Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #4517 in DVD
• Released on: 2004-02-12
• Rating: Suitable for 15 years and over
• Aspect ratio: 2.35:1
• Number of discs: 1
• Formats: Anamorphic, Dubbed, PAL
• Original language: English
• Subtitled in: English, Hungarian
• Dubbed in: Hungarian
• Number of discs: 1
• Running time: 121 minutes

Amazon.co.uk Review
A lot could've gone wrong in Red Dragon, but the movie exceeds expectations. Replacing the acclaimed Manhunter as an "official" entry in the Hannibal Lecter trilogy, this topnotch thriller--the second adaptation of Thomas Harris's first Lecter novel--returns to the fertile soil of The Silence of the Lambs, serving as both prequel and heir to the legacy of Lecter as portrayed, with mischievous menace, by the great Anthony Hopkins. Familiar faces and locations reappear (along with Lambs screenwriter Ted Tally) as Lecter coaches FBI profiler Will Graham (Edward Norton) in tracking the horrific "Tooth Fairy" killer (Ralph Fiennes), whose transformative killing spree is inspired by a William Blake painting. By dutifully serving Harris's potent material, Tally and director Brett Ratner craft a suspenseful film worthy of its predecessors, bringing Hopkins full circle as one of the cinema's all-time greatest villains. With overtones of Psycho and a superb supporting cast, Red Dragon succeeds against considerable odds. --Jeff Shannon

Synopsis
The first chapter in the Hannibal Lecter trilogy, this is the story of FBI agent Will Graham who is assigned the task of catching 'The Tooth Fairy'. In order to do so he must try to persuade Lecter to advise him. Lecter knows who the murderer is and only feeds small scraps of information to Graham, but now the Tooth Fairy has got he sights set on Graham's family...

Customer Reviews

An unexpectedly solid prequel to "The Silence of the Lambs"
The key thing about watching "Red Dragon" is to realize that this is not a Hannibal Lecter story. The character was a compelling but relatively minor figure in both the Thomas Harris novel and "Manhunter," the original cinematic adaptation by Michael Mann. Obviously screenwriter Ted Tally and director Brett Ratner have enhanced the role for this 2002 film, but Anthony Hopkins's part is not a central part of the story. Once you understand that you will discover that "Red Dragon" exceeds your expectations. But if you cannot get around this idea then you are probably going to be bitterly disappointed with this film.

Clearly a major strength of this film is the stellar caste, which in addition to Hopkins has Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes, Harvey Keitel, Emily Watson, Mary-Louise Parker, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Anthony Heald, and Mary Beth Hurt (add to the list Ellen Burstyn as the voice of Grandma Dolarhyde). But what makes this film work is its intelligence, for which Harris and Tally get the credit. Will Graham is an intelligent man, an F.B.I. profiler who constantly shows throughout this story that he has a gift for saying the right thing, whether he is talking to Lecter, a room full of police officers, the head of a company, or the Red Dragon himself. Yes, he has been scarred psychologically as well as physically by his capture of Lecter, but it is not an incapacitating condition as was the case with Clarice Starling. In "Silence of the Lambs" the climax of the film involved a cinematic commonplace that has always enraged me, when a law enforcement officer has a gun drawn and aimed at a suspect who then manages to get away. I thought the climax of "The Red Dragon" involved an exhilarating series of intelligent, brilliant moves by the good guys.

The other aspect of this story that makes it compelling is that the villain is a monster with a soul. The idea of a serial killer falling in love, struggling to thwart the demonic voices and try to stop his descent into hell is brilliant. The circle becomes complete when you notice that all of the main characters in this film are complex; granted, not as complex as the Red Dragon, but enough that the actors reading this script would be drawn to the parts. But the ability of the villain to be surprising is critical because usually in the final analysis it is the villain that makes the film. Again, this underscores the fact that Lecter is not the villain of the piece. But he was in "Hannibal," and look how well that film was received. Here we are back to the pivotal idea that even when this character is bound and gagged in a cell he is still capable of killing you.

Ultimately Hannibal Lecter remains the problematic element in the film; more often that not his scenes are suggestive if not outright reminiscent of scenes from "Silence of the Lambs." One of the obvious questions that springs to mind is whether Hopkins's Lecter would have made as big of an impact if "Red Dragon" had indeed been the first of the reconstituted trilogy. Ultimately the answer has to be "no," but because this is clearly a prequel made fully cognizant of the film that comes after it. To appreciate how difficult this is to pull off look at other recent prequels such as "Gods and Generals" and either of the two Star Wars films. The argument here is not that "The Red Dragon" is a better film than "The Silence of the Lambs," but that it is a worthy successor to that classic film, even if it takes place first.

Final Note: The commentary track with Ratner and Tally is well worth a second viewing of the film, more so in terms of tidbits about the production than analytical insights into the adaptation. The rest of the DVD extras are at least average, but the commentary is the big attraction here.

Thrills and chills with Hannibal
If you like your horror stories a la Friday the Thirteenth, then this is not the film for you. It is a horror story and there is a certain amount of gore but the horror is is built up in the mind of the viewer, not laid out in a visually grotesque manner with plenty of gratuitous violence.

It is a well written, well acted film which is the prequel to Silence of the Lambs, published in 1982, six years before Silence. (It is also a remake, as it was filmed with Brian Cox playing a very good, scary, Lecter, his performance equaling that of Anthony Hopkins). It would be difficult to distinguish whose Hannibal is better, they are both excellent! This is however a very good rendition of the book and Anthony Hopkins reprises the role of Hannibal Lecter with great panache. It is good to have the backstory filled in and to meet the man (Will Graham) who was responsible for catching the infamous Doctor and ensuring his incarceration.

Harvey Keitel is good as Jack Crawford, Edward Norton and Ralph Fiennes as Will Graham and Francis Dolarhyde respectively are excellent and totally convincing in their respective roles. Fiennes is superb and manages to make you feel sorry for his character even whilst you are repulsed by him. Everybody connected with this film has done a superb job of catching the essence of Thomas Harris' writing and make this an enjoyable if, on occasion, a somewhat gory watch.

ANTHONY HOPKINS STEALS THE SHOW...
Based upon the wonderful, well-written novel "Red Dragon" by Thomas Harris, this is a superior and chilling thriller. Grim and gripping, it features Edward Norton in the role of troubled, retired FBI agent, Will Graham, who is called back to service in order to track down a bizarre serial killer, known as the "Tooth Fairy". It appears that Graham has the uncanny ability to get into a killer's mindset and figure out what his next move might be. It is as if he and the killer become one. In his preparation for this, Graham even consults the imprisoned Hannibal Lecter (yes, THE Hannibal Lecter), deliciously played by Anthony Hopkins. Unfortunately for Graham, Hannibal has not forgotten that Graham was responsible for his changed circumstances.

It is Hannibal Lecter, after all, who was the catalyst for Will Graham's retirement. The viewer is treated to scenes of Lecter's life, before he was revealed to be Hannibal the Cannibal, one of the sickest serial killers ever to strike. The viewer sees the renowned psychiatrist in his milieu as an erudite, cultured, and wealthy patron of the arts. A noted gourmand, Dr. Lecter liked nothing better than to give intimate dinner parties for the favored few. Of course, some of the ingredients used for his dinners were best left unsaid. It was nice to see the always excellent John Rubenstein in the small role of a dinner guest, heaping accolades upon Hannibal for his dinner parties.

The movie is compelling and, at all times, gripping. Anthony Hopkins reprises his career defining role and steals the show (Really, Hannibal Lecter has become all but a cottage industry for him!). With a twinkle in his eye, he is, in his low key way, deliciously malevolent. Edward Norton, one of the best young actors around, gives a decent and sensitive portrayal of Will Graham, the angst ridden former FBI agent and profiler, but lacks the grittiness and hard-edged veneer that the role really demands. He also simply looks too young and soft for the role. Ralph Fiennes gives a fine performance as the tormented Francis Dolarhyde, but his portrayal is hampered by the fact that too little is revealed in the film about what makes him tick.

Emily Watson affectingly plays a blind woman who becomes romantically involved with Francis Dolarhyde. It is her involvement with him that helps bring the film to its stunning conclusion. Moreover, Ms. Watson is a wonderfully talented British actress who manages to get her American accent down pat. Good performances by Harvey Keitel, as Graham's former boss, and Mary Louise Parker, as Graham's wife, round out this fine, ensemble cast.

This film is a taut, unnerving psychological thriller that is subject to comparison to its 1986 predecessor "Manhunter. Having seen both, I call it a draw. This current version had a bigger budget, so obviously it has better production values. Also, the opening scenes in the current version are more interesting than those in the 1986 one. Music, however, was used to much better effect in the earlier version. Moreover, the final scenes in the earlier version were much better than in this later version, as they were much more suspenseful. Both films, however, are well worth watching. Do yourself a favor and view both. Then, judge for yourself.