Hey folks, Harry here... Massawyrm has some prime A grade crack... cuz he feels RED DRAGON is equal in quality to SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.... and we know, that can't be right can it? Well maybe it can... Here ya go....
Hola all. Massawyrm here with a look at Brett Ratner's defining film, the much awaited "reimagining" (if you'll excuse the buzz word) of Red Dragon, the first book of the Hannibal Lecter trilogy. Now this movie carries with it quite a bit of baggage and has been met with much skepticism within the film geek community over the past year. This is primarily for two reasons. 1) Red Dragon has already been adapted for the screen by film geek favorite Michael Mann back in 1986. And 2) Brett Ratner had yet to prove himself a capable enough director for this mood driven a piece as the bulk of his work lay exclusively within the buddy-buddy Action/Comedy genre. Note that I say HAD yet to prove himself. Red Dragon is a brilliant addition to the serial killer thriller sub-genre and is not only a worthy addition to the Lecter Franchise, but a film equal in quality to Silence of the Lambs.
Now I know that's a bold statement, and I'm not saying that Red Dragon will have the same visceral effect on it's audience that Silence of the Lambs caused back in '91, nor do I think that it will attain the 'Classic' status that Silence achieved for being so groundbreaking (although it is a possibility). However, there is no denying that the same level of quality is present. The mood, the acting, the writing. All top notch. This is the type of sequel (or prequel if you will) that you pray for: a film that is tonally perfect for the established universe that seeks to tell a new story and further expands the boundaries set by the earlier film without breaking the pre-established parameters or simply turning into a "further adventures of" story. But I'll go more into that later. In order to do this right, we have to begin at the beginning...
Once Upon a time, there was a book called Red Dragon, and it was a good book, a perfect example of a new generation of crime thrillers that focused upon the aspects of criminology, forensic investigation and psychological profiling rather than just the age old grizzled cop with good instincts or lucky breaks. And that book was optioned by Dino De Laurentas and turned into the 1986 crime thriller "Manhunter". And yes, it was a damn fine film. But, it was not Red Dragon. Oh, it stuck to the plot and had the same characters, but it was a mid 80's crime thriller that stuck pretty well to its genre for the time and ignored the bulk of the examination of the "Tooth Fairy", the exposition of the character that Will Graham was brought out of retirement to hunt for the FBI. All of the Lecter material was there, and it was good and the plot delivered all of the books twists and turns; but still, the rich textures of the serial killer were gone.
But that was a different time. Audiences didn't want to see a serial killer explained, or so Hollywood thought. They wanted a relentless boogey man for the tireless hero to overcome. And that's exactly what Michael Mann gave them, and he did it well. So when Thomas Harris penned the sequel "Silence of the Lambs" de Laurentas had the rights to make another film, and Dino gave it a shot. This time Jonathan Demme took the helm from a script written by Ted Tally and together they created a modern masterpiece of mood and horror. Tally shifted the focus away from just the investigation and more into probing the mind of two distinctly different serial killers. He focused on the characters rather than the twists and Demme set a visual tone with a perfect cast that became an instant classic. Winner of 5 academy awards for Best Actor, Actress, Director, adapted screenplay and the brass ring, best Picture, this film changed the way America looked at crime thrillers. All of a sudden the subject of the hunt was far more interesting than the cop chasing them. This of course led to a whole series of imitators, some great, some complete duds.
But most importantly, in the context of the series, Silence instantly dated Manhunter and surpassed it in every way. Manhunter became forgotten by most of the film watching world and Silence became widely held as the first, the original. Talk to an average movie watcher at your local video store and ask them about Red Dragon. "Oh, that's the third Silence of the Lambs movie" they'll no doubt say. Bring up Manhunter. Mention that Silence is it's sequel. Watch the confusion in their eyes. As a video store clerk, I've had this conversation countless times. I've sent many a soul home clutching a copy of Mann's directors cut (released on video and DVD as a side promotion with the release of Hannibal). I have met few people, all of them film geeks, who remember and have known full well for years exactly what Manhunter is.
So when I heard about the "reimagining" of Red Dragon, I thought as those of you who enjoyed Manhunter as much as I did simply "Why? It's already been done. They're just milking this for more money." And when I heard that Ratner had brought on Dante Spinotti as a cinematographer when he had been the cinematographer of "Manhunter" I thought, as many of you did "Okay, what the hell are they thinking? This is Like Van Sant's using Hitchcock's shotlist for his remake of Psycho. This is insane." But Spinotti's grown alot as a cinematographer, in fact, he's become damn brilliant. Since Manhunter he's done such visually charming favorites as Raimi's "Quick and the Dead", Curtis Hanson's "L.A. Confidential" and "Wonder Boys" and Michael Mann's "Heat" and "The Insider". And lest we forget, he'd actually worked with Ratner before on "The Family Man". Ratner and Spinotti have a history. It seems more a strange kind of synergy than just some "Hey lets get some crew from Manhunter" ass backwards decision.
The first thing you Notice about Red Dragon is just how damned similar it looks not to Manhunter, but to Silence of the Lambs. From the opening scene Spinotti's camera work perfectly emulates Tak Fujimoto's (Signs, Sixth Sense, Badlands) brilliant camera strokes from Silence. Under Ratner's direction the mood and spirit of the franchise are brought back to the screen with the fantastic adaptation by Ted Tally. No longer is there a schism between the first and second episodes of the trilogy; no longer is there a vast difference between the look, the feel and the casting of the first and second films. Red Dragon is a perfect addition to the Hannibal Lecter Universe, expanding the characters in all the right ways while giving us a film that doesn't simply retread over old material.
Ted Tally's script is brilliant. The focus upon the "Tooth Fairy" is very real and well handled. The monster within him is slowly and masterfully exposed to us in wondrously horrifying ways. It isn't until the very end of the film that you realize just how powerful the Red Dragon is. The scenes between Will Graham and Hannibal Lecter are meticulously crafted, perfectly exploring the battle of wills between these two men. And the script is simply "All Balls", refusing to play it safe. There is one scene in particular between the "Tooth Fairy" and his love interest that is so perfect, so dark and macabre, that it simply will make your skin crawl at the very thought of it. Expect this to take at the very least a nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay next year at the Oscars. It's that fucking good.
The most interesting thing about Red Dragon that has balanced out the controversy over the choice of Ratner and the fact that its a remake of a good film is the dream cast assembled for it. And boy howdy does this cast pay off. Anthony Hopkins, in most everybody's mind, IS Hannibal Lecter. Now I know there is a small segment of the film geek population that contends rather that Brian Cox (Manhunter) IS Hannibal Lecter. Don't get me wrong, I love Brian Cox. His performance is wonderful as Lecter. But I gotta go with the crowds on this one. Hopkins just exudes creepiness in this role. He has the sweat of a madman on him, skin that would sting you upon touch and a stare, a glare, that bores a hole right through you and drinks in your darkest secrets. Hopkins gives us every bit of the performance that won him his Oscar while delivering a new and different side to Lecter; the Lecter whose forced to face the man who bested him. There's wounded ego in every scene with Graham, a delight in every tormented glance he catches. Hopkins is the reason everyone will see this movie and he won't for a minute disappoint. But that was never really in question was it? Hopkins fucking this up would be like a professional center fielder missing a pop up fly ball. Sure, it COULD happen, but the odds just ain't in that favor.
Well everyone else lives up to their reputations. Emily Watson is simply brilliant. I'm not going to go into any detail about her character as it is one of Red Dragon's most devilishly clever concepts and an absolute pleasure for those of you who aren't familiar with the story. But her performance is grand, completely endearing and yes, expect another Oscar nomination to come her way. This time I really feel she has a shot to walk home with the old gold man, this time for Best Supporting.
Ralph Fiennes proves once again just how great an actor he is by giving us one of the greatest textured performances in recent memory. As Francis Dolarhyde, "The Tooth Fairy", he gives us a variety of emotion out of the same character, without once slipping into comical dementia that a lesser actor could have easily delivered despite their best efforts. Dolarhyde is a complicated character with so many facets to his personality that are in such constant conflict it could easily become confusing and the character could become a muddled mess on the screen. Fiennes, however, perfectly portrays each facet, both physically and verbally. The looks in his eyes, the contortions of his face, the quiet menace in the calmer times. Everything is played note perfect, a performance on par with Hopkins' own, as well as such past greats as Anthony Perkins in Psycho and Robert Mitchum in Night of the Hunter. Ralph Fiennes is the soul of this movie, its driving force, and Tally's script makes sure to give him plenty of screen time and plenty of good material to work with. Fiennes portrayal is what keep this from becoming "Yet another serial killer thriller", taking us deeply into his mind without the crutch of visual flashbacks. Oh, this film has a couple of auditory flashbacks, but all the while we watch Fiennes react to the thoughts, trying to force them out of his head and deal with them as rationally as he can. These are the moments where Fiennes is at his best, when acting is it's toughest. Alone with only a few lines to cling to. It's these moments when actors truly define themselves, when there's no one in the scene to play off, no clever dialog to help you, no camera tricks to divert attention away from your imperfections as an actor. Fiennes has finally come into his own, delivering a character people will be chewing on for years to come. Again, expect another nomination come Oscar night to head Fiennes' way.
Providing support Mary-Louise parker, Harvey Keitel and Phillip Seymour Hoffman all live up to their abilities. However, Parker and Keitel are never really given much to play around with, especially in contrast to the characters given to Hopkins, Watson and Fiennes. Only Hoffman is given a scene worthy of his talent which he nails as he most often does. While none of these three actors really get the showcase they all deserve, I'm glad Ratner chose such a strong supporting cast here. One weak link could have distracted from all the other amazing elements in this film. Now while I did quietly long for Scott Glenn to have returned one final time as Jack Crawford (Scott Glenn after all is one of the best stoic actors out there at portraying someone who always appears to be two steps ahead of everyone else in the film), Jack Crawford finds himself here more of a catalyst and less a real presence in the film. Keitel gives it his best and only in retrospect do you really wonder how cool it would have been with Glenn.
One of the best touches in the film is the return of Frankie Faison as Barney (merely as a set piece as he has no lines) and Anthony Heald as the detestable Dr. Chilton. Heald once again is downright loathable in the best way and having Barney there, well it does something very special for the film. It takes you back. When Will Graham visits Lecter you forget that there's a new Jack Crawford, you forget that there was a film called Manhunter. You go back to Silence of the Lambs and walk down that creepy ass hallway and its all familiar, just how you remember it when you first walked down it with Clarice Starling 11 years ago. And at the end of that hallway is that damned fold out chair and a smiling, patiently waiting, Hannibal Lecter. Every detail is perfectly in place, everything is just right. This movie exists in the exact same universe without a single difference at that point. It's perfect. Utterly perfect.
And of course there's our Hero, Will Graham, played by Edward Norton. Now early reviews have been giving Norton what I feel is a very unfair shake over his performance. He's good, as he always is, but Will Graham simply isn't as deliciously textured as many of the other characters he's coming into contact with or as some of the characters Norton's been able to chew on in previous roles. He's the straight man. Sure he has issues, but those are nothing compared to Cannibalism and Necrophilia. He's the hero, ever stoic in the face of evil and driven by a determination to do some right in the world. But there are moments, a precious few moments, where Norton really earns his paycheck. Anyone who thinks Ed just sleepwalked right on through this film missed those few key scenes. Scenes like when he walks into the dark house, squints and opens his eyes to become someone completely different. Scenes like when Lecter is doing his damnedest to get into his head and torment him with his innermost fears. Norton is excellent in this film and plays what he's given to the best of his abilities. It's not flawed at all, just very vanilla when you're standing next to one of the most deranged men in cinema history or even when you're compared to Jodie Foster's troubled Clarice Starling.
Movies this good don't happen by accident. Brett Ratner has finally proven himself, delivering the film that will hopefully quiet down this rampant loathing I've seen and heard from many of you fellow geeks out there that based upon just a handful of career building films. Unlike many of my fellow staff members, I've never met Ratner and like yourselves only know of him through his work. I loved Rush Hour 2, like Rush Hour just fine, was very shaky hand on The Family Man and hated Money Talks. But this is the film, the masterpiece in his collection, the film that illustrates that he can deliver a character driven mood piece just fine. There's little to complain about in this film (all of which are period issues) and Ratner has put together one hell of a film that will most definitely put him on the map. If he keeps this up I believe he's well on his way to being spoken of with such names as Ridley Scott, Richard Donner and Robert Rodriguez rather than the Joel Schumacher, Renny Harlin, Michael Bay comments I've been hearing as of late. While I'm not sure if H-towns up for giving him a nod for this one, I do feel that this is one of the best directed films of the year to date. We'll see what comes of that, but I'm pulling for it. This film really is that good.
The only issues I have with red Dragon are small, anal retentive ones dealing with the period setting. While the film does a great job of setting itself back in the mid 80's without too much flash and only one small bit of ribbing (a library girl who is sooooo 80's that its beautiful) there are a couple minor bits that don't mesh with the period. Small modern day nuances that stick out if you're paying attention. But it's absolutely minor and only something you may discuss after the film in passing.
All in all this is quite possibly one of the most widely satisfying films of the year. If you enjoyed Silence of the Lambs at all it will be nigh impossible for you to not enjoy this one as well. Red Dragon will easily make it onto quite a few top 10 lists this year and will no doubt have a powerful showing at next years Oscars. A great film for the season and a genre lovers paradise this film gets some of the Wyrm's highest praise. If you enjoyed Silence of the lambs at all, I cannot stress enough how much you need to see this film. And before anybody brings "Hannibal" up, remember that the audience for the book was just as divided as the audience for the movie. It's nearly impossible to make a great film when the source material is so weak. red Dragon is great source material. red Dragon is a great movie. It opens this weekend and I hope to see some of you there as I take it in for a second time.
Until next time friends, smoke 'em if ya got 'em. I know I will.
