Red Dragon

[Synd D`nys]

Okay, what about Hannibal was terrible?

Horrible story. Virtually zero suspense. Julianne Moore was completely unbelieveable as Clarice Starling. Anthony Hopkins wasn't near as creepy as he was in Silence. They substituted gratuitous gore for genuine scariness. The dialog was contrived. The Ray Liotta character was dumb.

The only thing even remotely redeaming about the film was traditionally excellent Ridley Scott cinematography. Otherwise it was complete crap.

[SamLowry]

it didnt explain it in the movie like someone said - but for people that have read the book,could u tell me why he was, disfigured, i guess. only thing showed in the movie was the scar on his lip.

ps. his fucking name is RALPH FIENNES

[Searyx]

Ralph Fiennes > dak

The English Patient? Schindler's List? Oscar and Lucinda? Strange Days? Quiz Show?

[dak]

He was good in the English Patient Ill admit that.

I didnt care for him in Schindlers List, course I didnt like the movie that much to begin with *gasp*.


He wasnt that great in Strange Day, just saw strange days a few months ago and thru the entire flick I was thinking of various people that would be better then him in the role.

I dont really remember his acting in Quiz Show but that sorta speaks for the acting...

I dont recall seeing Oscar and Lucinda.


Never the less he blew huge portions of ass in Red Dragon.


...why dont you mention "The Avengers" or "Wurthing Heights" in his list of merits? HUH!?! HUH?! ...I think I know why...BECAUSE THEY SUCKED!

Hehe ;p

[Tristinn]

Ive read all three books, and I enjoyed the novel Red Dragon quite much. I thought the movie did well with going along with the book very much so, even though Hannibal was hardly in the book at all, but I understand they did this to get the ticket sales up and whatnot, and the scenes with him were great I thought.

I couldnt stand the ending though

*Ending Spoilers*


As always, they just cant seem to finish a movie on a sad depressing note. The novel concludes with Dollarhyde stabbing Grahm through the face and Completely fucking him up, his wife then shoots D to death. The Movie, well, if you saw it, you know what happens. The end shows Grahm all happy pappy with his family on the boat. If they coulda just kept the original ending, I would have completely loved this movie.

*End spoilers!*

it didnt explain it in the movie like someone said - but for people that have read the book,could u tell me why he was, disfigured, i guess. only thing showed in the movie was the scar on his lip.

D had a Cleft Pallet (sp?) And tried to have corrective surgery for it. Thus him in the picture with his grandmother holding his mouth.

[Synd D`nys]

In this movie you learn more about Hannibal then you do about the primary villian

Haven't seen Red Dragon yet, though I was planning to, but if this is the case, its going to be exactly like I feared it would. Lecter has a relatively small role in the book (and in the movie Manhunter). It's an important one but Hopkins shouldn't have got alot of screen time if they were faithful to the story.

That fact that you mentioned that they showed Graham catching Lecter is a major deviation from the book to begin with. Lecter was already incarcerated at the start of Red Dragon.

[Xaen]

SoTL blows RD out of the water, the two arnt even comparable. Even Hannibal dispite its many flaws was better then RD ten fold.

Yikes. Red Dragon and SotL are on par with each other, you could splice them together and not even notice a difference by how good they both were. But Hannibal? It was just gratuitous gore with terrible acting. It was like some guy decided that the movie should be Texas Chainsaw Massacre Pt 10 instead of a good psychological detective movie. Both RD and SotL dealt with agents going over clues to catch psychos, neither had any real "depth" to the villians outside of the clues and profiles they came up with. They're a CSI lovers wet dream for movies. Hannibal broke that mold and went gore, which is why it stunk.

[Samus Aran]

God you guys can be fuckin retards sometimes... all a bunch of mother fuckin haters... all of you. The movie Owned, it was about on par with Hannibal imo which wasn’t as good as silence of the lambs but was also very good. You guys always gotta have so much fuckin h8.

[Millie]

I'm glad this movie is generating so much controversy. It's good for the forum's traffic.

However, I've got to remind you all once again to be civil. Don't let this discussion degenerate into a mindless, personal flame fest. If it dips back in that direction again, I'll either lock the thread, Rickshaw it, or both.

Play nice!

[Eomer]

You know, when I stop and think about who makes more of a contribution to society, someone who claims to be an artist and a janitor, I end up leaning in the direction of the janitor.

Don't get me wrong, if we didn't have people contributing art to society, it would be boring as hell etc etc etc. But 90% of people who claim to be "artists" generally suck ass and just can't do much else. I mean hell, all the empty headed bartenders that dream of being actors that live in LA probably consider themselves "artists".

[xmortal]

I thought the movie was good.

It had good focus on the characters, and the play off of Grahm and his fear of getting involved vs his compulsion to get involve was great.

I feel like some of the Dr Lector scenes were forced, but they wanted to give him screne time. I understand that.

The Red Dragon was great. They played off the relationship with his caretaker being the cause for his issues well. I imagine the book explained in even more detail the reason why he affixed on the red dragon? I think I will read it to get more in his head if they do bring that out more in the book.

It was also good to see the conflict between the monster he was becoming versus the human he longed to be with the blind girl. She was a highlite to the film. The romance between them while bringing things to light, and moved the story along without feeling like it was spoonfeeding the audience to move the story along.

[Heylel Teomim]

I enjoyed it. I think it compares favorably to Silence of the Lambs, but unfortunately it won't get that same sort of attention purely because the format is no longer new. SotL was shocking because it was the first movie of its kind. After it, there's a string of knock offs (95% of which star Morgan Freeman, wierd). Se7en was the best of those, and truthfully I still enjoy Se7en much more than Silence. Still though, Red Dragon was pretty artfully done.

Fiennes as Dolarhyde worked so amazingly well. His first few scenes appear so forced, until it sinks in that no, he's not acting badly, its that his character is so totally fucked up that he's unable to seem natural. It gives enough background on him to make you feel sympathetic, but you still really want to see him get caught. I only wish it explained the fixation with the painting a little more. That, and the dentures.

Edward Norton came off a little flat, but I still enjoyed the performance. I think that, like Fiennes, its mostly the type of character he had to play, rather than the acting. In the scenes he had to be active, he did well. Most of the time he was very low key. His best bit was near the end, you'll know what I'm talking about if you've seen it.

Plot moved gracefully, the scenes with Lechter felt necessary, and Hopkins actually had much less screen time than I expected (far less than Silence). The intro before the credits where he's taken down is an interesting bit of lore. Nothing felt terribly out of place.

Its not Best Picture material, but I think some of the actors may get nods, Fiennes and the woman who played the blind girl in particular. Its worth eight bucks.

Heylel

[Smasharoo]

Hpkins was flat. Kietel didn't even begin to sell Jack Crawford. He was just, well Harvey Keitel. He also had a distracting thing going on where his face was sunburned/tan except for his upper lip. Looked like he had just shaved a moustache. Weird. Norton was ok. Feines was the only good thing about the movie for me. Wait, I take that back, the blind chick was well done as well. The tow of them looked like people cuaght on hidden camera in the middle of a bad play. Manhunter was just worlds better.

All that being said it wasn't as bad as Hannibal and at least provided a kind of completeness to the triliogy.

[SamLowry]

its funny when people say hannibal has lots of gore in it. i recall one guy gettin his neck cut, then a pool of blood on the floor.another guy that lots his guts. and a brain. forgive me if i forgot something else - but to me thats compleetly fucking nothing. btw - texas chainsaw massacre has no blood, you know whats happening,but really has nothing. anthony hopkins said hes not gonna do another. it sucks theres really gonna be no more ;/

i think ralph fiennes could pick some better roles - especially some dumb shit i saw a trailer for with some dumb bitch. hes an excellent actor - but needs to pick better roles.

[Xaen]

The fact that he opened the guys head while he was alive to feed him his own brain was over the top for no other reason than to be over the top and saying "ooooh look, gore! gross ya out for no reason! gore! look how weird i am! gore!" .. It ruined the Hannibal character, it ruined the movie, and it was a pathetic attempt of trying to just gross people out for no reason other than to leave an impression that didn't even fit the movie.

As for no blood in TCM, watch it again. There was plenty. Hint, the first 5 minutes has some when the guy stabs the other guy in the leg in the van to hook the viewers that the guy is PsYcH0!!#. And I wasn't just talking about the first. They get progressively worse, and almost always end up with a bunch of people sitting around a table eating people... Hmmm!