Red Dragon

This darkly seductive, flawlessly acted piece is worlds removed from most horror films. Here monsters have their grandeur, heroes their gravity. And when they collide, a dance of death ensues between two souls doomed to understand each other.

It's chilling what Fiennes can do with so very little; he looks like a wounded puppy half the time and sounds like one to boot.

The most refreshing aspect of Red Dragon is its reliance on old-fashioned acting instead of computer-aided gizmos. Hopkins overdoes his role at times -- his vocal tones are almost campy -- but his piercing eyes are as menacing as ever, and Ralph Fiennes is scarily good as his fellow lunatic.

For all its brilliant touches, Dragon loses its fire midway, nearly flickering out by its perfunctory conclusion.

Red Dragon is merely the distant echoes of what we liked about "Lambs."

I can't tell you if Red Dragon is more faithful to Harris' book than "Manhunter," which I haven't seen in 16 years. I can tell you it's less artful and atmospheric, a straight-ahead thriller that never rises above superficiality.

Red Dragon's formula is so risible and rote by now that the natural reaction to scenes of peril, torture, and suffering is flippant laughter.

I love Red Dragon it's a great prequel to The Silence of the Lambs. Hannibal Lector is just as good as he was in Silence of the Lambs.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

A very loyal, by-the-numbers adaptation of the first Hannibal Lecter novel, strangely saved for last in the Anthony Hopkins trilogy. Red Dragon is about as direct a cut from page to screen as I've seen, which is refreshing, but something about the mood doesn't feel right. This is more of a procedural thriller than a psychological one, and that's fine if the screenplay is able to adjust appropriately. Instead, it keeps trying to push both sets of buttons, which makes this feel like two different movies under the same marquee. The lead casting is regrettable - Ed Norton feels flat and babyfaced as troubled ex-detective Will Graham and Harvey Keitel is terribly misplaced as Jack Crawford, his stiff supervisor - and even the more dependable act isn't completely up to snuff. Hopkins is a mild disappointment in his final turn as Lecter, over-enhancing many of the nuances that had always made him so harrowing in the role. Plus, it's a reach to buy this as a prequel when he's so visibly aged in the years between. Ralph Fiennes is excellent as the madman Francis Dolarhyde, though, and Philip Seymour Hoffman nails his small role as a smarmy, mouth-breathing tabloid reporter. The film is mostly played for fan service, honestly, and at that it's generally very successful. It's far from essential, though, which is a shame. This could've been so much more with a better director and a few alternate casting decisions.

This film is a sequel to "Silence of the Lambs" and has a very similar story: with a new serial killer around, the FBI will again request the help of the dangerous and manipulative Hannibal Lecter, the most famous cannibal ever. Directed by Brett Ratner and written by Ted Tally, this film has a cast headed by Anthony Hopkins, Edward Norton and Ralph Fiennes. It's a good movie, but there is no comparison with the film that gave rise to it. The script is good, but it misses on two fundamental points: the first is to immediately tell the killer's identity, albeit discretely, removing some interest to the narrative; the other is to tell a story that is almost identical to "Silence of the Lambs." Both films have very similar plots, which gives the audience a sense that this film is more of the same. One difference, however, is the level of violence: this movie, even though it contains scenes of great action, has so many shocking scenes as their predecessors. Nevertheless, it is a movie with quality and entertains. The actors were up to expectations, particularly Ralph Fiennes, who plays the killer and managed to give the character a real aura of madness. Anthony Hopkins, again in cannibal paper was able to be perfectly equal to the expected. The special visual and sound effects, although discrete, are competent. The soundtrack seemed to discreet but good.

Not a classic, but a good and scary movie with interesting characters and detective work. You will enjoy the movie more if you consider Hannibal's presence as a plus and not as a requirement that everything in the film be compared to Silence of the Lambs. Hopkins is fascinating as expected, but I found the best scenes to belong to Fiennes and Watson. Their freakish chemistry is more horrifying than any of the movie's killings.