Question:
Red Dragon is my most aticipated film. Right now I want to see it
more than AOTC, Spiderman, Minority report and all that. Antony Hopkins, Ed
Norton, Harvey Kietel, Ralph Fiennes, Phillip Seymour Hoffman... the list
goes on! All we needed was Ridley Scott to take the helm again (Brett Ratner
you are the weakest link. goodbye). If the story stays close to the book
then damn this film is gonna be cookin'. anybody can tell me about this?
Answer:
- Maybe I didn't make myself quite clear. I have seen Manhunter (pisses all
over SotL and H) and a star studded remake would definately get me going.
Manhunter had some powerful performances but with actors like Ed Norton (IMO
God Amongst Actors!), Ralph Fiennes et co it can only get better (or am I
speaking too soon). The only downer I can see is Bret Ratner. I'm not a fan
of his previous works (I haven't even bothered to watch Rush Hour 2) and am
hoping he will pleasantly surprise me.
- I thought "Manhunter" was good, but I think it has become a little
weathered over the years. Personally I hadn't even heard of the film
until "Silence of the Lambs" was released and my English teacher told
me about the link.
"Silence of the Lambs" was great, but I've never thought it was as
good as its hype might have suggested. I recently saw the film on the
big screen for the first time during GKC Re-Run Film Festival
("Silence of the Lambs" was never intended to have a run on the weekly
Fall festival, but ended up serving as a last minute replacement to
"Fight Club," which was deemed no longer politically correct after
September 11th).
"Hannibal" was one of the worst films I've seen thus far in 2001.
Boring, gratuitous, and the lack of Jodie Foster hurts the film in my
opinion.
Now on to "Red Dragon": I'm looking forward to. First off...I don't
think I've ever seen a film with Edward Norton in it that I didn't
like (even if it was a marginal thumbs up). As stated above I also
believe that "Manhunter" has weathered over the years--I think it
feels a bit 80ish now--though I still claim to be a fan. A remake is
fine with me and with Hopkins as Lector and Edward Norton as the lead
I'm looking forward to it.
Some have expressed to me that "Manhunter" is not a good translation
of Harris' book "Red Dragon." I want to warn people that "Red Dragon"
the film might not be either--apparently Hannibal Lector is barely
even in the book (he's not really in that much of "Manhunter" either
come to think of it) and the screen writers for "Red Dragon" are
looking to give Hopkins a meaty role (obviously).
-let me suggest to you to check out the original before you get all
excited about a remake. Rent the 1986 "Manhunter" film by Michael Mann. This
is based on "Red Dragon" and where we first see Hannibal Lektor. It's
incredibly powerful stuff. I personally think it's better that SotL because it
didn't have the star-power of Hopkins and Foster.
When I first heard of the remake, I thought "why? why touch something that's
great enough?" Then, I saw Hopkins was gonna be involved which means
Hannibal's gonna be all over the place. In "Manhunter" Brian Cox plays him
very subtlely and effectively. He's not in many scenes, but it's enough and it
works. I guess in this one Hannibal's gonna be the good guy. Yuck.
Sorry, I can't get excited about "Red Dragon". I think instead of throwing
down the $7 to watch a star-powered remake of a great film, I'll watch the
original "Manhunter" instead.
- It's interesting how time changes perception. I went to see all three
movies when they first came out and I've read all three books. When
Manhunter came out, it was well-received by the critics. However, to
say that it pisses all over SotL seems a bit much. Peterson, although
a fine actor, was too stoic and I could never truly sense his
insecurities and vulnerabilities which were very apparent in the book.
These two latter traits is probably why Norton was chosen for the
role. Norton is better at expressing weakness. Brian Cox's Hannibal
was much more visibly sinister and evil than Hopkin's cool and refined
approach. Hopkin's portrayal, no doubt is much more scarier and
chilling. As far as SotL star power? Jodie Foster was the only known
commodity. Hopkin's career was going nowhere until this movie. In
fact, no one under 30 knew who he was back then and he did the
god-awful Freejack AFTER SotL. Futhermore, people are goofing on
Ratner now, but remember, Jonathan Demme back then was also known as a
comedy director up until Silence. SotL came out without fanfare
because the movie was cheap and the studios did not put alot of stake
in it. Who knew back then Demme could go serious? Michael Mann, OTOH,
had already established himself as an action director before his movie
came out.
OTOH, Tom Noonan was exceptional as Dollarhyde. Fiennes has some great
(Schindler) and bad (Avengers) performances. I am curious to see his
take, but I can't get the image out of my mind when Noonan put's on
the false teeth. I'll also miss Scott Glenn as Crawford. (What ever
happened to his career?) Dennis Farina was terribly miscast in
Manhunter.
As far as Hannibal is concerned, why even bother discussing it?
By the way, how is Hannibal suppose to be a good guy in this new
movie?