Cool News
Brett Ratner's RED DRAGON becoming more and more promising!!!
Harry here... Hollywood Reporter tells us that right now Brett Ratner is assembling what promises to be an amazing cast for RED DRAGON.
Now I know that there was some initial fears that Brett Ratner was the wrong person to direct RED DRAGON, but folks... Let's look at what we have thus far.
First, he's going into this with Ted Tally's magnificent adaptation. A script that could possibly bring us the best of the series. However, a cast... It needs a cast, and it is here... at this juncture that Brett Ratner has been making his first impressions of what it is that he wants to do with Tally's work.
First, he cast Ed Norton as Will Graham. Quite frankly, I can think of very few actors that begin to approach his quality of late. Even in lesser films, Ed Norton has dazzled so well that those films have become very watchable. And when he has been cast in great films... well, heh... He kicks much ass.
Well joining him in RED DRAGON is Harvey Keitel as Jack Crawford... Harvey will be an excellent Jack Crawford. Can't you just see him talking Will Graham out of retirement? Keitel is a fantastic performer and a great choice for the role.
Meanwhile, Phillip Seymour Hoffman is in negotiation for the role of the Tabloid Reporter, who causes so much trouble for poor Will Graham. Now Phillip Seymour Hoffman is another wonderful choice.
Also Mary-Louise Parker is about to sign on as Ed Norton's wife, who must witness Norton's descent into another case, knowing what it is that does to him. Parker doesn't do near as much film work as she should. I saw Parker on stage in New York earlier this year and she is in fine form.
These actors join Anthony Hopkins and Emily Watson. So far, if the casting is any indication of the quality that Brett Ratner is hoping for, he couldn't hope for a better cast thus far. I haven't spoken with Ratner in quite some time, but I know he very much loves the filmmaking of the seventies and has a particularly soft spot for Cassavetes. Personally I welcome the chance to see what Ratner can do with a fantastic script and cast. Though I will always love the original MANHUNTER, it will be nice to complete the Lecter Trilogy with the same Lecter all the way across. Though having Keitel replace Scott Glenn in the role will be a notable change in continuity. But I think Harvey is up to the task.
-
+ Expand All
-
Its BRETT RATTNER! Why didnt he cast Chris Tucker as Will Graham? "DOO YOOO UNDASTAND DA WORDS CUMMIN' OUT MY MOUF, DOCKTAH LECTAH?" "No one understand the words coming out of your mouth, Mr. Graham" Then tucker could scream like a little girl and dance like Michael Jackson!! I smell a 94 million dollar opening day!
-
Its BRETT RATTNER! Why didnt he cast Chris Tucker as Will Graham? "DOO YOOO UNDASTAND DA WORDS CUMMIN' OUT MY MOUF, DOCKTAH LECTAH?" "No one understand the words coming out of your mouth, Mr. Graham" Then tucker could scream like a little girl and dance like Michael Jackson!! I smell a 94 million dollar opening day!
-
If they can manage to make Anthony Hopkins look significantly younger than he did in SOTL, via make-up, CG, what-have-you, they've got my eight bucks right there, no questions asked. Of course, if it's got Ed Norton in it, I'll go anyway, but if they pull that effect off I'D EVEN BUY SNACKS!
-
Manhunter was a fine film. Not a classic. We know what happens, we know how it happens. If they were going to make this, it should have been just after Lambs when Hopkins was still young enough. I don't care if God himself is playing Will Graham with Jesus Christ on a moped as Hannibal Lecter. This is a pointless exercise. ************* Almost as pointless as making The Others immediately after the Sixth Sense came out.
-
Yeah, I think it would be cool to have the same Lecter across the board, too, which is why I think that we should also hand remake rights to SOTL and Hannibal over to Joel Schumacher and let him de-age and slim down the great Brian Cox. And I want Freddie Prinze, Jr as Will Graham, all right? And how about Matt Lilliard as the Tooth Fairy. Oh yeah, now we're talking. While we're at it, let's throw in a shot of a completely CG Yoda making out with a CG ET while taking pot-shots at Han Solo and screaming their heads off in Jabba's palace...if, that is, they can make out, shoot, and scream at the same time, which I doubt most seriously. ---seriously, quit it already with the damn remakes and reimaginings and reagings and what have yous. But whatever, I should get back to rewriting Beowulf to include more CG, because I think its what the author wanted to do at the time, he just couldn't. Didn't have the technology, y'know. Bye.
-
One minute you are ranting against Ratner helming the picture, the next minute you are going apeshit over his casting choice...Guess I should not look for credibility at this site.
-
Nov 19, 2001 10:08:46 AM CST
Last I heard Harry hated Bret Ratner being the director for this
by mooch
"Now I know there was some initial fears that Bret Ratner was the wrong choice to direct Red Dragon" - was it not you yourself, Harold, who was getting upset about this? Mind you, I'm sure we all remember your many other acts of revisionism (you can't erase our minds, man!! ...*gulp* ...I hope). Finally, in the interests of demonstrating my own consistency: "So far, if the casting is any indication of the quality that Brett Ratner is hoping for, he couldn't hope for a better cast thus far," Jesus H. Bastard Limp Cocked Christ, you neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed to sort out your writing. Seriously. People who say that? - they aren't, like, joking you know.
-
Nov 19, 2001 10:13:37 AM CST
A piece of crap by any other name would stink just as shit
by cooler-than-thou
You can assemble the greatest actors the world has every known for a picture and it would still suck if you get the wrong person to helm it. Brett Ratner has got to be one of the most boring directors in the business. His idea of visual flair is MOVING THE CAMERA! i wouldn't trust him to direct traffic. and now he's got his hands on a valuable property? my god. it's begun. as foretold by Nostradamus in the 16th century. he predicted the rise of a great babylonian beast in the last year of the last century that's evil deeds would bring about the apocalypse. Brett Ratner, hollywood director, Red Dragon, millions tortured...holy shit. it's all coming together now.
-
Gotta agree with Spab et al... This film is only being made as a vehicle for Hopkins, to milk some more cash out of Lectermania. Lecter isn't even in Red Dragon much, but you can bet gis screen time will be pointlessly increased. While Manhunter was pretty good, Red Dragon didn't quite translate well to screen because all of the history of Francis Dolarhyde was missing. That's the best, most gripping part of the book.
Since "Hannibal" has turned Lecter into a pantomime villain instead of a complex and intruiging personality, I'm not holding my breath. -
Norton's too young to play a retired detective. I suggest William Peterson to play the part. Hopkins as Lecter? Nah,go with Brian Cox.
-
Go watch Silence of the Lambs again. Go ahead, I'll wait. Now, let's dissect this "Oscar" winning movie. First, it's the same fucking story as Manhunter. Yes, it was duly faithful to the book, but what's been done before on film has been done before on film. Second, the score. Much of this movie's "suspense" is carried solely by the overblown score. Now, I'm all for a bravado score when it's necessary (as in Magnolia, where the score seemed to be a character all its own) but I can't help wondering how much better this movie would have been had it not tried to hit us over the head with its music. Third, Anthony Hopkins. Now people, don't waste my time defending this man until you can understand the beauty of SUBTLETY. For Pete's sake, even Hopkins says acting is overrated and all he does is just show up and read his lines. Was he entertaining? Of course. Was he believable? Not as believable as Brian Cox. Sorry Manhunter detractors, he just isn't. And consquently, Cox's Lecter comes across as more dangerous. Now, take a look at Manhunter. Granted, it has its flaws, the most glaring being that it is stuck in the 80's. But having read Red Dragon AND seen the movie I can't imagine anyone else in the role of Will Graham. I love Edward Norton just as much as the next guy but he is not right for this part. Harvey Keitel is just someone's wet dream catch for Crawford. And you already know where I stand on Hopkins. That beig said I feel fairly confident that this film will SUCK!
-
Nov 19, 2001 11:48:10 AM CST
Harry, what are you talking about? I thought Nic Cage is playing
by sith witch
-
i think jonze and fincher are both excellent directors...
-
For those of you that think this is the worst idea imaginable, I have two words....Curtis Hanson. I have two more words....Frank Darabount. Both were directors for hire before they were given material that was what they wanted to work with. Hanson directed the very unwatchable "The River Wild" before he made "LA Confidential." Darabount directed one of the "Nightmare" movies, I don't remember which one, before unveiling "Shawshank." You guys can say I told you so later. But you never know what some of these guys are really capable of. We can't all be holier than thou independent filmmakers. Some talented directors choose to work within the system until they can gain enough power to make what they want to make. What would anyone say about Jonathan Demme if the only thing they saw was his Roger Corman movies? Everyone just chill, and we will see what happens.
-
First off, Manhunter wasn't perfect, but it was damn good. It's a shame that so few people are even aware of its existence. Now with this version coming out I'm afraid Manhunter will fall even further into obscurity. Why can't they just let this stand as the one official version? And I'm so sick of having to explain to people that Hopkins wasn't the first actor to tackle Lecter (just like Sean Connery wasn't the 1st Bond). Petersen IS Will Graham, and as much as I absolutely love Ed Norton, ain't he WAAAAY to young to be retired?
-
If you can, then make the next word you try : 'sensationalism'. Okay, so SOTL was a good movie based on a good book. Fans of Harris will see many startling similarities from Red Dragon to SOTL, a killer on the loose, a FBI agent must liase with another -frighteningly intelligent- serial killer in order to catch the current one, in the first case, the man who caught Lecter, in the second case, a student who has to liase with him. Similar enough yet? Okay, how about the fact that the killer's both share similar motives, they both want to change. Now as has been said many times already, Manhunter wasn't a brilliant movie, but it was a good adaptation of a crappy book - it was a bad book, rough language and fairly shoddy characters.
After Hannibal, the Lecter franchies is little short of a joke, the boogie man and love story was taken too far by Mr Scott. Well, only on reflection did I realise that HANNIBAL was a pretty shitty book also. But that's just my own opinionated 2c. -
i love that phillip is working so much. he is the best character actor in hollywood hands down. he's taking over where first duvall and keitel are taking off. i don't really care who directs as long as hoffman gets his cameo.
-
Nov 19, 2001 2:09:16 PM CST
So far so good, but the most important role has yet to be cast!
by maxcalifornia.
This movie will stand or fall depending on who is the TOOTH FAIRY! Tom Noonan was an absolute scary fucking lunatic the first time around, they're some tough shoes to fill. I say if Cage is still interested, bring him in! You know he isn't afraid to go completely nuts, and despite what some of you might think of his recent choices of roles, he has the talent to pull it off
-
By having Hopkins play Lector it will be near impossible to keep true to the spirit of the book. Hopkins will demand much more screen time than in the book or the orignal movie(Which kept Lector to a delicious minimum). This will be near impossible with Sir Anthony on board, OVER ACTING ALL OVER THE PLACE. It will kill the flick just as Harris's focus on Lector in the third book killed it and the movie. Just too much of a good thing.
-
Whatever you thought of Ridley Scott's 'Hannibal', it was a miraculous improvement on an ungodly awful novel. All three are superior films to novels, but no one had such shit source material as Scott. I think he did a pretty damn good job all things considered.
'Manhunter' is a damn fine movie, definitely the best in the series. Yes, Brian Cox is the best Lecter. An inferior remake is really not called for. Obviously, what we want now is Graham's pursuit and capture of Lecter, and his own breakdown. 'Silence' and 'Hannibal' play so much on Lecter being smarter than everyone else, but Graham is smarter than Lecter. Their battle of wits could make for some real tension. And weren't Lecter's original victims mostly college girls? Let's have a scary, evil Hannibal who's victims don't 'have it coming'. -
Nov 19, 2001 3:26:44 PM CST
Ratner is a perfectly competent craftsman of commercial mainstre
by cash bailey
But something like RED DRAGON needs a singularly visionary director to make it. Like the rest of the sane world I dreamed that Fincher would have this movie served to him on a silver platter, but, as always, Ol' Dino is guided only by his wallet. Never forget that when MANHUNTER didn't make a bundle Dino dumped SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, even though MANHUNTER was a bonafide masterpiece. And what the fuck was that shit about Dino getting an honorary Oscar? What was that for - for finally producing ONE hit in twenty years?
-
Nov 19, 2001 3:49:34 PM CST
From the director of Money Talks, Rush Hour 1+2, and Family Man.
by fatal discharge
I can't think of a more inappropriate and head-scratching choice for the material than Ratner. What role is Chris Tucker playing in Red Dragon?
-
Wasn't changing Jodie Foster for Julianne Moore also a 'notable change in continuity'?....
-
That boy's got some size and some serious acting chops. He would fit right in with that classy/indie cast. Scar up his face and let him loose.
-
...thats all I have to say about this...
-
Hopkins is WAY too old to play this character anymore. If RED DRAGON takes place a few years before LAMBS, that means Hopkins may be as much as FIFTEEN YEARS OLDER than his character is supposed to be. If the only reason to remake this movie is to have him in all three (and I can't see any other reason), then they ought to give it up.
-
Nov 19, 2001 9:55:04 PM CST
as strange as it may sound, after seeing Rush Hour 2, i take bac
by a goonie
i know. it's odd. i actually think Ratner is a really good choice to direct the third (but first) Lecter movie in this series. i mean, the guy who made The Family Man and Rush Hour is going taking the reins from Jonathon Demme and Ridley Scott?!? sure, Ridley didn't make a very good movie. i've read Hannibal the book. it's brilliant as hell. but that aside, Hannibal the movie (other than a few little tidbits, like that kickass beginning) is a pretty large failure. the thing is, Ridley Scott himself is an ingenious director. or at least, he can be. and he's certainly got a more impressive filmmography than Ratner. so... i'm just saying that if i was Ratner, i'd be really intimidated, and if i were the producers behind the movie, Ratner would seem a strange choice. and then you have Demme. an incredible director. just flat-out amazing. and he started this particular series with what is not only one of the greatest thrillers of all time, but one of the GREATEST MOVIES... period. and because soooooo much of Silence of the Lambs owes it's greatness to Demme himself, well, it made it a tough act to follow for Ridley. and now Ratner has to take over where these TWO geniuses left off. NOW... when i first heard about Ratner getting the gig, i came on here and went on about how bad a choice he was. but this summer, i saw Rush Hour 2, and i loved it. the thing is, i'm a Jackie Chan fan. but i'm not a big fan of Jackie's American movies. namely, Rush Hour 1 and Shanghai Noon. sure, they were entertaining enough, and sure, they had some good laughs, but nonetheless, those two movies were of a breed that tends to bother me: they were definitive THREE-STAR MOVIES. i review my movies out of five stars. and Three-Star Movies are those that are right smack down the middle. they're not terrible, but they're not great. they're just... FINE. and that makes them not very much fun to review. but that's only part of the problem. those movies (especially Rush Hour 1) felt to me like just glossy dressed-up versions of Chan's Hong Kong movies. i guess it's hard to explain. it wasn't that i hated the movies, it's just that all i wanted was to see Jackie perform his amazing martial arts and instead, i was getting a movie that seemed to think it was better than it really was. anyhow... on to my real point. i just wanted to point out that i wasn't all too excited about no. 2 in the Rush Hour series. i was happier to go rent Lethal Weapon movies. anyhow, i DID see the movie eventually. really, cuz it was making so much money, that i didn't want to be left out. Also, as Harry pointed out the previous summer, that What Lies Beneath, which didn't get the best reviews, was still drawing in the crowds a while after it's release, and that obviously, somewhere out there this movie was getting good word-of-mouth. i, put off by the bad title, bad trailer, and SCATHING review by Moriarty, decided to let that one pass by. after reading Harry's review, and hearing a few other good things, i thought, well, better check it out. i went with my Dad and the movie ended up scaring the pants off us, as well as making my top ten best movies of the year list. so i figured, maybe Rush Hour 2 would surprise me. and damn, did it ever! i loved it. it was actually a REALLY GOOD MOVIE. Chan and Tucker were wonderful together, but the star of the show for me, was Brett Ratner. he just did a wonderful job. his handling of the action and the comedy was something truly special. So my point is, Rush Hour 2 proved to me that Brett Ratner is a very good director. a smart, intelligent director who knows what he's doing. it didn't necessarily prove that Ratner can handle the scary creepiness, the thrills and chills that a Lecter movie will call for, but it certainly showed that he'll be up to the challenge. and i'm betting he can pull this off. right now, the way i see it, this decision to give the directing reins to Ratner falls more along the lines of a Chris Columbus and Harry Potter choice, rather than a Ron Howard and The Grinch one.
-
Did we all actually watch the shit that was Hannibal the movie? The book was crap and the movie adaptation was even worse. So, they plan on brining Hopkins back as his younger self. He can't even play his older self. He has gone to hell. He has gained some major weight and looks twice as old as he did in SOTL. The out takes of him licking the steering wheel was not creepy...it was sad. Much like his performance. Give it a rest. I think Norton would play a better "young" Hannibal at this point. I can't believe anyone is really giving a shit at this point.
-
Did they rewrite Crawford's character? Or is Harvey Keitel going to do a movie without showing his ass for once?
-
It's been a while, but I wouldn't describe Benjamin Raspail and an unnamed census-taker as "College girls". Anyway, I like Harris's work. Hannibal (the book) carried on Harris's development of mythic thriller instead of police drama, and only disappointed people who wanted more of the same.
-
Nov 20, 2001 9:03:27 AM CST
No! Edward Norton and Phillip Seymore Hoffman are NOT good choic
by arcturus
Can someone please tell me why everyone is anamored with Edward Norton? I liked "Primal Fear", but even then his role was too gimicky. It was pure nausea to listen to the man on the "Fight Club" director's commentary, too. Don't even get me started on Phillip Seymore Hoffman. His range is limited to playing the fat asshole, or the pathetic crybaby. So far I only liked him in "Almost Famous" particularly because of his short screen time. Now, Harvey Keitel IS a good choice, one which might actually make me want to see the new movie since I dug the novel so much. It will be hard to surpass Michael Mann's "Manhunter", though.
-
The casting sounds tolerable... dunno if I'm gonna see this one though. Gonna have to wait for more buzz on it... like the usual statements of joy or extreme hatred.
-
WTF is this love of "Manhunter" coming from? Have any of you crackies actually WATCHED that movie? IT IS SHIT! BAD, BAD overacting by Brad Davis, a horrid choice of Dennis Farina as Crawford and the music good god almighty...a) that Vangelis sounding horse shit at the beginning of the "film" nearly made me vomit and the anthematic rock tracks (during dialogue mind you) made Frank Stallone seem like a fucking genius by comparison.
Diss Bret Ratner and complain about Red Dragon all you want by enough with the sycophantic Manhunter ranting.. you all sound idiots. -
First of all, if Chris Columbus can do justice to "Harry Potter," than Brett Ratner can direct "Red Dragon." Besides, "Hannibal" wasn't exactly a great movie, so there will be less pressure and expectations.
On another note, whoever said Edward Norton is overated obviously has him mixed up with Ben Affuck. -
Ratner loves the movies of the seventies by Cassavettes? Yeah, I can see all the influence in Rush Hour 2. Not so much in Rush Hour 1, but, yes, I have noticed it lately. I read in an interview once where Ratner said he hopes he doesn't have a career like Freidkin or Hal Ashby. Who does this fat, arrogant prick think he is? Has he looked in the mirror lately? He wishes he could make a movie as good as THE EXORCIST or BOUND FOR GLORY, or BEING THERE. On his best day he'll never compare to their worst movies (ok, maybe C.A.T. Squad). To even criticize directors of that calibre when your one accomplishment is using the film's budget for "on set masseuses" just made me sick. Message to The Rat: Go spend the millions and enjoy the prostitutes your fellow cretins in studio towers throw at you because you make movies that pander to the lowest common denominator (i.e., the undereducated, unread masses)and stay out of the way of real filmmakers who care about their work. And, one more thing: Yes, Harry, I agree with you that's an amazing cast. And everyone of them will be phoning it in and cashing a fat paycheck at the end of the day.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- A hot redhead (not Harry) is set to play lead in Fede Alvarez's remake of EVIL DEAD! -- 166 total posts 166 posts
- UPDATED: Talkbacker Bob Orci tweets STAR TREK old set pics! -- 243 total posts 87 posts
- The Friday Docback Spelunks 'The Caves Of Androzani'!! DOCTOR WHO Story #136, And More!! -- 90 total posts 81 posts
- RIDDICK Sequel Details Via A New Press Release!! -- 84 total posts 73 posts
- Here Comes THE GODMOTHER! -- 71 total posts 71 posts
- Rest In Peace Ben Gazzara -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- INSIDIOUS-ER? -- 120 total posts 42 posts
- ABC Has Cast The Lead In Its Future Nuclear Nation Pilot!! And They’ve Chosen Wisely!! -- 39 total posts 39 posts
- The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day, you bitch! You never backed away from anything in your life! Now fight! FIGHT! -- 136 total posts 37 posts
- AWAKE, This Season’s Best Broadcast Pilot, Gets NBC’s Old ER Slot March 1!! THE FIRM To Burn Off On Saturdays!! -- 37 total posts 37 posts