Red Dragon

Remember the various directorial ideas from Silence of the Lambs, such as the bell scene at the end, the psycho showing off in front of the mirror, or the night vision goggles? You won't find anything similarly refreshing here. Rattner is wooden, a man of routine who sticks one ordinary shot after another, and the result is so uninteresting and boring. It has no atmosphere, only once, at the end of the film, did a faint chill run down my spine. Norton and Keitel sucked, not to mention Hopkins, on the other hand Emily Watson and Fiennes were great and they are the only reason to watch this movie. So, the two stars are only because of them. Rattner, go back to the B-movies! (30/08/2003)

One book, two almost identical adaptations and lengths, but such different experiences. Mann’s version has William Petersen, Joan Allen and a much (but really much) better filmed scene with the tiger on its side. But it’s only a “Mann classic" in the scenes with silent panoramas of the rainy, nighttime city and at moments when the action is embellished with just the right songs. But it’s all slowed down by scenes that drag on unnecessarily, when they should have finished on the cutting room floor, and also zero suspense. Ratner’s version on the other hand has Hollywood parameters. So slightly (but not much) better tempo, attractive production design, sort of signs of suspense, the intro scene and the excellent casting of absolutely all roles apart from those mentioned above. So both movies made it into the “good movie" bracket, but not an inch higher. P.S.: Review copied intentionally. (16/02/2004)

Between Anthony Hopkins and Edward Norton, there's a chasm as big as Philip Seymour Hoffman’s mouth. And if it weren’t for the excellent Ralph Fiennes, Red Dragon would have been an even bigger disaster than Brett Ratner’s involvement made it. Whereas Hannibal was visually enticing bullshit, Red Dragon is a sterile patchwork of shots films in a routine way, which destroys the potential of its strong screenplay. It’s best to ignore both of these films and live in the illusion that the saga began and ended with the brilliant The Silence of the Lambs. (30/10/2002)

Red Dragon, of course, cannot compare to the precise and visually impressive The Silence of the Lambs. It is still a decent bit of filmmaking, but Ratner is an average director, simply an ordinary film craftsman who follows in the footsteps of his more famous colleagues. There is a lack of impressive original scenes here, the delicate game with the viewer that allowed the widest audience to navigate an ethically problematic subject where the main protagonist is a brutal serial killer. I have no issues with the cast, and Ralph Fiennes particularly enjoys his role as a psychopath. Overall impression: 60%. (31/01/2009)

The newer adaptation of the book by Thomas Harris, which I personally consider worse than the one from 1986. In terms of story and atmosphere, I preferred the older version, which is somehow rougher. I don't mean in individual scenes, but as a whole. The new "Red Dragon" tries to be too much like "The Silence of the Lambs," but it doesn't succeed because the only thing that stands out are the performances, again led by Anthony Hopkins and the striving Edward Norton. (02/01/2014)