Red Dragon

A newer adaptation of Thomas Harris' book, which I consider to be worse than the one from 1986. In terms of story and atmosphere, I found the old version more fitting, as it somehow feels grittier. I don't mean in individual scenes but as a whole. The new Red Dragon tries too hard to be like The Silence of the Lambs, but it doesn't succeed because the only things that stand out are the acting performances, led by Anthony Hopkins and the earnest Edward Norton. (02/01/2014)

The commercial has defeated the classic. The extorted substance is truly more exciting and even better than the original Silence of the Lambs. A provocative thriller with a fantastically depressing atmosphere, and unlike the previous (upcoming) installments, it features a likeable and believable investigator on the level of the unmistakable Anthony Hopkins and a perfectly chilling murderer in Ralph Fiennes. The final twist even brings a desire to immediately watch Jonathan Demme's original. This is how the most fundamental essence of a well-known story should be expanded on. (16/07/2006)

Remember the various directorial ideas from Silence of the Lambs, such as the bell scene at the end, the psycho showing off in front of the mirror, or the night vision goggles? You won't find anything similarly refreshing here. Rattner is wooden, a man of routine who sticks one ordinary shot after another, and the result is so uninteresting and boring. It has no atmosphere, only once, at the end of the film, did a faint chill run down my spine. Norton and Keitel sucked, not to mention Hopkins, on the other hand Emily Watson and Fiennes were great and they are the only reason to watch this movie. So, the two stars are only because of them. Rattner, go back to the B-movies! (30/08/2003)

Red Dragon, of course, cannot compare to the precise and visually impressive The Silence of the Lambs. It is still a decent bit of filmmaking, but Ratner is an average director, simply an ordinary film craftsman who follows in the footsteps of his more famous colleagues. There is a lack of impressive original scenes here, the delicate game with the viewer that allowed the widest audience to navigate an ethically problematic subject where the main protagonist is a brutal serial killer. I have no issues with the cast, and Ralph Fiennes particularly enjoys his role as a psychopath. Overall impression: 60%. (31/01/2009)

One book, two almost identical adaptations and lengths, but such different experiences. Mann’s version has William Petersen, Joan Allen and a much (but really much) better filmed scene with the tiger on its side. But it’s only a “Mann classic" in the scenes with silent panoramas of the rainy, nighttime city and at moments when the action is embellished with just the right songs. But it’s all slowed down by scenes that drag on unnecessarily, when they should have finished on the cutting room floor, and also zero suspense. Ratner’s version on the other hand has Hollywood parameters. So slightly (but not much) better tempo, attractive production design, sort of signs of suspense, the intro scene and the excellent casting of absolutely all roles apart from those mentioned above. So both movies made it into the “good movie" bracket, but not an inch higher. P.S.: Review copied intentionally. (16/02/2004)