 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
I enjoyed this liberal remaking of Harris' first book. The cast was top flight and Emily Watson was great. (Trivia: Watson was first choice for Amelie but dropped out during planning stage.)
Follow Ups:
Stellar cast, however.
I dunno, I was a bit disappointed. Perhaps overly elevated expectations considering the incredibly talented cast.Hopkins is as good or better than ever. It's a master class in use of facial muscles this time.
The blind woman (Watson?) is fantastic in the role. Perfect.
Harvey Keitel -- another strong performance.
Ralph Fiennes performs well as the killer but his part isn't fleshed out enough.
Ed Norton, whom I respect highly, seemed miscast. He doesn't charge the role the way Jodie Foster did in SOTL.
Things wrong with the movie:
1. The pacing is way too fast, and potentially good stuff goes overboard in the rush. A little touch like the "book code", which could've been an interesting little bit of business, gets mentioned, then dropped. This portion of the film feels wrong. And why not spend a moment more showing the blind woman getting out of the burning house?
2. At this point in the Lecter saga, why the shyness in dealing with the disposition of the Tatler guy? In the book, (I'm recalling after a decade or so here) the Tooth Fairy bites the guy's lips off, then has him tape the message (which, sans lips, sounds rather distinctive to its intended audience), then, before sending the wheelchair on its ride, tells the unfortunate sod "Oh, by the way, I lied. I don't have your lips in this chilled thermos, so we won't be getting them sewn back on." He then pours the flammable contents of the thermos on the guy, lights him up etc. In the movie you see the bite, but everything else goes by the boards, and you get a quick shot of the burning wheelchair. A waste of good dramatic potential. If, as I suspect, it was self-censorship, it's a shame.
3. Fundamentals of Drama 101: Just whose story is this? SOTL is about Clarice and her relationships. Hannibal, ditto Lecter. Red Dragon just seems confusing, half Graham half Tooth Fairy. I imagine it would have played better focussing more on Fiennes' character. If I remember the book correctly, this was indeed the case, and the reader's growing empathy with the villain energized the story. There's not really enough material to hang a good story on Graham's relationship with Lecter, the way there was in SOTL w/ Clarice & Lecter.
The movie breezes along, and there are some good things ( the little bit with Grahan telling the blind woman her hair's a train wreck really plays well -- was this in the book?) The feel is appropriately dark and the cinematography seems quite competent.
I disliked the soundtrack. The music when Fiennes begins to rave at one point is just totally wrong and distracting.
This is certainly the worst of the three "major-production" Hannibal movies. I saw Manhunter some years back & found it tepid; I can't remember anything about it today, and don't understand why others evidently feel it is so good.
Still, you'll want to see if it you liked the others and at least it doesn't drag...
Courtesy of Movie & Tv News, imdb.com...'Dragon' Slays the Box Office
Universal's Red Dragon lived up to its name over the weekend, becoming the hottest thing at the box office with $36.5 million in ticket sales. While it was the biggest October debut in history, the film nevertheless failed to approach the $58 million earned last year by the previous Silence of the Lambs sequel, Hannibal. It did knock Disney's romantic comedy, Sweet Home Alabama, out of the top spot and into second place with $21.3 million. DreamWorks' The Tuxedo dropped to third place from second with $10 million. My Big Fat Greek Wedding, however, wasn't going anywhere, remaining in fourth place with $8.2 million and extending its hit run to 25 weeks, during which time it has earned $147.7 million. It also moved ahead of Barbershop, another hit indie, which fell to fifth place with $6.6 million. Together, the top 12 films took in $101 million, up 22 percent over the comparable weekend a year ago.http://us.imdb.com/StudioBrief/
is it better than "Manhunter?" It couldn't be worse than "Hannibal," anyhow.
--It couldn't be worse than "Hannibal," anyhow.I ennvy your optimism...
yeah, Manhunter doesn't even count. The book focused so much on the killer and Manhunter focused on the FBI guy. Oh yes, this is much better flick than Manhunter. Compared to Hannibal, this one is an action flick--which is not a bad thing . . . .
"Manhunter" was a more cerebral film on the subject, and the subsequent "Silence of the Lambs"/"Hannibal" were more visceral,
"thrill" flicks, with all of the bells and whistles designed to make you react and have a good ride, as it were.It's all about "approach".
Michael Mann wanted you to care about the investigator and how Hannibal affected him...a decidedly "dull" turn by Mann on the story, and a typical Mann film, but not less diminishing, as an example of crime genre.
Remember we are talking 1986, too...a whole audience generation away from where thrill films like these, now, are a dime a dozen, and Anthony Hopkins is more film compelling, than Tom Noonan's restrained, understated performance, was.
Check out the 2DVD "Manhunter" set, if you can find it. Good movie. Give it a chance !
Lambs to be very dull. The character development was very fluffy and inconsequential.
mpThe way the victims were selected in Man. wow scary! It could be anyone.
to find someone who realizes REALLY scary is something we internalize. Come to think of it, so is something truly erotic...
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
