Cool News
Jack Daniels gives us the lowdown on the first test screening of RED DRAGON!
Hey folks, Harry here with the first review anywhere from the film... RED DRAGON, the prequel to SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, the remake of MANHUNTER and the proving ground for Brett Ratner. I've known Brett for a few years now... Not really as friends, but we've talked a couple of times and I know that his main love of film comes from a rabid passion for Seventies film. If you meet him someday, ask about THE KILLING OF A CHINESE BOOKIE and you'll get two earfuls... Bring up ENTER THE DRAGON and watch. So it has always been odd to me that he's never had a film that lent itself to the aesthetic of the seventies. That sort of unflinching mind fuckability that the seventies had. WELL... Though that first RED DRAGON trailer might not have been too hot, Jack Daniels is here with the first review anywhere of RED DRAGON. Now, Jack has been a reviewer for us in the past writing in from San Diego screenings of films like AMERICAN PIE 2 and... He was also the first reviewer of Ridley Scott's HANNIBAL back in November of 2000 and here he is with the next episode of the Lecter saga! And from the sound of it... It looks like there is a possibility that Ratner nailed it! Let's hope, he's got a great script and a great cast... All he has to do is tie it up perfectly and we won't have to spoon them brains!
Harry, Harry, Harry, mutha-fuckin, Harry! Jack Daniels reporting in once again from the lovely and constant 74 degrees city of San Diego. Home of Comicon 2000 and fucking 2 and tonight, in the exact same theater at Horton Plaza, yet a year and a half later where Hannibal was first seen, my drunken, hazy eyes laid upon the latest Hannibal the Cannibal Lecter flick, Red Dragon. Yep, that one. Ed Norton, Harvey Keitel, Phillip Sey-more-of-me Hoffman, Ray Fiennes and the always doey-eyed and lovely, Emily Watson. Oh yea, and that guy Anthony Hopkins. Looking like he should in a prequel. Slick back hair, suckin’ in the Weider-enhanced belly. Gawd, this movie rocked.
Do you dream, Harry? Do you really dream? Thus the message. As I stated in my review dated oh so back in November of the new Millenium, nothing can come close to “Silence of the Lambs.’ ‘Hannibal’ was good, great in a way, but to no avail could it cum close to its predecessor. ‘Red Dragon’ does. Why? It’s the stanky, wet, cold hallway of the Baltimore Insane Asylum, the plexi-glass cell we see, a figure lying on his cot, talking in that famous Queen’s English accent; the fear=sweaty pits we see in Special Agent Will Graham as he finishes his sessions with Hannibal; the constant struggle/upper hand between Dr. Chilton and Lecter; but above all, the sense of vanity and erogenous pride between our antagonists (‘Buffalo Bill’ and Lecter in ‘Silence’ and ‘The Tooth Fairy’ and Lecter in this) – yet, I pause, could Lecter end up being our protagonist? Hmmmm…
I have to admit I was a little late to the screening. You see, I got caught up throwing back a few of my signatures and chatting with a lovely, ok, skanky, older thing wearing a black boa and flapper dress. Before I knew it, time had escaped (as it had in boa-woman) and I found myself hurtling/hurling toward the theater I oh so frequent. There he was on the screen. Hannibal Lecter. Huge. The doctor we knew of in ‘Silence,’ dressed in an everyday ensemble, chatting with Agent Graham. We realize Graham is there for his help, yet unconsciously he knows he’s there for another matter. And then, BOOM! A book is opened and we see the word ‘sweetbread’ hand-written in an anatomy book in a “skin” section; the realization on Graham’s face; a knife to Graham’s abdomen while Lecter calmly describes what he’s about to feel, the numbness and ‘warm bath’ feeling in his mind; and then the doctor is down, a group of arrows Graham some how manages to grab and thrust inside Lecter, finished off with a few shots from his nine – the title “Red Dragon” comes to the screen and under opening credits we see tabloid articles being pasted into a scrapbook of Graham’s slow recovery and decision to testify, Lecter’s trial and judgement, nine consecutive life terms. And the story starts.
Graham is talked out of his boat engine-tuning retirement by Keitel’s Jack Crawford to help catch a serious whack-job who enjoys killing families and sticking chards of mirror in their eye holes and biting them, leaving his signature fucked up teeth marks on each body. Played by full-body tattooed, Fiennes, Francis Dolarhyde AKA the Tooth Fairy, believes he is becoming the Red Dragon, an apocalyptic figure in Biblical Revelations that will overcome the world – a god-complex to the ‘nth degree, if you may – but Dolarhyde admires the doctor, playing to his own narcissistic enigma, thus placing Lecter in the middle of Graham and Fairy; a director to the drama unfolding. But the mentally and physically marred Dolarhyde finds temporary refuge in a young blind co-worker, Reba (played by Emily Watson) who just may become his next victim. That’s all I’m sharing. Fill in the holes your pathetic selves. I’m burnt, a little hung over and looking to crash.
However, one of the few great scenes in the film is of Will Graham taking off his jacket after the first visit with Lecter in his cell. Sweat marks in his Brooks Brothers shirt and the sigh. That one scene is the audience. During the whole conversation between the two, not a fucking peep was heard in the house and when we see the jacket coming off in the waiting room, the audience lets out their breath. Everything was right, the way this series should be.
And then there’s the scene we see Lecter enjoying a little you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours dinner. Here we are in the dank halls of a psycho ward and two 5-star chefs are preparing an incredible meal outside Lecter’s cell, with Lecter eating off a skirted table. A chef puts a course into Lecter’s serving shelf and there is Lecter at the pelxiglass all of a sudden, mouthing/teething the words, Thank You. And then a raise of the chianti to the security camera being watched closely by Dr. Chilton.
This may be the third in the series, but somehow, even with a different director, it hits it. It? Yea, it. The it we felt in the first film, the it we first saw behind the glass, the it on the face of those who talked to him and the it that made us all jump and feel disgusted. Somehow its come full circle and made it complete. There’s no need for another. We don’t need to how it ends up. Fuck it. I’m starting to confuse myself… need more alcohol. Now.
I’ll be in TalkBack. Let the questions fly my brothers and sisters…
I’m out.
Jack Daniels
-
+ Expand All
-
I'm so stoked--the cast looks awesome, the trailer was sweet (what are you talking about Harry?!)--I can't wait for this film to come out!
Good review John (When you know Jack Daniels as long as I have, you can call him John). -
Rambling, awful piece of writing, Jack, but I sure as hell want to see Red Dragon for that "it" you describe.
-
If anyone saw Bad Company, as I did recently (quite funny) you will have notice Anthony Hopkins huge gut and the blatant edits whenever his stuntman was in shot. What are they going to do this time to have any sort of continuity with SOTL? Are they going to CGI his gut out and airbrush his multiple chins? I think JD is a little bit too much of a Silence lover to take this review too seriously. Still not the same without the lovely Jodie (sigh)...
-
From what I've seen of his work, he's no Jonathon Demme, Ridley Scott, or Michael Mann, but he's a brave man to try and fill their shoes. I always prefered Brian Cox to Hopkins, so it'll be interesting to notice the direct comparison here...
-
And at times, it was also just about the most annoying thing I've ever read, as I desperately tried to get some idea of the quality and style of Red Dragon...to no avail. But, Jack Daniels, you imply that you weren't exactly under the influence of your critical thoughts alone. So, on that note, thanks for the review. Meanwhile, if Ridley Scott could only make a terrible Hannibal movie, I shudder to think what Brett "Rush Hour" Ratner will do. The trailer wasn't too encouraging, either. Ratner, however, has the benefit of a better story and an AWESOME cast. Norton, Hoffman, Fiennes, Hopkins...I mean, dam.
-
So, Jack Daniels, John if you're Al Pacino, tell us, is there any Inna-Gadda Di Vida action at the film's climax?//////////////////////////Seriusly though, I'm hoping this one hits the mark. I loved Michael Mann's version, speciafically for the William Petersen and Tom Noonan performances, but it had the Miami Vice look to it that just didn't gel with the book's atmosphere.
-
hahahahahaha Fuck you all!!! I'm sixth!!! hahahahaha
-
How quickly 'Ralph' Fiennes seems to have been forgotten. Or is it Ray to his friends.
-
Am I the nly one who thought the trailer looked like a MAD TV parody of Lecter? Edward Norton's hair looks like a horrible wig, Hopkins looks like some guy imitating Hopkins...the acting was curl-up-in-a-fetal-potision bad. I'd love to be proven wrong on this one, 'cause I like the RUSH HOURS well enough, but this looks painful. And, er, the following sentence: "
-
I forgot about Keitel and Watson. Jeezeebus, it's like the Ocean's 11 of credible actors. Still, I don't think any Hannibal movie can touch Silence of the Lambs. Jonathan Demme + Tak Fujimoto + Howard Shore + Jodie Foster + Scott Glenn + Anthony Hopkins = cinematic gem. Se7en is the only other serial killer movie that even comes close for me.
-
...ack, cough, *hackhack*, hehehehahaha ha ha....uh, *hack*, shit that was funny!!! God that hurt, ouch...
-
Wonderful...maybe that can take off and become a new saying like Jump the Shark. "This series has finaly Blown the Goat..." LOL great stuff. And yes, I think, that the author, of this review, loves to, place commas.
-
Aug 01, 2002 10:35:57 AM CDT
"And please rise for our opening hymn....uh, 'In The Garden
by osmosis jones
This movie will blow the goat (hah). Elfman's score will be awesome, though.
-
It's a direct rip-off from Manhunter and not 1/10th as interesting. Norton's fine in most roles but he doesn't have the aged, unhappy presence of Peterson. And I don't care what anyone says, anthony hopkins plays Lecter so far over-the-top that the character is more fat goofball than freak. Give me Bryan Cox anyday.
-
over-hyped, no substance fanboy 'promos' for upcoming flicks. I don't bemoan the review (thank you Jack), but I am hesitant about the flick. Personally, I don't care if Lector looks a little old or saggy, the fact that I know Hopkins is as old as he is can't be covered by make-up, so I choose to ignore it - like the Jack Ryan age problem in Sum of All Fears - if you don't care, it won't bother you. This whole project just screams "money, money, money, mon-nay....MON-NAY!" - I mean a remake of a flick from the late 80s? Just too conviently latching on to the franchise that belatedly followed the orginal intorduction of the character- Not to say it can't be good, but when has this kind of project ever been? Hannibal, was not great - its initially terrific mood and atmosphere was dead after 30 minutes.
-
Your pardon, but I'm not terribly disposed to believe this 'reviewer'. He writes, "As I stated in my review dated oh so back in November of the new Millenium, nothing can come close to
-
Yeah is Iron Butterfly used at the end of the film? I don't give a fuck how it good it is, did they use Inna Gadda Da Vida or not man???????
-
Actually, it would make sense for Hopkins to be heavier (though younger) here than in Silence, since he was freer to eat as he wished when on the outside, and might have lost weight during his prison years. Just a thought. ***** But Jack, your critique is pretty compromised. You arrived drunk and late for the picture? "Hannibal" was a good if not great movie?
-
Ben Stiller as deaf person; Laura Harring as flat-chested waif; and Mira Sorvino as short-legged midget. Don't worry, none of those actually happened. Seriously, Emily has the biggest peepers I've seen on anyone this side of Heather Graham. They're freakishly large. Is Jodie in this or not?
-
Ok so Jack has been a little off on his reviews before, bid deal. And Hannibal was not enough close to Silence of the Lambs in its greatness, sequals hardly ever are. And it will be hard to top Man Hunter, we know that. Lets look at the good instead of the bad, First off, we have a great cast. Ralph Fiennes got ripped as shit for this role, that at least shows dedication! And yes Hopkins is a little older and heavier than he should be, make-up will take care of most of that and u can quit ur bitching and just enjoy the rest. This looks like a very entertaining movie from an up and coming(no hack) director. The bottom line, dont go in expecting this to roll over SOTL and MH, just be ready to be entertained by a good scirpt, fine actors and a soon to be top hollywood director!
-
Is it just me, or does the review read as if Daniels doesn't realize that it's a REMAKE? He describes things that were in the original Manhunter as if they're going to be surprising to us...
<<"Graham is talked out of his boat engine-tuning retirement by Keitel -
The man is a jerk.
Fiennes will never equal Noonan's sympathetic portrayal of Frankie and Hopkin's, in my humble opinion, has always been playing catch-up to Cox's quietly intelligent Lektor.
To any self-respecting film-buff Red Dragon should be considered as nothing more than a LAME cash-in.
The remake of Gaslight in the 1940's and countless thrillers since ('The Vanishing' being a more recent example)showed that Hollywood ALWAYS gets 'it' wrong!
Let's hope De Laurentis doesn't bury the original Manhunter. It's a classic. -
with a nice Lone Star...
-
I don't need to. I already saw this movie. It was called MANHUNTER. Again, this remake may be good, but it just feels unnecessary. It could sweep the Oscars and I still just don't think I'd be compelled to even see it. I just don't see the point.
-
...that I actually think Manhunter is quite a flawed movie. That's not to say it's not good or I didn't enjoy it (it is and I did), but I remember not being blown away by it (this was about 15 years ago when I first saw it), and now looking back I think it has dated quite badly in it's overly lit, 80's (or is that 80's Michael Mann) look. SPOILER WARNING....I was also disappointed that he never had a crack at the books original rather twisted ending....END SPOILER...I dunno, maybe i'm wrong. Anyway, the point I was going for is that if we can treat this movie seperately as the third (or first chronologically) in a trilogy and not as a remake then it should stand or fall on its own merits, or lack thereof. Also, I truly believe the book is by far the best of the three, so why not have a stab at adapting it faithfully into the SOTL and Hannibal universe. Just an opinion.
-
First off, the idea that Ratner has been ripping on Mann for 'not sticking closer to the book' is absurd considering the prologue bit that is described here. Sure, we hear about that in the book, but everything they said when they were making it said that they've expanded it so we see Lecter's capture. I can't get a sense for how much there is there, because the reviewer walked in late and drunk, so maybe that's the way to watch this movie. [I also found it absurd that Ratner, in E.W., said that he didn't want to cast any of the names who tried to get the part of Dollarhyde and chose, instead, "an unknown" like Ralph Fiennes. I swear, he said that in print.]
Second off, if the movie is great, then why are there so few great scenes? "One of the few great scenes is Edward Norton taking off his jacket." Woah, now that sounds like a hit!
Also, I love the end of the book, especially for its time and place, but after fifteen years of this kind of thriller, it won't seem nearly as shocking to the audience. It's cool (though it'll almost definitely be toned down for the movie), but it's basically a cliche that's been mocked since the early '90's and abandoned in recent action movies(the supposed dead villain comes back for one final try).
Even though Ratner's a fool, and by all accounts the making of this film was a complete mess because all the actors knew he was a fool and treated him as such, I'll see it because I see everything Norton does (even though he hasn't been in a remotely good film in years). -
Which would explain him calling him Ray Fiennes if he didn't know who he was!
-
Aug 01, 2002 12:37:21 PM CDT
Finally, Captain Dobie says what i've been thinking for YEAR
by xthecrovvx
Yeah, it's an unpopular opinion on these here boards, but screw it, i gotta let it loose....Manhunter is SEVERELY overrated....only three things prevent the thing from settling entirely into mediocrity...the film's atmosphere, which is pretty damn close to what i had in mind while reading the book, William Petersen, who, though i personally believe he'll get trumped easily by Edward Norton in Red Dragon, did a very respectable job on playing Will Graham, and Tom Noonan, who wasnt quite what i had in mind when i read the book(i was thinking more along the lines of a lankier, mentally disabled Joaquin Phoenix), but stepped up to the plate pretty well anyways...but other than that, i never saw why this movie holds such a place with people...its not a bad movie per se, just, except for the three things above, mediocre. And for the record Brian "Don't mind me Mr Director, I ALWAYS sound like I'm drunk off my ass" Cox cant even hold Tony Hopkins' jock as far as the Lecter role is concerned. Now, far as this remake/prequel/adaptation's concerned? The first trailer wouldve left me totally cold, except for the fact that A: Edward Norton's in it, and B: Lecter's back...not the laidback, badass, smooth operator, social vampire Lecter that was in Hannibal, but the cold, calculated, caged psychological animal that was in SOTL.(btw, as a side note, i didnt hate Hannibal either. Should've seen more of the book in it, but as no point can i lie and say that i didnt have a blast with that movie)...for that, they've got my ass in a seat. Whether Brett Ratner nailed it or not(and dammit, nothing would please me more if he did), remains to be seen...but i am much more hopeful if our drunken friend's description holds water. That is all. Revolution is my name.
-
It wouldn't surprise me if this was Ratner. Except I doubt he knows how to read. He is a talentless hack who simply hires good people. Know what his dream project is? Remaking The Killing of a Chinese Bookie? No seriously. That's true. Mann's version is no masterpiece but I know it will be better then this one. Oh well...
-
Aug 01, 2002 12:46:47 PM CDT
He gave "Hannibal" a positive review, then he gave "Red Dragon"
by brother putney
I can't take recommendations from someone who didn't think "Hannibal" was complete shit. Plus, he showed up late? Then he tried to cover up for it with a story that sounds to me like he's trying to create a reviewer's "persona" for himself(a la Massawyrm). Yeesh. I didn't see any need for this film before I saw the preview, and afterward I see even less. Anyway... everybody who's been pointing out the highlights of the cast "Manhunter" has forgotten one important name: Chris Elliott. Yep. For some reason he appears as an agent during the discussion of the Bible code. He has one line ("Hey, Will,") but he's brilliant, BRILLIANT!
-
This old argument is really fucking laughable. Nostalgia is no substitute for critical observation, and if you can seriously watch Manhunter sober and claim it as your "Citizen Kane of the 80's suspense genre" then you don't belong on this site. Like Bovee's observation that a "...pleasant illusion is better than a harsh reality", if you want a true eye-opener, invite some friends over who have never seen MH and build it up, Tarantino style, before the opening and then sit back in the darkness like Amelie to observe the painful expressions that emerge until they finally press pause to go get a drink and casually remark that you are never, ever, allowed to host on video night. Red Dragon may prove to hold similar dissapointments, but no one seriously can claim that it can't "rise to this great level" as a poorly lighted, beatbox enhanced, horribly acted and poorly edited Miami Vice episode. I loved the 80's too, but I let my Bugle boy's and Swatch Watch go, and Manhunter should likewise go into the bin of the fondly remembered and awkwardly embarrasing.
-
Considering large-chain video stores like Blockbuster featured Manhunter (and the other movies) in massive, wall-covering displays, and networks like USA show it a dozen times a year, it doesn't take too much common sense (look into it, it's free) to assume that much of the movie-going public HAS seen Manhunter. While Ed Norton is a great actor (he blew DeNiro and Brando off the screen) he won't be able to eclipse the job that Will Petersen did. The only guy worth watching in this is Hoffman as the sleazy reporter. I find it strange that Daniels didn't even make mention of Manhunter in his review. You'd think someone who takes the time to go to a pre-screening, write a review, post it on AICN and then wait for responses would actually be a movie fan. And what movie fan hasn't seen SoftheL and NOT seen Manhunter?! Do I want to know about Red Dragon? Sure. Any film geek who enjoyed the first three should be interested. But the review is empty and worst of all, uninformed. But, I don't fault Daniels for writing it, just Harry for publishing it. He doesn't edit his own rambling reviews, why should he edit others?
-
Aug 01, 2002 12:58:38 PM CDT
RE: MANHUNTER and why Ralph Fiennes is PERFECT for Dolarhyde.
by nordling
MANHUNTER works, mostly, due to the intensity of the performances and the fact that it was kept fairly close to the books (should have kept the evil, dark ending, though). The soundtrack makes me cringe, and that crappy song at the end credits just bugs me to no end, but William Petersen is perfect as Will Graham. I expect Ed Norton to equal this because of his skills. HOWEVER...Tom Noonan, although a gifted actor in his own right, is wrong for Dolarhyde. SPOILER SPOILER: Dolarhyde thinks he's hideous, mostly through the programming of his "Aayma" and his deformed lip. However, once he gets his lip fixed, he appears fairly normal. Even attractive, as some of his co-workers think in the novel. He, however, thinks he's a monster. Tom Noonan, well, looks creepy. In MANHUNTER he looks like he could be the Red Dragon. The thing is though, Dolarhyde looks NORMAL. And that's why I think Ralph Fiennes is perfect. He doesn't look like he has a monster in him, which is mostly the point. I'm not going to be all reverential about Mann's film, because this is simply another adaptation. THE MALTESE FALCON was adapted into film three times. It's only the Bogart one we remember. So I hope Ratner does good. He needs to shut up about MANHUNTER though. Just keep it in your movies, bud, don't be criticizing a director whose pedigree is a hell of a lot more interesting than some RUSH HOUR films. There, I'm done.
-
That's from the "Dragon And Lambs" action figure tie-in at Burger King for next summer. Collect 'em all!
-
It's nice to have Hopkins return to the role of Lecter, but...and it's hard to admit this, because I was such a fan of his work in SILENCE...Brian Cox is a better Lecter. It took a repeat viewing of this to change my mind, but, well, Lecter is obviously mad, as played by Hopkins. Cox's Lecter, however, is scarier. Because he feels like he really could get away with it. He feels like a working serial killer. One with edudite tastes, to be sure, but surely not one as obvious as Hopkins. Watch Cox as he talks on the phone with the operator. He makes it look disturbingly easy. Hopkin's Lecter just doesn't. But, I'm a big enough man to like both performances. I just prefer Cox's, now. And Philip Seymour Hoffman...I'm guessing he plays Freddy the TATTLER reporter, because that sounds so frigging PERFECT too.
-
erudite, not edudite.
-
WOOHOO!!! Now I can't wait! I'm putting the lotion in my basket and heading to the theatre!
-
I stopped at "Hannibal
-
First off, did anyone notice that the story arc of Country Bears is very similar to that of Manhunter? I won't bore you with all the details, suffice to say that William Petersen's role is very much like that of bear Fred being he is a Jungian archetype trying to subvert his own consciousness in an attempt to reveal his ubermensche. William used his intellect, Zeb uses his harmonica, but both are succesful. The Tooth Fairy is nothing more than the dark side of country bear Zeb, who's own inner demons prevent him from opening up to the rest of the bears. In a rumored sequel, Zeb loses his grasp on reality and murders several women in ritualistic style, much like the Fairy. I see it as no small coincidence that this fugue is based on the short story, "Walter's Little Problem" by J. R. Dertton (Fantom Diabolos Press, 1956), a French novelist of little note. What is important is that he refers to the protagonist Walter as "...a man whose insides drip on the outside, to which mankind and a MANHUNTER see no cause for destruction..." I find this very telling in relation to the Country Bears and especially Manhunter, since both movies have a central theme: discovery through self-introspection and violence. The Tooth Fairy's overt muders are simple to understand, but violence in the Country Bears is a more profound exercise in surreal motion, or as J. R. Dertton called it, "mouvement
-
I have a friend who works in television editing. He used to work on projects with Brett Ratner and didn't think much of him as a director or human being. He and his coworkers would draw straws to see who was forced to work with him. Maybe he's honed his skills over the years. I'll have to see the movie.
-
I saw Manhunter (in French "The Sixth Sense", they should have got a copyright on the title) when it came out to rave reviews in Paris. I suspected it was a crappy, pretentious movie because the French do love crappy, pretentious American films. Pretentious, heavy-handed symbolism and all-around humorlessness - unfortunately - travel well and sound so much better once they are subtitled. Quelle conn
-
To bad Frankie Faison isn't reprising his role as Barney; that would have made him the only actor to have appeared in all of the Lecter movies (in Manhunter he played an agent). I read Red Dragon ten years ago, don't even remember if Barney was in the book.
-
I would love to see 'Manhunter' with a completely new score/soundtrack (except the Iron Butterfly number, of course). The extremely dated digital accompaniment really took me out of the story. With that corrected I could make a better assessment of the film.
-
If I remember correctly, he was in it.
-
Hmm...haven't seen enough of his work to really get what you're driving at there...maybe some of the scenery in Europe rung that particular bell? Hmm...
-
Some may consider Manhunter to be a fine movie on its own merits (however dated it seems), but it does not in any way or on any planet do justice to the book. Michael Mann took Thomas Harris' original moody atmospheric schizophrenic mindfuck of a book and turned it into a music video. That Ina Godda Da Vida ending was atrocious (although whoever made reference to that Simpsons episode in an earlier post is my hero), and the Will Graham character - the most fascinatingly complex aspect of the book - was poorly realized and underdeveloped. I don't know if Ratner can handle the job, but I for one am excited to see if someone can do proper to the original text this time out, at least in mood and tone if not in balls-on accuracy. Good luck, man.
-
Oh, and Brian Cox as Hannibal Lecter is barely even in Manhunter, so a comparison in portrayals isn't quite fair.
-
Fuck you all - I'm going home.
-
Aug 01, 2002 4:58:46 PM CDT
In Today's Headlines, A Guerrilla Critic for the Popular Mov
by jollydwarf
This room would have run Christ out for not giving up the exact hour for the sequel. They (we) make Philadelphia and (Oakland) Raider fans seem downright 'folksy'. They make the Springer audience seem well-behaved and 'above it all'. They chant "You suck!" more than Opie and Anthony callers. Okay, point made. But you can take solace in that you have a great UserID. Viva Decadence via the bottle!!!
-
I'M JEWISH I'M JEWISH Bret Ratner orgasm. Yes we know you are jewish, Bret, now shut the hell up. I mean really now.
-
You guys scare him away, and now he won't answer our questions. I wanted to know if the painting sqallowing bit was still in. Or where the reporter guy blames Will for the tooth fairy coming after him. Or the whole thing about the crazy mom. ***** Anyone who read Thomas Harris' novel, Hannibal, has to acknoledge that the movie was a faithful adaptation of that work, regardless of whether or not you liked it or thought it was good. It even one-upped the novel by fixing an ending that very few readers liked (which I did, btw).*****After reading Red Dragon, I couldn't help wishing for a movie version. Thank you, Entertainment Weekly for running a really good of review of Manhunter and Anchor Bay for releasing it in anticipation of Hannibal. As much as I liked it, the story seemed to focused more on William Peterson's character than the Tooth Fairy. We had no insight into his character and he was a cookie cutter psycho. It also lacked the punch of the novel's ending. Don't get me wrong. Manhunter was a great movie, but to imply that it cannot be improved upon is stupid when anyone who's read the book knows there was potential for so much more.
-
This seems like it is going to be a bad ass flick, Silence was amazing, Hannibal blew testicles, but hopefully Red Dragon can deliver. Norton Keitel Hopkins thats all I have to say.
-
I don't trust anyone who thought that Hannibal was great. I don't even trust anyone that thought that Hannibal was good. That was 2 hours of tripe. Long live Brian Cox.
-
Aug 01, 2002 6:13:41 PM CDT
New Trailer... gotta say, looks much better than I thought.
by hubbabubbakid
Check it out, you fuckin' naysayers. a lot better than the first trailer, i think. http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/reddragon.html
-
All of us apparently agree that MANHUNTER was a good, not great, movie and that it did not need to be remade. I agree with the Talkbacker who said Will Graham, not the Tooth Fairy, was the focus in MANHUNTER and therefore the movie lost something. But again, the real issue is that this movie did not need to be remade. And by a mediocre director, too!
-
And while we are at it, I believe Harris wrote the atrocious HANNIBAL the way he did to "get even" with the powers-that-be that were demanding a sequel to SOTL. I understand the movie changed the ending, but how much could that possibly have helped?
-
Be assured, Lecterphiles will be watching this one.
I'd like to not see the gut, it would be very unLecteresque, and I'm keen on the novels. But the VOICE is the biggest factor for me...Lecter without Hopkins' Lecter voice just isn't Lecter.
Thank you for sharing the love, JD. Although I'm still crying over the Hannibal movie ending...would it have killed them to give us the love scene?
Ta,
~HR -
The only reason they are making this film is for the almight buck. Ratner has continued to trash the original manhunter in every interview he has done by saying that it is not the true vision of the book but his is. By the way I just saw the new full trailer and it is scene for scene and dialog for dialog like the original manhunter. Ratner is a no talent hack and the only reason he got this job is because of the 2 rush hour movies making a shitload of money. Nobody ever mentions those other crapfest he made called money talks and the family man. So to sum up: red dragon will make about 150 million because of the cast and not because it's a better movie than manhunter. And if ratner thinks he is anywhere near a better director than mann he is a bigger asshole than I thought.
-
I remember sitting there, and the end of the film, thinking "What the fuck was the point of that?" I mean, what happened in that film? NOTHING! It was simply a bunch of lame ass threads that never came together to become a whole film. Pointless to the extreme.
-
...Manhunter died a hideous Harpy-spitting death in theaters in Chicago back then. I don't know about anywhere else, but hardly anyone around here knows it exists. I can't see RD spitting on the legacy of Manhunter, no way.
But one thing I can agree with all you Manhunters out there on...William Petersen was spot-on for Will, and Edward has some huge shoes to fill on this one.
~HR -
Mann intentionally downplayed the
horror aspect of the book, making it a (albeit effective) cop drama. It seems the new version will retain the very dark and twisted aspects of the novel that Mann didn't want to dwell on. Oh, and those bitching that Norton is too young for the role should know that he is around the same age that William Petersen was during the filming of Manhunter. -
Seriously, I didn't think it was all that. It had it's moments, and I like the ambigous shot at the end, showing Graham photographing a woman from his car, almost like he's becoming like the killers he chases. Noonan was also pretty creepy. But overall, the film felt flat and damn it looked SOOOOOOOOO 80's. It doesn't age well at all. And Brian Cox as Lecter is nowhere near Hopkins' potrayal. Michael Mann has grown leaps and bounds as a director since that film, though. RED DRAGON looks good to me so far. Very good cast, hopefully the script and direction follow suit. As always, my opinion is the truth.
-
All this praising of Manhunter baffles me. I thought it was a poorly made clich
-
>
I don't think there *is* a legacy...like I said, it failed here miserably. I don't think the cop drama was the point of the novels either...it helped build the plot, yes, but not the point.
~HR -
I totally agree with you about Hannibal being faithful to the book, except for the ending.
I don't agree that it was a good ending.
The book wasn't really all that great when you compare it to the first two. I think that was the problem with the movie. It was TOO faithful to the book. -
Manhunter is a good but not great film. This is true. But some of the things in it worked
really really well. And frankly yeah, as the name change intimates, it is a movie about
Will Graham and not Francis Dolarhyde. Which doesn't bother me, as Will Graham was a hell
of a lot more interesting in his out there way. The notion of a serial killer hunter who
is forced to think like a serial killer is kind of old hat now, precisely because of films
like Manhunter. Yeah, it's dated, yeah the soundtrack is lame, yeah, everyone has beachfront
property and shares the same interior decorator, but still, Petersen's performance is
awesome, Cox is a different but still good take on Lecter, and there are things to love
there. But then, I liked "Hannibal", and don't see how they could have done better with it
considering the source material. Yeah, I would have liked to see Lecter psychically cannibalize
Clarice like he does in the book, but I can't imagine many audiences sitting still for
that. As for this movie, it's a good job that there's such a stellar cast, because every
other thing about its inspiration, conception, etc. completely blows Hollywood goats. And
not in a good way. -
Well, I am sure I will end up seeing Red Dragon at some point, but that trailer seems a fairly good indicator to me. They took one of the best scenes from Manhunter, the meeting between Peterson's Graham and Cox's Lector (Lecktor ;-)), and showed the "Red Dragon" version. Anyone who is familiar with both versions, and says the "Red Dragon" version is better is on crack. The "Manhunter" version crackled with tension, and the "Red Dragon" version just made you want to backhand Edward Norton and say "Stop sounding like a prissy bitch".
-
Ok, let this be the last word on the Manhunter vs. Red Dragon bitch session. MANHUNTER was an ADAPTATION of Red Dragon. The focus was indeed shifted from the Tooth Fairy to Will Graham. Would I like to see RED DRAGON made into a FAITHFUL movie? Why not. Why should I care either way?! I am happy Brett "I Do Twice As Much Coke As Quentin" Ratner was picked to direct it? No... but I don't really care. To be fair, (and I HATE being fair) I haven't seen Red Dragon, so who knows. For those who bitch about the fact it is being remade ("Why? We don't need it!!! Waaaahhhhh!") it's the same as saying, "Why bother making faithful movies based on Ian Flemming's original Bond books?" Well, the simple answer is, because there's enough new/unseen material to warrant a movie. I have not read the Red Dragon novel, but it seems as if there's enough unused material to make a decent movie, even if you're a fan of Manhunter, Hannibal or SoftheL. And as far as the Manhunter "legacy", it is considered a "cult" movie; which usually translates to "a lot of people have seen it, but only a few will actually admit to seeing it." It looks like an '80s film, because it IS an '80s film. Go figure... Anyone going to see a Mann movie thinking it will be faitful to the source material only need to watch The Keep (a travesty that Mann should have been stoned for). While Brett Ratner may be a boring director, Mann isn't that much better. He redeemed himself slightly with Ali, but only because he did his best impression of Soderburgh. Ralph Fiennes is a good actor, but most people with think he's just ripping off DeNiro in Cape Fear. Granted, Manhunter is NOT engrained into the collective conscience of the world's movie-going public, but to those who've seen it (whether you liked it or not) Red Dragon will be, at best, a curiosity.
-
In reading a couple of posts about the book ending of Hannibal, I feel as though I might have lost my mind. Is it just me, or do these few mentions of the ending make it seem as though Hannibal ate Clarice at the end? And maybe its just me, but did they not get together at the end and end up as a couple? Perhaps I am going insane, but that surely is the way I remember the book.
-
Aug 02, 2002 12:16:52 PM CDT
Ed Norton is wrong for the role of Will Graham just as Julianne
by jaimie kanwar
I have to enter the debate at this point and make a few points of my own. First off, the review SUCKED big time! Jack Daniels sounds like he
-
The main problem with "Hannibal" is that it made Lecter into some sort of supernatural creature with ninja-like skills. The way he is everywhere at once in the Italy scenes is ridiculous. The reason he was so scary in SoftheL is that he is so dark and malevolent, and yet, still human like the rest of us. In "Hannibal" he becomes some mythic being that can't be hunted, killed or caught, yet he was originally tracked down by an FBI agent. Are we going to find out in Red Dragon II: Lecter's Revenge that he was turnred into a killer replicant and thus is able to escape gun-toting killers, armies of FBI agents and crazed billionaires with an ax to grind? Hannibal was a joke... and I must agree with a fellow talkbacker that Harris' possible motivation for writing it was to annoy his publishers. The fact that Hannibal failed on multiple levels might (unfortunately) make Red Dragon look decent.
-
The problem with Hannibal is that Silence of the Lambs was such a brilliant film and set a completely impossible standard and a totally different mood. Had Silence of the Lambs never been made, and if Hannibal existed all on its own, you guys would have had multiple orgasms over it in the theater. It's not even remotely in the same style as Silence of the Lambs, but as an over-the-top campy gore-fest of the disturbing and macabre, Hannibal ranks right up there with Freaks and Dead Alive. So don't poo on it just because it's not Silence of the Lambs. Most movies aren't. You just have to separate the two.
-
Aug 02, 2002 1:53:14 PM CDT
Silence and Hannibal should NOT HAVE TO BE SEPARATED and thought
by jaimie kanwar
I agree that Hannibal is not and could not be Silence of the Lambs as Silence is such a brilliant film in it's own right...but Hannibal is part of the SAME STORY...a continuation, part of a trilogy therefore Hannibal should adhere to the stylistic principles of Silence, which as I'm sure everyone will agree, are what made silence so successful. To just throw everything that made SOTL a classic out the window to create a film with a totally different feel and mood is just plain stupid. The point is, we should not HAVE to separate the two...we should be discussing them on the same level (stylistically) as part of big, great continuing story. Look at some of the great Trilogies...Star Wars, The Godfather, Back to the Future, Indiana Jones, Die Hard (really!) each film in the series is instantly recognisable as part of that series. Star Wars (like Silence) has different directors for pts 4, 5 and 6 but still each film fits together seamlessly as part of a whole. This should have been the same with Hannibal and Silence of the Lambs. Instead, Ridley Scott decided to make his own movie in disregard of everything that made SOTL successful. If Hannibal was a stand alone movie, It possibly might have received a better reception as it would be relieved of the baggage of SOTL...but that is not the case. I think Hannibal deserves to be regarded as a poor sequel and film because the audience had the right to expect that the new film would continue the atmosphere and mood of SOTL. Surely it's obvious that you can't expect everyone to just forget about SOTL and try and accept Hannibal as a stand alone film without reference to the previous film? The studio must have known that? But what do they care...the movie made money and as we all know, that's all that matters. Hannibal was supposed to be the next chapter in the Clarice-Lecter saga...in my opinion, despite the fact It is entertaining in places, it fails.
-
No, Hannibal was not an appropriate sequel to Silence of the Lambs (because as we all know, satisfying sequels are nothing but remakes of the successful movie that got the ball rolling). But it was a beautiful companion piece to Blade Runner: the same depravity in the midst of luxury, beauty surrounded by tawdriness, the same skewered moral compass. Who is human and who isn't? Who has the upper-hand in the righteousness stakes? It
-
I enjoyed "Silence Of The Lambs", cause I felt that Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins had one of the erriest relationships to ever hit the big screen. Hannibal was interesting and okay, but failed when it came to that intimacy between Hopkins and Moore. Now we've got Hopkins and Norton. Ummm... I won't go any farther, but I am interested to see way Ralph Fiennes pulls off. Norton is always good. And I do like the way Hopkins manages to just stare at someone, and it makes you shiver (as if he's thinking of how this person he's looking at would go with a red or white wine).
-
Yep, you're right, Imokliel...Hannibal and Clarice wind up together at the ending of the novel.
Whether or not he psychically or psychologically cannibalizes her is something long debated on Lecterphile boards. That's a whole different thread altogether, especially seeing as I spoke on this topic to a convention not too long ago.
Personally, I think he didn't...she was just ripe for the right push in the direction she went, IMHO. Betrayal, conversion and redemption. Nuff said.
~HR -
Aug 02, 2002 7:51:30 PM CDT
ok, the In-Da-Gadda-Da-Vitta ending of MANHUNTER and other bits
by tall_boy
but quite frankly, I thought the flick was going great until they really diverged from the book at the end. That ending was cool (he jumped through the windown when the song kicks in, how cool was that?) but I don't think it didn't stay true the novel itself. Quite frankly, they took a piss on the character of the RED DRAGON/TOOTH FAIRY. This adaptation will be rule because Ted Tally wrote SILENCE, which I think is one of the most faithful and best novel to film adaptations out there a director who wants to prove himself outside of the buddy-cop genre, a great cast, Anthony Hopkins as Lecter (like him better than Brain Cox) and, by all acounts, a FAITHFUL adaptation of the novel.
-
There's another reviewer from the test screening who posted on Garth's site, a bigger rave even than this one. Lookin' good! Angel Baby, you gotta stop taking movies so literally. All that 'movies are responsible for violence in society' crap doesn't wash. Otherwise Jeffrey Dahmer would have started his career after seeing SOTL not before.
-
all of the reviewers on aicn can be a little cloying at times, but i appreciate the enthusiasm and you guys have the best movie dope out there, so why complain?
jack daniels is why. this review is real dreck. all of the moronic 'stank' talk and 'please god, please let me be cool' phrasing comes off as desperate and juvenile.
the real crime, of course, is that there is virtually no information in this review. we don't check out this site to find out what a bad-ass you are (or rather, aren't) jd. nobody wants to hear it. stick to the movie and save the affected, hipster talk for your someone who has never seen a tarantino flick and still finds this kind of thing novel.
nothing personal...
aa -
Aug 03, 2002 10:20:35 PM CDT
Yesterday is history, Tomorrow is a mystery, and today is a gift
by sinistro79
This movie is bullshit. I want to see a film where they give this guy Hannibal Lecter a badge and have him solve crimes himself. I want to see him eat a drugdealer as an LAPD employee.
-
Hell, man, they remade "Manhunter," and they're using Hopkins to portray a character arguably 20-25 years younger than Lecter should be. You might want to register your "Agent Lecter eats a drug dealer" idea... it's not so farfetched given the way they're exploiting the character.
-
Manhunter changed our expectations for cop movies, took them to the next level. Red Dragon will come and go very quickly because of the familiarity of all the leads. This film will be the cinematic equivalent of a BAD COVER VERSION!!! You know I'm right.
P.S. If this movie is in retrospect then shouldn't it be set circa 1983? Should we expect a soundtrack similar to American Psycho? 'Genesis' and 'Huey Lewis and the News'. Mmm. Don't think anyone has raised that little salient one yet. I'm suggesting Culture Club's 'Do You Really Want To Hurt Me' followed by Fun Boy Three's 'The Lunatics Have Taken Over the Asylum'. Oh, yeh, and the female leads should wear rah-rah skirts. OH YEH!!! -
Angel66 needs to get more *fuuunnnn* out of life...
;)
~HR -
Although Hannibal may have been marketed as a sequel to SOTL (which, can you blame them?), I seriously doubt it was Ridley Scott's intention to make it a faithful sequel, nor his duty. It is also not the duty of the filmmakers to manage every audience member's expectation. The minute you enter a theater with the intent of judging a movie only in comparison to another movie is the minute you've closed off your mind to greater possibilities. Sure, some sequels are able to recreate the themes and styles of their predecessors, but I would argue that these movies are usually the most derivative and pointless as well (Godfather 2 excluded). Also, the style and tone of the book Hannibal is not similar to the tone of the book Silence of the Lambs, so I would argue that it wasn't Thomas Harris' intention either. I am impressed with Ridley Scott's balls in making his film a completely new experience, however mixed the results were. Ridley didn't care if the audience walked into a theater wanting to see Silence of the Lambs Part 2. That wasn't the movie he wanted to make. Thank god there are still directors who can create their own unique visions, rather than trying to meet the expectations of the audience.
-
Reading over some of these messages has been amusing to say the least. Quite a few of you have mentioned that you like SotL & are very quick to state how terrible of a director Ratner is & yet the only notable film (if it could be called that) that Jonathan Demme had made previous to SotL was Married to the Mob, yet he was still able to do a fine job of making SotL. Manhunter was just plain drab & mundane & dragged on quite a bit. I would expect nothing less from anyone coming from Miami Vice. I have seen it twice & I will watch it again to see if I can grasp all of this greatness that you are writing about but I doubt I will. To me I thought it looked like a low budget made for t.v. 80's movie without merit or good acting from all but one of the characters. Some of the other acting was alright but not right for the roles. Will Graham was the only character worth noting in this film since he was portrayed well. The rest of the cast could go including Cox's Lektor. Anyways, we will see how well Red Dragon does & I will go to see it since I thought Manhunter came nowhere near the book Red Dragon. I read the book & then saw the movie & could not avoid cringing on more then one occasion. As for everybody seeming to like Cox portraying Lektor (what was the point of changing the spelling?) so much thinking that he was better all I can say is read the book. He did not come off as acting the way Lecter does in the book. He came off as a regular guy in a cage who was overly bored & had no animosity or anger towards anyone. He just seems bored with the role & his lines seem forced. Lecter was not supposed to be a regular guy in a cage, he was supposed to be a brilliant doctor who had plenty of anger towards Graham which watching the trailer for Red Dragon atleast Hopkins shows some emotion while talking to him not, "Then how did you catch me," with a yawn inbetween as in Cox's role (he did not actually yawn but he might as well have). Oh well, a difference of opinion is what life is all about. One other thing I would like to type in here regarding Manhunter, I did think it differed too much from the book. Too much was changed in it. The capture was one & the other was the ending which of course stand out the most. They do not show what happens to Graham after Dolarhyde cuts up his face all pretty. Ciao.
-
Having recently visited many SOTL/Red Dragon sites, I found myself having a very strong feeling of deja vu from around January 2001 when it was the countdown to the release of Hannibal. Then, like now, so many of us were reaching a state of almost orgasmic expectation. Such great things were demanded of the film that even before it was released, it could never live upto the hype created about it by us, the so-called "fans". Sure, such glowing reviews as those of JD at the time did not help. I wouldn't have had a problem with his review had it been truthful as to the many pitfalls of the film and the absolute lack of the sort of "anticipation factor" that was such a key element of SOTL's success. True, Red Dragon is a far superior story to Hannibal and one would have to believe that only a total ignoramus could make a bad job of it. Having said that, who would have thought that a director of Mr Scott's calibre would have turned Hannibal into a two-bit horror movie?
I guess all I am trying to say is that maybe we should go into this movie with an open-mind, few expectations. If, after viewing the movie, it transpires that it is in fact a fantastic movie, then we will all have a great feeling of being proved wrong. It seems to me there are two sorts of fans out there at present. Those who feel that RD is a very bad idea and those who are salivating over the release of this movie more than a Pavlovian dog at feeding time. Me - I'm taking the middle ground; I know the story, the cast, the director. I'm just waiting till October the 4th to see what our friend Mr Rattner has made of it all.
You may think I'm a pessimist. But then again "a pessimist is never dissapointed!" -
I am never going to claim I am an expert on movies. Hell, I loved a lot of movies most people think of as shite. I will say this. As someone who read Red Dragon BEFORE Manhunter was made and who always laughed at the sets of Miami Vice, I think they have no choice but to do better this time around. Now, I do own a copy of Manhunter on DVD and I will probably end up owning a copy of Red Dragon on DVD (thus giving me all 4 parts of the Lecter Trilogy (huh?)) but I guess I can't see the awful crap some of you see in the trailer. I think it looks great and I am going to see this movie when it comes out no matter what anyone (including my wife dammit!!) says about the film. If it fellates a farm animal so be it.
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