Cool News
Mr. Beaks And TheBlueman Both Batter Brett Ratner
SPOILER ALERT !!
Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.
I’m seeing this film a few days before its release at an all-media screening, and at this point, I’m trying not to take anything anyone says into that screening with me. Both Beaks and blueman had their problems with the film, and you’ll see in both reviews that they damn Ratner’s work with faint praise at best.
Here’s Beaks, for example, with a rhetorical question I’ve been wondering about m’self...
RED DRAGON (d. Brett Ratner, w. Ted Tally)
The most curious moment in RED DRAGON comes early when the following credit flashes across the screen: “A Brett Ratner Film”. Is it? Is this the work of a singular artist with a pronounced style, working from a script he shepherded and re-wrote, while his cinematographer and designers scurried to tailor the look of the film to his particular vision? Or is this the anonymous work of an efficient craftsman serving the script and protecting the studio’s investment?
To be fair, it’s overly simplistic to break down directors into those two tidy categories, but when confronted with the controversial possessory credit, one figures a certain level of authorship is implied. RED DRAGON, in all its two-shot, eyeline-match glory, is an anonymous movie ultimately belonging to the audience. As an entertainment, it’s perfect for those unfamiliar with either Thomas Harris’s novel or Michael Mann’s moody MANHUNTER, and that’s fine, but this is not the work of a single voice. It’s a collaborative effort in the truest sense that’s periodically elevated by some impressive performances, but too often dragged down by a horribly miscast lead and an unimaginative script that rivals only HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER’S STONE as the most rote adaptation ever put to the screen.
The film opens confidently enough with a depiction of the infamous feast of Benjamin Raspail, the offensively untalented flautist murdered by Hannibal Lecter and literally served as dinner to the board of the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra, followed immediately by the good doctor’s gruesome capture by Will Graham. It’s in this opening scene alone that Edward Norton’s performance is even remotely effective; his physicality and hesitant speech nicely tags Graham as a respectful, deferential foil to Dr. Lecter much as Foster’s Clarice Starling was at the outset of SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. When he discovers a tome on Lecter’s shelf bookmarked to an entry on the preparation of “sweet bread” (shorthand for a tasty meal of pancreas and thymus), genuine fear grips the viewer as Lecter goes on the attack, and the film is off to a rollicking start, but it’s all undone once we pick up with the retired Graham repairing boats at his coastal Florida home. Though a fine actor when inhabiting characters of a more frantic, conflicted nature, Norton is utterly unconvincing as the haunted shell Graham is supposed to be post-assault. As the actor runs through his first scene with Harvey Keitel’s Jack Crawford, it’s impossible not to compare his work to the more textured performance of William Petersen. There’s no substance to Norton’s portrayal at all, and it leaves a gaping hole where the film’s tortured, yet driven protagonist should be.
For a good half-hour, the film lurches along with Norton through the early segment of the investigation without stirring an ounce of dread in the viewer (desperately and disgracefully resorting to a high-decibel scare as Graham works through the details of the second murder carried out by the “Tooth Fairy”). Just as it’s all beginning to feel like a typical episode of CSI, Ralph Fiennes’s Francis Dolarhyde is introduced, and, slowly, menace begins to creep back into the film. Far more human and pitiable than Jame Gumb in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, Dolarhyde is easily Harris’s most fascinating monster; a tragic by-product of vicious child abuse horrifyingly obsessed with transformation. Fiennes wisely contrasts his impressively bulked-up physique with small, hesitant gestures and movements that elicit audience sympathy; it’s an impressive trick that imbues the film a welcome glimmer of soul.
Fiennes’s excellent work is matched effortlessly by Emily Watson as Dolarhyde’s blind beauty, Reba. Though many will likely be impressed by Watson’s uncanny impersonation of a blind woman, her real bravura achievement is the way she veers from confident and outspoken to a very sad, needy sensuality as she throws herself at a man she barely knows and who hardly ever speaks to her. When focusing on these two wounded, fumbling romantics, RED DRAGON succeeds nicely as a minor character study, and Ratner, in his best directing to date, allows his actors long takes and wisely selected reaction shots. It’s nice work, exhibiting a subtlety heretofore unseen in the director’s previous assignments.
But this isn’t a Cassavetes film; it’s fucking RED DRAGON….. Hannibal Lecter….. blood, guts and the Goldberg Variations, right? And just how is Sir Anthony this time around? If he was teetering over the abyss of self-parody in HANNIBAL, Hopkins’s Lecter has plummeted to several fathoms below crass Saturday Night Live-style caricature, making one nostalgic for his comparably nuanced turn as the stroke-addled patriarch in LEGENDS OF THE FALL. Whereas each line dripped with a seductive, malevolent glee in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, Hopkins has trashed his Oscar-winning work in that film by indulging his worst actorly impulses, evincing all the frightfulness of a man-in-suit monster from the cheesiest Toho productions (think GODZILLA’S REVENGE). With his artistic returns irrevocably diminished, it’s a relief to know they’ve run out of Lecter tales, though should this installment perform up to expectations at the box office, one shudders to think how Dino De Laurentiis might contrive for a fourth go-round with the Cannibal.
Perhaps the most amusing aspect of this production is that Ratner is working with Dante Spinotti, the genius cinematographer of nearly every Michael Mann movie, including MANHUNTER, and the difference between the two films couldn’t be more striking. No doubt sensing Ratner’s workmanlike approach to the material, Spinotti has contributed a stripped down, semi-gritty look that stands in marked contrast to Mann’s 80’s-era predilection for high gloss. Coupled with the ratty, lived-in production design, the filmmakers wisely avoid any surface comparison with MANHUNTER, allowing this latest model to form its own identity.
If RED DRAGON is, at its worst, unnecessary, then it feels like something of a triumph for a project with the potential to be much, much worse. Once the film reaches its nicely effective climax (the surprise of which is being spoiled in nearly every RED DRAGON spot being run in theaters and on television, so be forewarned), it’s hard to imagine those unfamiliar with this chapter in the Lecter legacy to walk out less than satisfied, which is why all of the critical huffing and puffing feels too much like the rantings of a bitter cineaste. For all of its missteps, this isn’t a bad film; it’s just highly forgettable. And even if Ratner isn’t close to deserving full authorship on it, at least he’s made relative strides as a filmmaker, even though he continues to be one of the least exciting directors of his generation. But since when is mediocrity rewarded with the keys to one of the most coveted franchises in Hollywood?
Forget it, Beaks….. it’s Warner Brothers.
Faithfully submitted,
Mr. BeaksWow. There’s a lot of detail here about tonight’s NRG screening, and how oddly slack security was. From what I hear, they had more on their mind than just running a few screenings yesterday, though, so I guess a certain laxness is to be expected. Anyway... let’s see if blueman (one of our chat regulars, and a viewer of fairly demanding tastes) had any more enthusiasm for what he saw...
Moriarty,
***Warning, heavy spoilers starting in the fourth paragraph***
Just got back from a media screening of Red Dragon at the Arclight Cinemas in Hollywood. Red Dragon, as everyone outside of Red China is aware, is Brett (Rush Hour) Ratner's remake of Michael Mann's Manhunter, which in turn is based on Thomas Harris' novel, Red Dragon, which we all know by now was the introduction to the character Hannibal Lector. With me so far? Now, Manhunter is in my opinion, a classic film. Just perfect. But unfortunately(well,not UNfortunately, I don't really care, but I'm naturally whiny) Harris' next book featuring Lector, Silence of the Lambs, was made into a blockbusting, academy award winning, really slow movie about moths and Jodie Foster's sheep-related emotional scarring, plus some stuff about a guy making a dress out of women's skin. Okay, it's also really good, but unlike Manhunter, it made money, and a star out of Anthony Hopkin. Which leads into last year's "final" Hannibal Lector film, Hannibal. But gasp! shock! Hannibal made money too, and since MGM, it's distributor, is only used to making money once every two years(thank you Mr. Bond) it of course decided that they need more Hannibal and his cannibal hijinks. So we get an unneccessary remake by...Brett Ratner?! Let's see, Michael Mann->Jonathon Demme->Ridley Scott->The Fucking Director of FAMILY MAN?! The director of Family Man, for god's sake!! Now, some people have a low opinion of Ridley Scott, but isn't the next step down from him at least Tony Scott? So in my mind, hearing this horrifying fact months ago, I wrote the film off as a disaster, a last, cheap effort to cash in on the Lector. Then I saw the cast: Edward Norton as Will Graham, Ralph Fiennes as Francis Dolarhyde, Emily Watson, Harvey Keitel, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and of course Anthony Hopkins as the Doctor. As good a cast as has been assembled this year, by leaps and bounds.
So when I got the screening pass on tuesday, I was curious but somewhat ambivalent. Almost decided to stay home. It comes out soon, anyway...but, I wanted to know WHY. Why did they remake Manhunter? (besides money) Why remake a perfect movie. Okay, well, we'd get Anthony Hopkins instead of Brian Cox as Lector, but that's trading a famous great actor for a less famous great actor. There had to be SOME reason why all these terrific actors, most at their prime, would commit to a Brett Ratner movie. So I went.
It was an NRG screening, a rather low key one at that...no loyalty oaths, no double checking, hell,they didn't even bother looking at our tickets on the way into the theater. It was a packed house but I got there early, and was sixth in line. The line started late, so the wait wasn't too bad(sometimes, to get a good spot in line at an NRG screening, you have to get there like three hours early). Picked out my favorite seat at an Arclight theater, center center-rear. Prime spot. No speech before the screening(and thankfully no tax form/evaluation to fill out at the end).
First change from Manhunter is right off the bat: The capture of Hannibal Lector. Easily the best Anthony Hopkins scene in the movie...here Ratner does a good job of making a suspenseful scene, especially considering I knew what was going to happen. But then something weird happens. Edward Norton, one of the finest actors of his generation...is annoying as hell. It may be the fact that the dialogue is 80% word for word from Manhunter...but no...he's terribly terribly miscast as Will Graham. Far far too young(he looks thirty and has like a ten year old kid, he's retired from the FBI...after what, 3 months? You need at least five years experience with a law enforcement agency to join the FBI,unless you're a tech, so, what... was he part of 21 Jump Street?) It's not really Norton's fault(well actually, it is,he didn't have to take the role) but he just seems to lack any conviction as this character. I did not for one minute believe a single thing he said. He just said the words, in a sub-Harrison-Ford-in-Blade-Runner-Monotone. To top it all off, his character is a wimp and not that bright. Every big clue is dropped in Graham's lap by Lector or someone else. For all the importance of Graham's character, he's given barely anything to emote.
So this is a pan, right? If I don't like Edward Norton, of all people, in this movie, then the movie itself must suck, right?
Nope. From the moment Ralph Fiennes hits the screen as Francis Dolarhyde, the movie is riveting. It's not Manhunter, but it's own thing. The screenwriter, Ted Tally, goes back to the source novel, and fleshes out Dolarhyde. We see how he became what he is, and what it is he thinks he's becoming. Dolarhyde here seems more menacing, more lethal than Tom Noonan. There is a pretty clear Psycho riff in Dolarhyde's childhood, but it doesn't
matter. Hitchcock didn't get the copyright on weird, abusive mother figures.
Hopkins' Lector gets much more screen time(though still limited) in this film than Brian Cox' interpretation did in Manhunter, and Hopkins uses it well here, coming off as a master manipulator even behind bars, a modern day Dr. Mabuse. He dominates his scenes playing against Norton, and we see far more of the Lector he portrayed in Silence.
The supporting cast is uniformly excellent, though no real standouts. Philip Seymour Hoffman in the role of tabloid journalist Freddie Lounds seems more bored than sleazy, Keitel is matter-of-fact, Emily Watson radiates beauty.
As for Brett Ratner...well, he must've watched a LOT of John Ford movies because the directing style here is as basic as it gets. The score by Danny Elfman is terrific, old-style Hollywood music. Played very loudly, it annoys a little, but still, good work.
Ted Tally's screenplay...well, about 4/5ths of this movie was almost line for line what was on screen in Manhunter. Maybe they're both closely following the book, but I would get annoyed if I had to transcribe dialogue. A little variety wouldn't of hurt. The single major change to the movie is the ending, in which, when Dolarhyde is about to kill Reba McClane(Watson), he sets a fire, apparantly kills himself, after which she escapes. Of course,he has faked his death, and attacks will graham's family. This course of events,while entertaining on the screen,is just plain cheesy. EVERY SINGLE MOVIE with a murder in it has the scene in which the guy realizes the killer's in his house and he has to find and stop him, while the killer knows where the hero is. And the inevitable final return after half a dozen rounds of ammunition have pulverized the killer's body.
Bottom line, Manhunter is a classic film. Red Dragon is an above average thriller. It's the worst of the Hannibal Lector films, but is still worth a viewing. Manhunter is the plucky, low-budget intelligent version, Red Dragon the blandly-directed, high budgeted, power casted money machine. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.
thebluemanHmmmm... I see a pattern emerging. Norton miscast. Fiennes excellent. Hopkins decent but redundant. And I’ve always had problems with the “dumb slasher movie” ending of Tally’s script, although a good director should be able to make it play. Like I said... I’m curious and ready to see the film, and wanna thank both Beaks and blueman for sending their thoughts in so very, very promptly...
"Moriarty" out.
-
+ Expand All
-
All this time I've been complaining about Manhunter's cop-out ending and now it looks like they were right all along. I'm still going to see this of course. Can't believe Norton would ever turn in a bad performance.
-
Sep 20, 2002 10:06:23 AM CDT
I think they should have got Hulk Hogan to play the Tooth Fairy.
by statto4ever
Let the Manhunter was gay 80's style/Manhunter ruled arguments commence........
-
It's kind of a shame, since most of the cool things that have now become cliches in serial killer movies were actually introduced by Thomas Harris (insane killer helps earnest detective, earnest detective goes nutty from living too long in the mindset of insane killers, and in this case most notably Insane Killer A supplying Insane Killer B with Earnest Detective's home address). So their impact becomes mooted and lost. Still, I do love a lot about "Manhunter", but the cheesy happy ending (and forgettably accompanying song) blew goats.
-
.. is taken from the book. Mann changed it, it appears Ratner didn't. Cheesy and formulaic? Well, the book is about 20 years old. How many serial killer movies were there previous to Manhunter anyway?
-
Sep 20, 2002 11:21:09 AM CDT
Did you know that HP had an insatiable penchant for anal sex fro
by purple haze
-
Sep 20, 2002 11:22:09 AM CDT
Any review that states "Manhunter" is perfect invalidates the re
by no. 41
It was a good movie, entertaining, it has a permanent spot in my DVD collection, but for God's sake, if you can't see the flaws in that movie, you're absolutely blind. And if read one more review from someone who couldn't be bothered to read the source material, or at least familiarize themselves with it, I'm gonna go medieval.
-
There are flaws with Manhunter, but those of us who love it most, saw it before they read the book and way before Silence of the Lambs was released at theatres. The fact is that those of us who cared are now being vindicated by the fact that Red Dragon is pretty useless. So let's forget about being trendy, being there first. Most of us are just old enough to have been there first time round. I totally agree with people watching it now and thinking it's a Miami Vice episode. Each to his own. But we 'were' right. Nice job Beaks, Blueman.
-
I think I just won the spelling bee against the second reviewer. Is it too much to ask to spell LectEr and HopkinS correctly, if you're going to give us your misguided opinion?
-
A film should be primarily judged on its own merits, sure...but Red Dragon is film that is known to be based on an already published work of recent popular culture, and to not bother to at least familiarize yourself with it so you can know what the original creator of the work intended and have some context (after all, it is Harris' story that created Lecter, Will Graham, Francis Dolarhyde, and everyone else up there)--if you're going to write a review, at least, and communicate your opinion with others--is just plain laaaazzzzyyyyyy. Then again, laziness is the curse of 21st century existence. If you just want to see the film and don't give a hoot about the source material and just keep your opinions to yourself or your circle of friends, fine, whatever, who cares. But if you're going to pass yourself off as some sort of authority on the film, by submitting a review to a popular website, where it will likely be read by thousands or more people (have no idea how many hits AICN gets daily but I'm sure it's a lot) and you aren't going to be bothered with something as basic as knowing the source material, you're a lazy reviewer and you don't deserve the platform this site affords. But Harry & co can put whoever they want on their site, it's their site and their business...and if they're going to create a forum like TalkBacks, I can rail on the reviewers they chose to post all I want, as well. Done.
-
You know something that has always really bothered me about Silence of the Lambs? Just before Lecter kills the two guards, he's taking a shit. He gets up, AND HE DOESN'T WIPE HIS ASS. Imagine killing two guys with that foulness squishing between your cheeks. Christ, isn't he supposed to be all sophisticated? At least make one pass with the toilet paper to get the big chunks.
-
Hey, Glorious Bastard, maybe he was thinking of the future. He probably knew that he was about to take the piece of the pen out of his mouth, and wouldn't have time to wash his hands after moving his considerable (you know that guy Hopkins has IMMENSE waste removal issues) bowel waste. He was trying to avoid illness is my guess.
-
Oh, and Lecter wasn't pinching a loaf in that scene from "Silence", he was pretending to in order to regurgitate the pen behind the screen so the guards wouldn't see him. Your non-ass-wiping post still made me laugh, though. Brett Ratner should be drawn and quartered as punishment for polluting the film industry with his pathetic attempts at directing--fuck him--fuck him up his stupid frat-boy narcissistic ass!! By the way, HP sucks huge rhinocerous dick.
-
Sep 20, 2002 2:00:02 PM CDT
Well, I want intelligent writing. Familiarizing yourself about
by no. 41
Feel free to continue at your leisure, however.
-
There's too much emphasis on a good director being a visual stylist these days, even if they lack all of the other basic skills. That's what gives birth to the likes of Michael Bay. I mean hell, even Michael Mann and James Cameron (blue filters excepted) have relatively anonymous visual sytles. Their films look good, but the flourishes never get in the way of the story.
-
41, you are a fool. Don't you realize that anyone who has to preach his own mental superiority is, in essence, an idiot? Wake up or grow up, whichever one applies.
-
I'd give you your change back from all those three dollar words if I thought you were using them for any purpose but making yourself appear above us all. I have a feeling that you are the type of guy who builds a wall around himself by being "odd", and then pretends that people don't like you because you are too far abovce them intellectually. Man, Joey Ramone dies, but priggy fanboys live.
On the Manhunter side, my biggest headache came when I showed the film to a friend who had been raving about "Silence". She was amazed that the company could put out a cheap sequel so quick, but couldn't understand why they used the "creepy guy" as Lecter. *SIGH*. -
Sep 20, 2002 3:51:20 PM CDT
Any talkbacker who claims I "preach my intellectual superiority&
by no. 41
Three dollar words? Which ones? Good lord. How can I claim to be the intellectual superior of any you, since I don't know ANY of you at all? Sheesh. Times may change. Poor reading comprehension skills do not. If ya got yer buns in an uproar over anything I've posted today...I feel bad for you. Life's too short for that s**t.
-
Boy, do you have me figured out. I guess, since reading comprehension skills apparently AREN'T at a premium around these parts, that I'd better explain, just to be safe: THAT WAS SARCASM. Extreme, dripping sarcasm. Joey Ramone dies; people who think they know anything of substance about others by misinterpreting their posts on AICN talkback don't.
-
HI ALL...JUST GOT BACK FROM THE KARZIE AFTER.....SHITTIN MY ASS OUT FOR THE 3RD TIME TODAY!....
Anyhow back to RD. sounds like its shaping up to be just an OK film....ah well. -
Oh boy, another chance to debate the merits of Manhunter, Harry should change the name of this site to Red Dragon vs Manhunter. The people that love Manhunter so much are, I'm sure, sincere in their belief, but even they must realize that they probably wouldn't even remember it if it wasn't for Silence Of The Lambs. It would forever be confused in their memory with a Miami Vice episode. Edward Norton or William Peterson, come on, Norton is one of the best actors of his generation, Peterson is a passable tv actor, which I guess made him perfect for what was pretty much a glorified tv movie, which was made so much better because it did have a talented director. Oh well, to each their own.
-
Go out and rent Manhunter!! I personally think the only reason they redid it was because Anthony Hopkins wasnt Lecter. Brian Cox was just as good as Hopkins as the killer hannibal Lecter. Its a shame that people do not know that Hopkins wasnt the original Hannibal Lecter. Cox did a fantastic job. The actor who played Will Graham in Manhunter was perfect, and I as much as I like Norton, I cant see him as Graham. Still Red Dragon looks good and I cant wait to see it
-
One of the big things a commentator must avoid is becoming too hemmed in by their opinion. From the first time I saw the trailer, I thought RED DRAGON was going to blow the goat. And the mostly positive reviews posted on this site haven't done much to dissuade me. Now I read two reviews which, in Moriarty's words, damn it with faint praise, and I believe these. Is it because they play into my preconceptions, or is it because these two (in particular Mr. Beaks) are far more eloquent, and seemingly understanding of film, than the previous posters? Policing oneself can be a bitch...but I still think I'm gonna see a goat smoking a cigarette in the lobby afterwards.
-
is stupid good...
fun...
stupid fun good... -
Iv come to a conclusion about all the bashing ratner gets on this and other forums.There must be alot of film school graduates that cant get jobs so they take out there frustrations on ratner whos films have made a ton of money. Money Talks,Rush Hour 1 and 2 and Family Man may not be classics but the guy gets the job done. If you check the box office stats Ratner always delivers a film that makes the studios money and thats the bottom line. Red Dragon well make well over 150 million and when ratner does Superman all the jealous film school gradates with 4.0 grade point averages who are still unemployed or working as video store clerks at blockbuster well come out of the wood work again and complain how much better it could have been if some other director had directed superman or what ever film ratner desides to direct next.Why dont you all get other ratner and if your having trouble making your rent take your trophys you won in film school and try too pawn them at the local pawn shop for there true value $ 1.99
-
Ah, if ever there was a catchphrase describing talkbacks, here it is. The scary thing is, some of us do care. Not me. I'm just naturally.
-
At the risk of also being (ridiculously and unfairly) torn apart, I have *always* had a problem with friends of mine who never read the book that led to an adaptation of a film. In probably 95 per cent of cases, the book is ALWAYS superior to the movie. To say that you should not *have* to read the book to make the most of a film is ludicrous; I say that if you choose to not read the book, then you will pretty much consistently get LESS out of the movie (than otherwise). Books can do things that movies never can
-
Glass,
I apologize for the one time I left off the "s" in Hopkins. As for misspelling "Lecter," well, considering in Manhunter it's spelled "Lecktor," I'll apologize when Michael Mann does.
As for all of this talk about having to read the novel before reviewing a filmed adaptation, well, I did read Thomas Harris' Red Dragon, about ten years ago. However, I did not remember it well enough to try to compare and contrast it to the new film. I would have refreshed my memory, but given the two days notice I had before the screening, I didn't think it would be of much use.
theblueman
-
Just as I can't help but let another superior production of HAMLET color my opinion of subsequent stagings, it's impossible to not recall MANHUNTER while watching RED DRAGON. What I tried to point out was where this new film succeeded in standing apart from Mann's earlier work, which is why I praised Fiennes and Watson, but, ultimately, this picture falls short not because I liked MANHUNTER, but because it's flawed and the lead is miscast. It doesn't matter how good Norton has been in the past; he's simply not *right* for Graham. He's too young and fresh-faced, and that really hurts this adaptation. Without a credible Graham, the production is doomed, and that is why I opined (slightly) negatively.
-
In "Figures Of Light," Stanley Kaufmann argues that when something happens in a film, it becomes something totally different. He was speaking in an abstract sense, concerning trends in filmic structure, and wasn't specifically talking about adaptations, but I think the point still stands. A movie is a movie. A book is a book. You may well think someone may gain something from reading the book a movie is based on, but by impication, if you think it's necessary, what about all the films that are made with no book preceeding them? Are they inherently inferior? I know that's not what you meant, but that's where your logic points. Films and books are two different things, and while you may wish people were more familiar with the source material, to suggest there's something wrong with not knowing is frankly bizarre.
-
I don
-
Hmm...I think you're being extremely restrictive in your assessment of Book-To-Film transitions. I'm not putting the source down, certainly, and if you want to truly understand the deeper motivations behind something, absolutely, the source text is the way to go. What I think you're missing is that just because a film is made into a book doesn't mean the film can not stand on its own. This is my basic problem with your assertion. Also, your Bible/God analogy is flawed: preaching the Word of God without having read the Bible would be wrong, yes, but seeing THE TEN COMMANDMENTS does not NECESSARILY require reading the whole of the Old Testament. NECESSARILY is the key word here. If I saw RED DRAGON and then proceeded to talk about Harris' talent without having read the book, then yes, I'd be full of it. But I'm not talking about Harris, I'm talking about the movie. You still haven't addressed my main question: if a movie can not stand on its own without the book, what about movies that aren't made from a novel source? I understand your point about the novel offering more depth of the characters, but since when is the movie lacking (as a movie, mind you) without it? That would be a huge flaw in the film. How about this: CASABLANCA underwent a stupifying amount of changes during production. Are you doing it a disservice by not reading the original script? Absolutely not: the film stands on its own. Now, your basic point is solid: a source novel usually offeres more depth of understanding. But your insistence that this is the only way to go, that you somehow have a RESPONSIBILITY to seek out additional information, well, that sticks in my throat. "When a movie is adapted from a book, it is simply respectful to the original author to see the full
-
I mean, did you SEE "Cabin Boy"?
-
I know he's the same age as Peterson was when he played Grahem, but the problem is Norton looks younger then his actual age and Peterson could pass for being older. Norton is a great actor, but miscast.
-
First of all, it isn
-
... before I get slaughtered again. In "books" I was referring to the OFFICIAL data books and encyclopaedia that are available, not the novels that continue the stories post JEDI etc.
-
I think Angelina Jolie should have played Graham.
-
... let's just bring out that favourite discussion ending cliche, and agree to disagree yeah? :) I'd rather wait to actually see RED DRAGON before pushing opinion on it any further; I personally, as I said, like that I've read the book (re-read it again recently to be 'fresh' for the film, but I guess that's just me :) but you're right in that everyone is entitled to their own way of doing things. Whatever works for you (and me) is great.
-
yo HP, any way I can get down on fuckin' Ratner's shit up? homeboy is a fuckin' poser, talkin' shit about Michael Mann and actin' like his "superman" movie is runnin' things at warner bros. I work at WB, so hopefully I'll get to see him on the lot and run his ass over with a golf cart or somethin'. out
-
I don't give a shit if Ratner directs a movie that makes a billion dollars....as long as he continues to produce a load of bullshit that no one with any film taste respects, then fuck him! the reason his movies are hits is because he puts Chris Tucker in them and coasts. how much money did Family Man make again? nice try at a "serious" film fucker, kinda like Michael Bay doing Pearl Harbor. and let's see, how much did film school help his creativity? he can shove his film school diploma up his ass if he's not gonna bring something quality to the table. Paul Thomas Anderson's 2 days in film school and Quentin Tarantino's years as a video store clerk obviously taught them a lot more than Ratner's 4 yrs. at NYU. out
-
---- your post indicates that you think box office reciepts indicate something about film quality. Dead wrong. By your estimation, Michael Bay must be a far greater filmmaker than Jim Jarmusch. "Who?" you're probably thinking. I will not stoop so low as to tell you. Brett Ratner sucks donkey dick and so does Chris Tucker.
-
NOTE TO BRETT RATNER: You are a rice king rat fuck. Everyone in Hollywood hates your ass. Your intolerable body odor is quickly surpassing your shitty films in terms of triggering gag reflexes in those forced to bear witness to both. Most importantly, the staff (and many of the customers) of Asanebo restaurant in Studio City CA (plug) wish you would disappear. The waitresses think you are repulsive (so you can quit sexually harassing them), the customers think you are a loud, obnoxious, graceless pig (and they are correct) and your sycophantic entourage of losers are almost as clueless as you are. Please do everyone a favor and kill yourself. But take a shower first. Even LA coroners have a sense of smell.
-
I just saw a preview screening of Red Dragon. Bottom line: Manhunter is a better, more interesting and edgier film. The dreck I saw tonight with its flat acting, dull look and Jason Voorhees ending is going to make a bundle--too bad. I felt like the audience was filled with a bunch of bushpeople who had never seen a movie before; they jumped and laughed and clapped like they hadn't just been taken to the cleaners.
No, I'm not a Manhunter purist. That movie's soundtrack alone, excluding the great use of Iron Butterfly, can drive you up the wall these days. However, Manhunter had a lot more guts, good production design and cinematography.
I was really looking forward to Red Dragon, once I heard about the cast. What a waste. Except for the blind character, the rest of the cast was either so low-key it put you to sleep, or so over-the-top that it was too laughable. Our favorite cannibal has become the Cryptkeeper.
Yeah, the serial-killer-in-love scenes were interesting--as they were the first time around. Yeah, it was fun to see the story of the Symphony Board dinner committed to film--that's where this movie should have ended.
I'm dumbfounded and angry. I'm sure my opinion will be in the minority. So go see it; and pull the wool over your own eyes.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts