|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Film Details:
Directed by Brett Ratner (Rush Hour, Rush Hour II, Rush Hour III) Written by Thomas Harris (novel)(Silence of the Lambs, Manhunter) and Ted Tally (Silence of the Lambs) Starring Review: by Melissa (e-mail your faithful reviewer) I remember reading Thomas Harris' book, Red Dragon, while I was in high school. It was lurid, engrossing, and utterly fantastic. It's hard to say whether I liked it more than The Silence of the Lambs or not -- I consider both to be modern classics. I loaned Red Dragon to a couple friends. I never did get it back... I only saw Michael Mann's adaptation of the book, Manhunter, for the first time a few months ago. I am not a fan of the film, though it is a perfectly competent movie, and I realize it has quite a following among horror buffs. I do not deny that the performances are top-notch, and that the writing was quite good. What needles me about Manhunter is Michael Mann's godawful post-Miami Vice directorial style, and the loss of the luridness from the book to the screen. The book Red Dragon possesses an atmosphere akin to the works of Blake that are referenced so potently within its pages: I felt the movie should have had a 19th century patina to it. Instead, its atmosphere consisted entirely of those 80's rock video billowing curtains and a Miami Vice color palette of fetching pastels. Needless to say, when I heard that Ted Tally signed up to write a new version of Red Dragon for the screen, I was flipping thrilled. When I heard they signed Ed Norton and Ralph Fiennes to join Anthony Hopkins on the screen, I just about did back flips. Then I heard Brett Ratner was directing. Hmm. Well, I was willing to give it the benefit of a doubt. As it turns out, the resulting film is okay. Only okay. It's not great, and it's not bad. It's kind of like cafeteria food. It's just nourishing enough to keep you alive, but it doesn't taste particularly good, and you have a vague suspicion that there are rat hairs in it. Mind you, I'm only disappointed in it because I know how good the source material is. I know how much better the film could have been under a stronger director, especially given the other talented folks in the film. It's an entertaining movie, but it will fade from memory quickly. In a nutshell, the film is about Will Graham, an FBI specialist in serial killers. He happens to be the guy who caught Hannibal Lecter. Now, he's coaxed out of retirement to investigate one last case. A killer named "The Tooth Fairy" has slaughtered two families, and the clock is running to see if Graham can catch him before he kills again. Harvey Keitel is there. Thankfully, he keeps his clothes on. Ralph Fiennes is there. He doesn't keep his clothes on. Mmm... he's been working out... And do you know what? Not a single goddamn billowing curtain in sight! Yes! Fans of the book will be pleased to see that much of what Manhunter missed has reappeared in this movie. The plot points relating to the paintings of William Blake have been completely reinstated, including the most memorable scene in the book. You guys who have read the book know the scene I'm talking about. It involves a field trip to the Brooklyn Museum. Mmmm... Bon appetit! What Red Dragon misses, though, is where Manhunter succeeded: characterization. Red Dragon's performances have all the depth of a puddle. Ralph Fiennes is both too handsome and too menacing to really pull off being the shattered being of the Tooth Fairy. Ed Norton, who can usually deliver priceless performances like pizza, practically sleep-walks through his role. Too much time in Red Dragon is spent on the Graham/Lecter relationship, which is fun, but has little tension or growth. Far too little time is spent on the Francis/Reba relationship, which is fascinating and absolutely key to the story. Not all the performances are lackluster. Emily Watson is haunting as Reba, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman is dead-on as the Evil Media Guy. You know, Hoffman has always been great in everything I've ever seen him in, but I don't know if I could ever invite him to a party, you know? People would just keep saying, "You know, I've seen you somewhere, but I just can't place it..." And what about Anthony Hopkins? Well, I didn't mind Lecter's slightly expanded role in the film as much as I thought I might. However, do we really need to see four movies with Lecter doing little more than creep people out? Sure, that was great when we just had Silence of the Lambs and a cameo in Manhunter. But four movies without so much as an inkling of insight into what really makes Hannibal tick? Zero character growth for four films. C'm on people. He's not scary anymore. He's his own cliche. If I have to sit through another Lecter film, I had better goddamn well get an origin story. ...and more nekkid Ralph Fiennes wouldn't hurt. Mmmmm... |
11252006: |
||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||
