Red Dragon, 2002 - DVD

Directed by: Brett Ratner
Written by: Ted Tally, based on the Thomas Harris novel
Starring: Anthony Hopkins, Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes, Harvey Keitel, Emily Watson

I'm not sure where to start this review. I was dumbfounded when it first came to be... especially with Anthony Hopkins quitting the acting world all together... you know, the first time. Then doing Hannibal, which I enjoyed a lot... and some other pictures... but coming back for the real money by acting in the first part of the Lecter series.

I say the 'real money' because the profile on this particular picture was so great, and the budget was $90 million dollars... I'm sure that quite a large chunk went into Hopkins' pocket, since it wouldn't have been made without him.

Lecter has a very loyal following. Even Hannibal, which wasn't received too well (and had a budget of $87 million) did well over $100 million in its six months in the theaters... so, this was easy money to the Executive producers (De Laurentiis).

Bankable projects such as this are an easy sell. Red Dragon did very well in the theaters, made people a lot of money. But was it a good film? Did it have to be a good film? Did anyone care, really, so long as they got to watch Hopkins play Lecter?

Well... I certainly cared. I cared enough because the first time Red Dragon was made, in 1982, a film called Manhunter... I was greatly impressed with this film. Even with the discrepencies between the novel and the movie... and the dated feeling of the film... there was a great sense of style, horror, characters and scenes that made it quite a memorable film.

First, I would like to comment on Brett Ratner. This man, like so many other directors today, has no discernable style. There is not one thing that I saw in Red Dragon that made me think "Oh, this is a Ratner movie." Not one thing that made me think that I would be interested in searching out other films by Ratner, to see if his storytelling ability was as strong, or weaker, than this film. Nothing.

His previous movies, the two Rush Hour films, Money Talks, The Family Man... and a whole bunch of crap... none of them have any specific style, what-so-ever.

I recognize the fact that the Rush Hour films have done well... and that he had his chance to get the pick of the litter... fine. Play the game, I dig it... but please, don't put this man into a class by himself, or worse, add his name to the list of other great directors. He can handle himself behind a camera, yes. He can direct actors, yes. I will give credit where it's due... but he's not a good storyteller, and he has no use of style.

A perfect example of this is that he's directing part 3 of the Rush Hour series. It's sad. Most of what style in this film was obviously lifted from Silence of the Lambs and Se7en.

Now, who's bright idea was it to have Ted Tally write this thing? What, does lightning strike twice or something? First of all, anyone who's read the novels will note that there were some scenes, along with some dialog, that came straight from the Silence of the Lambs novel... what the hell was that all about?

Second, for anyone who's read Red Dragon... I'm sure it was the studio who said "Ok... we know Lecter's part in Red Dragon isn't huge... but we want you to make it huge. Make Lecter's part larger than Dollarhyde's, ok? Because we're paying Hopkins a shitload of money, we're better off scraping the basic storyline and turning this into a Silence of the Lambs wanna-be."

What the hell were these people thinking? Why isn't Thomas Harris coming out and saying "These people have ruined my beautiful creation... I want you to know I had nothing to do with this butchered thing they call a script."

If you're interested in reading the script, visit JoBlo.com. I hope to give it a read... and quite possibly take Tally out of the equation that was this terrible film. We'll see.

One of the things I greatly noticed was the amount of over-acting that Hopkins did with Lecter. Too much... there wasn't enough calmness in him... his acting was too over-the-top. Some of his dialog was pretty godawful too... you could tell what Tally took from the novels and what he wrote himself.

I'm jumping around a bit... I'm sorry... back to the acting.

Hopkins overdid it.

Edward Norton was miscast. I've loved his work ever since Primal Fear. I thought that the only bad work he's ever done was in The Score... so I was halfway intrigued to see him in this role, because I love to watch his work... but he was not an acceptable Agent Graham. He has never played a cop before, and for good reason. He doesn't come across as a cop.

Ralph Fiennes did an ok job on this film... but nowhere near as good as Tom Noonan did with Manhunter. In Manhunter, the character of Francis Dolarhyde was much more developed... though slightly less developed than the novel. In Red Dragon, Tally saw it necessary to spoonfeed us the necessary ingredients that made Dolarhyde what he was... which wasn't necessary.

A case in point would be the ridiculous way they concluded the film... with Graham reading the 'journal' that Dolarhyde had kept (which survived a house which burned to the ground, for god sake). This allowed Graham, at the end, to save his son... by instigating Dolarhyde with part of his past. WHY NOT JUST STICK TO THE ORIGINAL ENDING??? Doesn't make much sense that Manhunter goes out of its way to change the ending... then, the powers that be come along and say "Hey! We'll stick to the book, add more Lecter... and change the ending!"

Unreal.

I will say, yes, Jim Uhls changed the ending for Fight Club... and Chuck Palahniuk went on record to say he liked Uhls ending better... ok. But, jesus... other than that, it was almost a word for word adaptation... this is not the case with Red Dragon, and that upsets me because if you're going to use source material, stick to the material... otherwise... change the name, as they did with the first movie, Manhunter.

UGH! As a screenwriter, I sit and watch these films and feel contempt for these writers who take great works and change them for the sake of changing them... so they can consider some of the work 'original'. One of the things Dino De Laurentiis said in the "Making of" documentary was "Great actors will flock to a great script...", or something along those lines. Give me a break, ok? It seems actors, these days, are more interested in their paycheck, and taking advantage of movie-goers and fans, instead of entertaining.

I won't get into much else because, as you can see, this film made me sick. I'm glad I rented it and didn't waste the $10 in the theaters...