but in fact Red Dragon makes you care more about the characters, and that is a good thing in a thriller...because you have to care about the characters to fear for thier safety on the screen. Ralph Fiennes, in particular, is remarkably multidimensional in his portrayal. Edward Norton is also very good, Emily Watson is always good, Philip Seymour Hoffman is always good....etc etc....
The only person I had a problem with was Harvey Keitel...he seemed more like a NYPD beat cop who made good than an FBI psychology whiz...Scott Glenn in Silence of the Lambs seemed more ivy league and on target.
One reason Red Dragon works may be that they brought back Ted Tally (from SOTL) to do the screenplay. While I am a David Mamet fan, I have no doubt his adaptation was part of the problem with Hannibal.
Once Red Dragon comes out in DVD it will be interesting to watch the 3 movies in (plot line) chronological order one right after the other...
Michael Mann's style doesn't leave a lot of room for warmth, which I suppose may seem like an odd requirement for me to focus on...but in fact Red Dragon makes you care more about the characters, and that is a good thing in a thriller...because you have to care about the characters to fear for thier safety on the screen. Ralph Fiennes, in particular, is remarkably multidimensional in his portrayal. Edward Norton is also very good, Emily Watson is always good, Philip Seymour Hoffman is always good....etc etc....
The only person I had a problem with was Harvey Keitel...he seemed more like a NYPD beat cop who made good than an FBI psychology whiz...Scott Glenn in Silence of the Lambs seemed more ivy league and on target.
One reason Red Dragon works may be that they brought back Ted Tally (from SOTL) to do the screenplay. While I am a David Mamet fan, I have no doubt his adaptation was part of the problem with Hannibal.
Once Red Dragon comes out in DVD it will be interesting to watch the 3 movies in (plot line) chronological order one right after the other...
Last edited:
I read Hannibal and I liked it (I thought it was disturbing how Agent Starling 'fell for' Dr. Lector), althoughI thought it was very short (I'm a Tom Clancy fan, so you now how long I like my novels; if its under 700 pages, I feel cheated).
Are the books for 'SOTL' and 'Red dragon' as good?
Are the books for 'SOTL' and 'Red dragon' as good?
Last edited:
I read both around the time SOTL came out...and frankly preferred the movie(s). I don't think Harris is very good...and he reuses the same ideas, and "clever" phrases, in multiple books. I think the books are more like first drafts that are greatly improved by subsequent script rewrites. He comes up with a few good ideas but doesn't really have the writing chops to make them into great novels. But I know others disagree...may be a matter of taste I suppose...
Also...in Hannibal the whole thing with Starling falling for Lector is just wrong...it just isn't the same person from SOTL, and there is no psychologically plausible path to get from the one to the other. I can totally understand why Jodie Foster refused to participate in Hannibal.
Also...in Hannibal the whole thing with Starling falling for Lector is just wrong...it just isn't the same person from SOTL, and there is no psychologically plausible path to get from the one to the other. I can totally understand why Jodie Foster refused to participate in Hannibal.
As I recall, Red Dragon is the first in the Lecter series. I liked it. Read it many moons ago. I believe it was published prior to Silence of the Lambs (and yes, adapted into the Manhunter movie, which may have been a straight-to-VHS experience.)
It's a fast read, as I recall, every bit as interesting as Silence of the Lambs.
I've not seen Red Dragon, but I will say that Silence of the Lambs was such a rare artistic success that it is hard to compare anything to it.
It's a fast read, as I recall, every bit as interesting as Silence of the Lambs.
I've not seen Red Dragon, but I will say that Silence of the Lambs was such a rare artistic success that it is hard to compare anything to it.
His name is...
The actors name is William Peterson (CSI lead, also the lead in Manhunter).
Another side note... Peterson was also in a movie from the late 1980's called "To Live and Die in LA." Excellent, low-budget flick, also starring a very, very young Willem Dafoe (as ugly as he always is, but I digress...). This should be one of those movies on TBS when they do their special "movies for guys who like movies." "LA" was a simple tale, but it has some great plot twists... escpecially at the very end. If you get a chance, and are bored on a Friday evening, go to Blockbuster and rent it, provided they (Blockbuster) still has the flick in stock.
Originally posted by Dr. Strangelove
You should check out a movie made years before the Silence of the Lambs came out called "Manhunter".
The male lead in Manhunter was played by the guy who plays the chief investigator in the LV version of CSI.
You should check out a movie made years before the Silence of the Lambs came out called "Manhunter".
The male lead in Manhunter was played by the guy who plays the chief investigator in the LV version of CSI.
Another side note... Peterson was also in a movie from the late 1980's called "To Live and Die in LA." Excellent, low-budget flick, also starring a very, very young Willem Dafoe (as ugly as he always is, but I digress...). This should be one of those movies on TBS when they do their special "movies for guys who like movies." "LA" was a simple tale, but it has some great plot twists... escpecially at the very end. If you get a chance, and are bored on a Friday evening, go to Blockbuster and rent it, provided they (Blockbuster) still has the flick in stock.
Originally posted by RufusMoses
...but in fact Red Dragon makes you care more about the characters, and that is a good thing in a thriller...because you have to care about the characters to fear for thier safety on the screen. Ralph Fiennes, in particular, is remarkably multidimensional in his portrayal. Edward Norton is also very good, Emily Watson is always good, Philip Seymour Hoffman is always good....etc etc....
...but in fact Red Dragon makes you care more about the characters, and that is a good thing in a thriller...because you have to care about the characters to fear for thier safety on the screen. Ralph Fiennes, in particular, is remarkably multidimensional in his portrayal. Edward Norton is also very good, Emily Watson is always good, Philip Seymour Hoffman is always good....etc etc....
I respectfully disagree, Rufus. You really cared about the characters? I didn't. I actually thought the movie was awful . Some good-looking guy with a great body was freaking out cuz his teeth were fucked up? That whole thing about him getting yelled at as a kid.....how cheesy. And why the Red Dragon? They didn't give any reason as to why he picked this or what the Red Dragon was all about. The blind horny chick? Dumb. Hoffman is an excellent actor but the only purpose for his character was for that scene where Fiennes shows him his dragon tatoos, which was supposed to be THE scene but was actually kinda comical. Norton's family....you actually cared or thought they were in danger? C'mon. I could go on and on but we really disagree on this one.
possible spoilers...don't read if you haven't seen the movie yet...
There is always room for disagreement on matters of taste...that's A-OK with me...
But I'll just focus on the Ralph Fiennes "Tooth Fairy" character here. Compare his portrayal with Ted Levines "Buffalo Bill" character in TSOTL. Buffalo Bill is portrayed as a more or less one dimensional killer...cross dressing and gender bending adds some texture to the character, but he is basically always a single minded predator. The Tooth Fairy, on the other hand, offers a spectrum of emotions. He is at times almost like a super-hero psycho killer. At other times he is a mess of inadequacy. He actually yearns for a "normal" relationship, and then later is disgusted by his own weakness. He is both attracted and repulsed by both sides of his split personality. And unlike Buffalo Bill we get a fairly good idea of where his psychosis comes from...and from my reading of nonfictional accounts of serial killers the combination of physical deformity and a terribly abusive mother could well contribute to what he ultimately turns into.
So even though TSOTL is the benchmark for the series, and is ultimately better than Red Dragon (Fosters exchanges with Lecter are just unbeatable), on the limited comparison of the Tooth Fairy with Buffalo Bill I'd give Red Dragon the nod.
There is always room for disagreement on matters of taste...that's A-OK with me...
But I'll just focus on the Ralph Fiennes "Tooth Fairy" character here. Compare his portrayal with Ted Levines "Buffalo Bill" character in TSOTL. Buffalo Bill is portrayed as a more or less one dimensional killer...cross dressing and gender bending adds some texture to the character, but he is basically always a single minded predator. The Tooth Fairy, on the other hand, offers a spectrum of emotions. He is at times almost like a super-hero psycho killer. At other times he is a mess of inadequacy. He actually yearns for a "normal" relationship, and then later is disgusted by his own weakness. He is both attracted and repulsed by both sides of his split personality. And unlike Buffalo Bill we get a fairly good idea of where his psychosis comes from...and from my reading of nonfictional accounts of serial killers the combination of physical deformity and a terribly abusive mother could well contribute to what he ultimately turns into.
So even though TSOTL is the benchmark for the series, and is ultimately better than Red Dragon (Fosters exchanges with Lecter are just unbeatable), on the limited comparison of the Tooth Fairy with Buffalo Bill I'd give Red Dragon the nod.
Originally posted by akshun
I read Hannibal and I liked it (I thought it was disturbing how Agent Starling 'fell for' Dr. Lector), althoughI thought it was very short (I'm a Tom Clancy fan, so you now how long I like my novels; if its under 700 pages, I feel cheated).
Are the books for 'SOTL' and 'Red dragon' as good?
I read Hannibal and I liked it (I thought it was disturbing how Agent Starling 'fell for' Dr. Lector), althoughI thought it was very short (I'm a Tom Clancy fan, so you now how long I like my novels; if its under 700 pages, I feel cheated).
Are the books for 'SOTL' and 'Red dragon' as good?
its pretty good if you are Clancy fan
Originally posted by Stecchino
"Psychological Thriller", my ass. Save your money. Big disappointment. I'll admit to going in with high expectations, but what a fuckin bore! Hopkins was excellent, as usual, but a huge dud other than that.
"Psychological Thriller", my ass. Save your money. Big disappointment. I'll admit to going in with high expectations, but what a fuckin bore! Hopkins was excellent, as usual, but a huge dud other than that.
Last edited: