Exothokman We've seen it before, just executed with tonal difference and a lighter budget. 'Red Dragon' is entertaining and engaging from start to finish, but not as suspenseful as 'Manhunter', the 1986 original adaptation of the story. Anthony Hopkins gives a great performance in this movie, but not as unsettling as he was in 'Silence of the Lambs'. Perhaps this movie belongs to Edward Norton and his character Will Graham, and his performance is equally as good as William Peterson's. Another great performance here is Emily Watson as Reba, a blind lady who is ready to find partnership with someone she can relate to. As for Ralph Fiennes acting he was supurb as well, yet I perfer the Francis Dolarhyde found in 'Manhunter', as he was much emotionally off the wall and ultimately resentful, which overall gave more suspense to the movie. The cinamatography and the score are expected from this sort of movie, nothing out of the ordinary and done competently. But the burning man in a wheelchair was definitely done to great effect (spoiler?) While I have not read 'Red Dragon', I liked the plot of 'Manhunter' over this one (especially the ending), but I thought the writing in this movie better fleshed out every character in the movie. There were more scenes with Hannibal Lecktor, Mr. D, and Reba, which is a good enough tradeoff for me. I would recommend this movie to anyone interested in thrillers.

zkonedog After following up the incredible "Silence of the Lambs" with a very-lacking "Hannibal", the Hannibal Lecter series of films goes back to its origins with "Red Dragon". The results are much more enjoyable (if a bit repetitive), making one wonder what might have happened had THIS been the original?For a basic plot summary, "Red Dragon" takes place before the events of "Lambs". Brilliant young FBI agent Will Graham (Edward Norton) finally captures the mysterious Hannibal (Anthony Hopkins), but sustains wounds both psychological and physical in the process. Fast-forward a few years into the future, and Graham must revisit Lecter in order to solve the gruesome "Tooth Fairy" (Ralph Fiennes) murders.Clearly, director Brett Ratner studied the faults of "Hannibal" and made sure not to include them in this third installment. This time, the plot takes the same basic form as the original, only with a new killer and agent. This results in a much better overall narrative and interesting movie. Basically, if you enjoyed "Lambs" then this one will give you a similar experience.Why isn't this film regarded as more of a classic, then? Well, frankly it is because it already WAS done before in "Lambs"! In effect, its greatest strength is also what prevents it from being a true classic. It is (almost quite literally) a "Cut, Copy, Paste" of the original format. This is good in comparison to "Hannibal", but by definition it just can't quite attain the success of "Lambs", since the original is always the original.Overall, then, "Red Dragon" is a solid movie that, truth be told, probably resurrected the Hannibal series of movies and gave it some hope for a future. It completely goes back to its roots to tell an interesting story, and it succeeds in utilizing Hopkins to his fullest. It just won't go on your "best of" list because "Lambs" is already there. One has to wonder, though, what could have happened if this plot would have been the original...?

Smoreni Zmaj After The Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal it was logical to do remake of Manhunter to complete trilogy with Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal in all parts. Enough time has passed since I watched the original movie not to be able to remember all details, but it seems to me that Red Dragon is almost exact copy of Manhunter. Production is better and no one is better Hannibal than Hopkins, but the rest is pretty much the same. Cast in Manhunter may be better though. For real fans of this trilogy and/or Hopkins this is mandatory, but for all the rest who already saw Manhunter this movie is unnecessary. During whole first watching I had a feeling like I'm watching it again, and as it is thriller and I knew what's next all of the time it was pretty much boring to watch. Don't get me wrong, movie is good, and those who did not see Manhunter will surely enjoy it, but it is pretty much pointless to watch them both.

jameslinton-75252 In some places, this film was a great improvement on the book. In others, it wasn't great. I do like how the film cut out a lot of the book's clunky exposition and development. It was a vast improvement in that sense. But I didn't like how they cut out the backstory of Francis Dolarhyde. He was such an interesting character and I wanted to learn more about him. I also didn't like how the film referred to Dolarhyde's character alternately as the Tooth Fairy and the Red Dragon. I found this confusing and it did make the film difficult to follow in places. That notwithstanding Ralph Fiennes was great as the Red Dragon and Anthony Hopkins was wonderful as Hannibal Lecter.Read my full review here: http://goo.gl/JYCsWP