“Red Dragon” grabs viewers with surprises around each corner
‘Red Dragon” is not the first film version of Thomas Harris’ novel, but it is by far the best.
It was originally made as ”Manhunter” by an excellent director, Michael Mann (“The Insider,” “Heat,” “The Last of the Mohicans”), but that film is only somewhat entertaining. This is probably due, in large part, to the casting. “Manhunter” was filled with little-known (and relatively bland) actors such as William Petersen (of tv’s CSI) and fails to really draw the viewer into the story. I saw the movie years ago and enjoyed it, but on a recent viewing, before seeing the new version, I found it uninvolving.
In “Red Dragon,” the story remains relatively unchanged, but this film boasts the oscar-caliber cast of Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes, Harvey Keitel, Emily Watson and, of course, Anthony Hopkins. Even the small supporting role of a sleazy tabloid journalist is played by a very talented actor, Philip Seymour Hoffman.
As the film opens, we see Lecter’s shocking capture by FBI profiler Will Graham (Norton). Graham then leaves the FBI and retreats with his family to an idyllic life at a beach house in Florida. That is, until his former boss, Jack Crawford (Keitel), comes calling. There is a new serial killer, the Tooth Fairy (Fiennes), who kills entire families and mutilates the bodies. Graham is the best of his (former) profession and the FBI needs his help to break the case. Wary of getting involved, and frankly afraid, Graham initially tries to resist. The killer has struck twice and the FBI has reason to think they have a small window of opportunity before he kills again. Ultimately, the thought of another butchered family convinces Graham to lend his expertise to the case on the condition that he would only act as a consultant.
Graham is soon on the killer’s trail, investigating the two murder scenes in Atlanta and Birmingham. He does what a profiler does — he gets into the mind of the psychopath. He begins to slowly unravel clues that no one else can see. Soon he does what he promised he would not do — he becomes fully involved in the case.
The film slowly builds tension and becomes more engrossing as it progresses. It draws you increasingly to the edge of your seat. One of the strengths of the movie is that we never quite see where it is going until we get there.
The story format is similar in some ways to ‘Silence of the Lambs.’ Like Clarice Starling, Graham visits his old nemesis, Lecter, for help in breaking the case. Their scenes together are some of the most interesting in the movie.
However, the two movies differ in several ways. One aspect of this is how in “Red Dragon” the killer is revealed to the audience fairly early on. We learn part of his history and some of the causes of his psychological problems. An interesting subplot, unique to serial killer films, is his relationship with a co-worker (Watson). This relationship causes the killer to become conflicted and doubt what he is doing. This adds emotional depth to the movie. “Silence of the Lambs” relied on psychological tension to build suspense, while “Red Dragon” is more action-oriented.
The pacing of the movie increases the tension as the story progresses to
a nailbiting climax. The acting is all-around excellent especially by Fiennes in the type of role not usually played by oscar-nominated actors. And, of course, no one portrays a psychopath quite like Anthony
Hopkins.
The film builds real suspense, unlike the cheap horror-show theatrics of “Hannibal.” Though it does have several scenes that will make you squirm, it does not rely solely on gore and shock value to scare viewers as “Hannibal” did. This movie is everything that movie wasn’t, but should have been. It is one of those rare sequels that is superior to the previous film and is a truly worthy successor (or precursor in this case) to “Silence of the Lambs.”
Posted by Colonnade Archives
on Oct 18 2002. Filed under Other.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
