Red Dragon (2002) - Crime, Drama, Thriller

Hohum Score

1

Breathtaking

A retired FBI agent with psychological gifts is assigned to help track down "The Tooth Fairy", a mysterious serial killer. Aiding him is imprisoned forensic psychiatrist Dr. Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter.

IMDB: 7.2
Director: Brett Ratner
Stars: Anthony Hopkins, Edward Norton
Length: 124 Minutes
PG Rating: R
Reviews: 98 out of 796 found boring (12.31%)

One-line Reviews (468)

My first impression after the movie was what the title of my comment says, it was an entertaining movie done really well, and that was almost enough for me to think it was a great movie.

Dull, pedestrian and woefully miscast .

During the whole first watching, I had a feeling like I'm watching it again, and as it is a thriller and I knew what's next all of the time it was pretty much boring to watch.

I found this film to be rather enjoyable, even though it is sort of a re-make.

But I can easily imagine the author and a horde of salivating venture capitalists falling asleep at night with visions of dollar signs dancing in their heads.

While intriguing, and not so outlandishly unreal as in Hannibal, he's a tad too unthreatening.

Screenwriter Ted Tally (who struck Oscar gold for his adaptation of "The Silence of the Lambs") crafts another thrilling chapter in a legitimate cinematic series.

A terrific date movie because of the shock value (one of you will be gripping the other throughout) without the appalling level of gore seen in Hannibal.

I quite enjoyed it, even knowing that you are meant to think it has ended only to find it hasn't.

Dull line after dull line mixed in with unstimulating performances.

However when I left the theater I was thoroughly impressed.

I need not have worried, Mr. Fiennes was a stunning addition to the cast and scary as hell.

The direction was fast paced and the cinematography very slick as well; all elements that made this film entirely watchable.

Quality cast and highly entertaining -fans of the Hannibal series so far will not be disappointed .

Yes i am well aware that RD is a remake but it copies Manhunter to a T so much that RD is just boring after seeing Manhunter.

Overall an enjoyable flick, and I'd recommend it.

He lulls you into thinking he's safe -- then attacks when you're not expecting it, and in ways you're not expecting.

Fiennes is stunning in this role and adds his own spark to the role.

All in all it was an enjoyable experience.

On the whole, 'Red Dragon' offers a Legendary, Gripping Screenplay, in-tact with Taut Direction, Worthy-Cinematography & Super Performances.

It's such a waste of energy and money.

the only flaw in the movie I found was the Cliché and quick ending of Red Dragon's character, I think it could have been little innovative and mind boggling.

It really dragged.

The dialogue is lifted from "Manhunter" and sometimes (less often) from the book, and I felt extremely bored, because every minute I knew exactly what would follow and what words would be said.

More entertaining then FEARDOTCOM .

RED DRAGON, directed by Hollywood hack Brett Ratner, is boring, devoid of any scares, and terribly directed.

with him on the screen, the film gets a necessary kick in the butt and as soon as Watson shows up, it takes off to the old thrilling times.

From the excitement of the first scene to the thrilling ending this movie lacked NOTHING!

Taut and extremely suspenseful!

Mixed with a little humor every once in a while, it's entertaining all the way through, and keeps you guessing what'll happen next all throughout the movie.

Over all this is a good movie and well worth watching, alot better than the let down Hannibal!!!

Lecter said that he didn't kill him but that it was the best thing for him because his therapy was going nowhere.........

intriguing throughout.

Norton plays a retired FBI agent who is dragged back into practice by Keitel to interview our favorite cannibal, Dr. Hannibal Lecter(Hopkins) about another serial killer who is known only as the "tooth fairy" (Fiennes).

Fiennes is the only one who gets a chance to stretch but even his character in Quiz Show was more exciting and that was a Drama.

The blood stained bed scene is not only more interesting visually, it's wildly intense and unsettling.

It's great because it tells a good story with intriguing characters that are played by great actors.

A chilling and thrilling 8 out of 10.

Despite an intriguing beginning, the rest was mostly disappointing.

As a separate movie its pretty much thrilling and terrifying.

Emily Watson as Reba McClane was stunning!

The original Manhunter film was simply on the edge and excellent, and another prequel could have gone either way.

It's a horrible cliche to have a blind girl bring out the human side of a monster -- the Poverty Row flick, The Brute Man with Rondo Hatton, did the same thing 50 years ago and it still stunk.

I thought it dragged at some points in the middle, when dealing with the romantic sub-plot.

Brett Ratner delivers a perfect directing, making this movie hugely entertaining and intriguing; most scenes are tense and the background sound makes the movie becomes more and more thrilling.

Overall, the character was turned from a very intense one into the quintessential cop.

The story, at times, is very confusing.

On a deeper level, only the development of the Toothfairy makes it interesting and the handling of Graham is a bit weak, but who's going to look deeper when a film's more than entertaining enough for two hours?

All in all, this is an excellent film, well worth watching, highly enjoyable, and will certainly be added to my collection when it is released on DVD.

Without this element of the character, Will Graham is just terribly dull and the story loses much of what makes it interesting.

Director Brett Ratner doesn't put any effort into building up the drama, the suspense, or any other emotion in this mundane, direct-by-the-numbers bore.

It IS fair to compare it to the vastly different and star studded SOTL, which while being an excellent and highly enjoyable movie really didn't merit best picture in my view-the book is much better.

Seeing as how Hannibal was a total failure for the sad person who directed that (i think it was Ridley Scott), Ratner made sure that this movie was intense and stylish.

I really enjoyed it and I urge all Lecter fans to go and see it.

Boring!

Aside from this casting mistake, "Red Dragon" is a very enjoyable chapter in the Thomas Harris saga.

It does have genuinely suspenseful scenes.

Fast paced and intriguing!

It actually had me 'on the edge of my seat' more than once, where as is in "Lambs" the only time I felt suspense was when Clarice was in the completely darkened basement at the end of the flick.

I think there are too many Hannibal films by too many people, in illogical chronological order, and the only one worth watching is Silence of the Lambs.

Brett Ratner's Red Dragon, although pretty darn stylish, is just cursed with being the least engaging and unique Hannibal Lecter film out there.

Ed Norton is typically enjoyable as a retired cop dragged back into the business, and even Harvey Kietel pulls in a performance as Crawford, I am a little mystified by this though, I am actually quite gutted being a big Kietel fan, because I think he isn't a patch on Scott Glenn's Crawford.

Most of the time the movie is "predictable horror type flick" where the psycho-killer always comes back from the dead to try "one more time" to kill the arch nemesis.

Today its slow.

A flat, dull move.

Hannibal was a lot more intense.

From the tired "who are we having for dinner" opening to the "music goes up when we see a broken mirror behind a door" suspense film cliched ending, I was bored.

Appropriately Dark, Gory and Violent, It Also Feels Strangely Empty and Trivial .

Norton, Keitel and Hopkins are compelling in the leads.

The only problem is that a weak script makes it feel that all the characters have very little to work with which kind of makes it at the end of the day a kind of predictable thriller compared to Manhunter which had a sharp edge to it.

For those of us who like the thriller, the edge -of -your -seat -gripping, look between the fingers, movies!

This Norman Batesinspired story is boring and unconvincing.

Norton would have been more than up to the task, but Ratner chose to ignore this, one of the book's most compelling elements!

Hopkins features less frequently, but still exudes menace as only he can and Fiennes, too, has a look of madness and evil about him that, alongside Ted Tally's adept adaptation of Robert Harris' novel, creates a wonderfully tense, suspenseful couple of hours of drama.

2) William Petersen's "Will Graham" is far more complex, thoughtful, deep and compelling than Edward Norton's attempt.

Red Dragon on the other hand is very entertaining.

But, that is highly unlikely and that means that "Red Dragon" is out there as an annoying menace for people to waste their money on.

Fiennes and Hopkins in their mysteriousness make up for some boring filler scenes, and just above-average Norton added to the story, but this is overall an intriguing movie that is much better than its predecessor.

As far as the film is concerned on the whole, we are given hollow scenery characters like Harvey Keitel, the exceedingly talented Mary Louise Parker's token Worried and Doubtful Wife, the hugely compelling Philip Seymour Hoffman's sleazy tabloid journalist, and frankly, Ed Norton's character, too.

He's positively riveting in every scene.

The ending of the movie is really dreadfull, it was so predictable that I could have told it before I'd seen the movie.

"Red Dragon" is formulaic, unoriginal, predictable, and more low-brow than the series other films (yes, even "Hannibal").

This movie has much more suspense and the FBI agent is much more intriguing than Clarice.

The rest is so banal I can't even remember who got mutilated or how.

Where William Petersen was a tormented agent, Norton is a bored yuppie.

The burning wheelchair scene is incredibly bland.

The story was so basic and predictable that Icouldn't wait for it to end.

Being a fan of subtly thrilling films, this one was obviously trying to compensate its lack of suspense with cheap shock effects.

Ralph Fiennes was fabulous as Dollarhyde, he just oozed an abused and tortured innerself and was incredibly entertaining.

The novel's version is far more enjoyable as well as more believable, and I'm curious as to what demographics expert changed that.

This is the most thrilling and entertaining of the four Lector films.

The plot was intriguing, smart, interesting, scary.

Clumsy, predictable, broadcast, etc., it had to have been conceived (and written) by a 5-year-old.

I almost did not bother with this, but I was on the edge of my seat for the whole 2 hours.

He was convincing and entertaining, interacting superbly with the blind girl.

The directing is slick and the plot is very thrilling.

Red Dragon is a riveting, suspenseful, and multi-layered film that should not be missed.

Harvey Keitel is competent as Jack Crawford, but rather uninteresting...

The blatantly derivative nature of these scenes proving quite bland.

Same look and feel as "Silence of the Lambs" Cons: * Sloppy, cliché-ridden script.

I think it's a great idea that will put any viewer on the edge of his or her seat.

Unfortunately, when the world's most wicked serial killer isn't carving somebody up for supper, this mediocre prequel to "Silence of the Lambs" (1991) seems pretty boring.

All in all, an excellent movie, and very enjoyable.

Not to mention the great ending alteration here, the original had a very dull ending for a crime/ thriller film, here we got to feel the suspense and thrill that the first film lacked.

Suspenseful .

Ratner (of Rush Hour fame) was an odd choice as director and although he conjures some excellent performances and some brilliant imagery, he over steps his bounds when trying to juggle the need to conclude two endings, while keeping his audience on the edge of their seat.

Red Dragon stays exciting until the end, and that's what I like about a movie.

Overall, a very enjoyable film, worth watching.

Entertaining performances make up for a boring plot .

A very suspenseful plot, with some sexual tension thrown in for good measure.

It took a while after I left the theatre to decide on which was the better, more intense, and suspensful thriller.

The opening scene with Lector and Norton's character are exciting and promised a great set up of a movie with justifiable reason for tension between them.

No, for me, Norton and Fiennes deserve top billing as both men bring an unexpected emotional dimension to their roles.

Excellent performances herald a triumphant return for the most popular villain of all time, allowing the avid fan an intriguing new perspective on the world of Lecter and the casual viewer a cracking psychological drama.

Unlike Red Dragon it is a suspenseful, subtle, psychological thriller.

In Silence he was the second story, drawn into the conflict of Starling and Buffalo Bill, yet he emerged as the most compelling character.

A great prequel to the mind blowing "The Silence of the Lambs"...

For a serial killer to be compelling, there has to be an obvious link between what happened to him as a kid (as inevitably, for movie killers anyway, there was some trauma) and how he chooses and kills his victims.

Like I said, Fiennes is so compelling that the rest could suck and it would still be a pretty good movie!

Edward Norton does a good performance, and the movie has really got some very exciting parts although not this either; reaches up to the excellent Lambs.

sir anthony hopkins' performance is on par with the intense, intimidating character he portrayed in silence.

Commercial trash, yes, but compelling.

Film is very taut, suspenseful and exciting!

great performances, poor script - but worth watching.

great and suspenseful film.

Gripping, and gory, murder drama.

Intense and Simply Brilliant.

But then the film got boring and not very interesting anymore, so i quit watching after half an hour.

Too predictable and long on time.

His trademark monotone voice in this character teeters between genius and insanity.

And the time between Dollarhyde and Reba in his house goes on for way too long...

Unlike the shocking twist at the end of the 'Silence of the Lambs', the ending was somewhat predictable.

Perhaps what was most disappointing about RD was its castrated,uninteresting cinematography.

Norton however gives another stunning performance, I do believe he's just getting better.

Main problem with "Red Dragon" is that the movie is too formulaic made.

), but no competition to 'Manhunter', and overall a very dull movie with little to recommend it.

I thought Ralph Fiennes should win an Oscar, He definatly stole the show, even though Ed Norton wasn't bad, just too bland.

I walked out after Freddy Lounds went up in a boring fireball.

But other than that, there's a really intense surprise in this movie.

Director Brett Ratner presented the movie in very intriguing and captivating way.

Still, it was decent and enjoyable.

I always thought Silence of the Lambs was an unworthy oscar winner but still entertaining despite the irritating Jody Foster, Jonathan Demme did a good job on this one.

The characters were believable as well as enjoyable.

Nitpicking aside, this was an entertaining thriller and I would recommend it on that basis alone.

I'd say that both are equally entertaining with their own merits and detractions.

But Mann's version (I think) is a stronger, compelling and fascinating film (Which it had a genuine, absolutely terrific ending).

RED DRAGON - CATCH IT ( A- ) Red Dragon is an intriguing prequel to the Silence of the Lambs.

But Anthony Hopkins seems bored in the role and doesnt play Hannibal with any enthusiasm.

More more interesting and compelling are the performances of Ralph Feeines as a fledgling dragon, and Emily Watson (in a rather unusual role for her) as the blind love interest.

THis was left out of "Manhunter" and I believe that it is a good touch to an already gripping story line.

Edward Norton is fantastic and at the top of his game in this twisty and mind blowing thriller.

He cannot make a development exciting to save his life.

Especially since Manhunter leaves at least one hugely fascinating aspect of Thomas Harris novel untapped (that whole red dragon-thing).

" Red Dragon is brilliant, dark, complex, sadistic, horrific and relentlessly suspenseful it's one of the best of the series.

We are also privy to a rather more intense Lecter, anger and resentment for being caught and put away.

(bored, not bo, as in selectah) .

Definitely worth watching.

'Red Dragon' = Boone's Strawberry Hill, Brass Monkey, E&J Gallo'Manhunter' = Chateau Lafite-Rothschild, Dom Perignon'Red Dragon' was a careless conglomeration of trite phrases; an attempt to hammer into the 'Silence of the Lambs' mold, a masterful story.

The sets and everything were stunning in every way imaginable.

I thought that manhunter was a bit dull, had too long takes and never got really exciting...

An entertaining piece for fans of Mr Lecter, a let down for the fans of true cinema...

He just drags the story out and makes the film more tedious.

I saw RED Dragon today and I was bored out of my mind.. I figured out the whole movie within the first hour.

Overall an enjoyable serial killer flick, which far surpasses it's predecessor.

Absolutely riveting story.

I must be one of the few moviegoers who Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal Lector bores stupid.

save your money

Thrilling and adequate adaptation of a great novel.

Red Dragon is about as thrilling as watching Hannibal eat franks and beans from Chef Boyardee.

While it lacks the shocking power and rawness of "Silence", compensates for that with a much more engaging villain.

A stellar cast grant weight to an otherwise formulaic regurgitation.

The series' previous film, Ridley Scott's 2001 film Hannibal, did not have a particularly positive critical consensus; a film that rather jumped ship in having Lecter out and about around Italy and America doing what he did and evading capture, rather than indoors and creating a film revolving around a particular case that just happened to have a devilishly intriguing supporting character tossed in for measure.

" (John TD Keyes) is so predictable that it will fail to impress anyone other than the average couch potato.

The storyline starts to degrade to a very predictable level, the acting degrates, all of the susspense that made "silence of the lambs" so good is taken away by showing to much of the killer and his deeds.

Whilst not quite on a par with ‘Lambs', this new version of the Red Dragon / Tooth Fairy story comes complete with plenty of excellent shocks, both of the predictable and of the less-predictable, edge-of-seat-white-knuckle variety.

This one is far more intense and creepy...

In contradict, the script will ruin its success, very predictable, many cliches.

Danny Elfman's score is evocative of, though different from, Howard Shore's score for "Lambs;" a rather difficult feat, and very well achieved.

I think though that reading SOTL and watching it was repetitive.

Cox would have made me forget that he can't be trusted, whereas Hopkins delivers the same lines in his meanwhile tedious and formulaic "I'm oh-so evil"-style.

Incredibly Poignant Performance of Stunning Power by Emily Watson .

This is an entertaining movie, in which you'll enjoy Ralph Fiennes' acceptable performance and you'll see why some people become killers.

Entertaining and chilling...

All of this leads to a film all too easily enjoyable (which entertaining is not necessarily so), and not a film dragging you into the disturbing and haunting world of insane killers.

But besides that I enjoyed it.

It is a stunning revelation, and one of the most intense scenes on screen.

) and Nortons voice got a little boring, my only other mini complaint is that this film didn't need Hopkins as Lecter his role seemed unnecessary, the scenes that he was in were not a spooky as in Silence of the lambs and he didn't affect me.

It was very intense.

This movie kept me on the edge of my seat the whole time and was quite explosive.

Red Dragon on the other hand is dull.

I was not a big fan of Hannibal (the previous movie,) but it was certainly entertaining.

" This movie is a notch up from the previous film (Hannibal) in suspense and mystery; it is somewhat of an exciting feature that kept me glued to the TV.

Some people are already saying that the relation between Ed Norton's character and Lechtor is just a rehash of Silence of the Lambs, ignore them, the story is completely new and extremely engaging.

More entertaining than 'Silence'?

Engaging, Exiciting, Explosions, What More Do You Want.

The film is riveting and the plot deliciously unfolds like a six course gourmet dinner.

This is a great re-boot of "Manhunt", which was a decent film it lacked some style and class, stopping me from engaging and suspending disbelief with it properly.

Worth watching!

ho-hum...

It seems that RD doesn't click because it lacks the soft balance/priority of characters, which made Michael Mann's movie fascinating.

you will leave the theater raving as much as you did after "Silence of the Lambs"...

I'd sooner recommend the novel, which is an engaging read nearly wrecked by a wholly unnecessary twist ending.

" perfectly, from the semi-decaying settings to the intense contrast between light and dark.

Everyone else though looked like emotionless drab.

Lets all yawn in the industry's face.

His dynamic with Norton is truly fascinating.

By God it wasnt even suspenseful, we know his kids not going to die and even if he does who cares, we don't know him.

confusing isn't it?

Emily Watson was lovely to watch, and Ralph Fiennes does his best, but really, I'm sick of Anthony Hopkins and all his mannerisms, and the story is so formulaic, the script totally boring, fine actors like Harvey Keitel (like Smoke and Pulp Fiction and Thelma & Louise) given stock parts and lines that would be better suited to CSI: Miami.

The back and forth between the two is fascinating.

I watched "man hunter" a few months ago and frankly, it bored me silly.

I thought all the performances were strong, the camera work and editing exciting without being choppy.

Peterson was more intense as Will Graham.

However, this one was too predictable.

In his hands, Thomas Harris's brilliant story turns bland.

'Red Dragon' which actually comes first chronologically, succeeds big time, by becoming a gripping thriller cinematically as well.

In order for the intense, important scenes to stand out you have to break the tension once in a while, like for instance with a scene from Will's personal life.

Will Graham is supposed to be constantly on the edge, always on the edge of sanity; something actor Hugh Dancy captured really well on the Hannibal TV show.

And really, while everything went well here, it is by far the scenes between Watson and Fiennes which are the most breathtaking.

It's suspenseful, generally well acted and keeps our interest without leaving that sour aftertaste.

One of the most absorbing movies i have ever seen!

Definitely a better-acted and more intriguing film than "Lambs.

This is a tight, compelling story that nicely complements SILENCE and works with the strengths of that movie: Hopkins's restrained, leonine, menace, a sense of peril for the protagonist, the well-observed mechanics of FBI procedure.

"These movies are all so intelligent, suspenseful and creative.

He's about as exciting as a wet towel.

But, to accomodate more screen time for Dolarhyde, the film either shortens or leaves out a lot of the more tedious investigative work seen in the original film, which makes it more suspenseful and enjoyable.

Reviews for this film on IMDb have gone from positive at the start to a current onslaught of trite and negative comments - half the people reviewing havn't even bothered READING the book most likely, and don't realize that Red Dragon was more faithful to the original text than Manhunt of 1986.

The Dragon still roars in much entertaining remake.

I found this confusing and it did make the film difficult to follow in places.

Thankfully this movie is, I was sitting on the edge of my seat and I knew what was going to happen.

Enjoyable movie overall .

Red Dragon is full of great performances, it tells a fascinating and disturbing tale, and it is a film with a lot of life.

I'd recommend anyone who hates predictable romantic love stories to go and watch it!!

In total: Worth watching.

I would recommend this to everyone, there is not alot of gore like everyone complains about, a bit of blood but that factor makes the killer seem more dangerous and make the movie more intense.

Though not as polished as `Silence of the Lambs' and not as outright grotesque and darkly comic as `Hannibal' (a film that as horrible as it was, was a master-stroke by Ridley Scott, who clearly understood the vileness of author Thomas Harris' original conception, and the utter crappiness of this ill-conceived and long delayed sequel and turned that all into something artistic and over the top and oddly satirical), `Red Dragon' still makes for a derivative and enjoyable two hours if you have nothing better to do late at night, you turn all the lights off, and knock back a few beers while watching it.

Many aspects of the story are unnecessarily far-fetched and Fiennes' character is a bit paint-by-numbers for this type of narrative but the writing and direction make for a gripping and highly enjoyable thriller.

A very entertaining movie; its a shame people do not see how good it is.

An engrossing thriller faithful to the source .

Boring.

* Ralph Fiennes as the villain: not scary, just boring.

While Scott's film has been accused of being overly stylisted and self indulgent, and Manhunter a little dated, what with it's Miami Vice setting and all, both are so much better films than this weak remake.

This movie is closer to Silence of the Lambs than Hannibal in quality and style, and therefore is more entertaining.

The 2-Disc Set from the Director's Edition has an entertaining commentary track by the director and Oscar-winner screenwriter Yed Tally (The Silence of the Lambs).

Ray Fiennes is completely uninteresting as the Dragon.

Director Brett Ratner, who helmed both "Rush Hour" movies and "The Family Man," has cranked out a straightforward but predictable potboiler.

Brett Ratner directs this beautifully realized interpretation of the original novel and it is simply a breathtaking accomplishment.

This was actually very good, and most enjoyable.

shaving my eyeballs with a dull razor is more pleasant than sitting through Red Dragon.

I find it very strange that Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes and Harvey Keitel, who are usually reasonable guarantees of acting quality, seem utterly bored throughout the entire film - delivering line after line of bland dialogue, devoid of any emotional depth or believability whatsoever.

A Disasterous confusing blob.

Red Dragon survives solely on Edward Norton, Anthnoy Hopkins, and Ralph Fiennes stellar acting performances at spots because the plot is repetitive of Silence of the Lambs and parts of the writing were dull and weak.

I won't reveal the rest of the scene, because really, it's the most entertaining part of the film.

On the other hand, if you liked the deep character psychology of HANNIBAL, the Tooth Fairy's profile may be a little too formulaic.

The Red Dragon novel is the absolutely best of Harris "Hannibal" trilogy, and although the film doesn't come close to conveying the tension of the book, it's still pretty exciting to watch.

yawn...

He continues to be one of the most over-rated and repetitive method actors out there.

having a full cavity search done on my anus is more enjoyable than RedDragon.

Worth watching for two reasons .

Rather dull serial killer thriller.

I have just got back from seeing Red Dragon in my local theater and I have to admit I enjoyed it.

The problem is, Hannibal can never be more than he was in Silence, so with each visit to the famous cell block, that steely glare peering out at us from the celluloid begins to come across contrived.

Don't get me wrong, the movie is good, and those who did not see "Manhunter" will surely enjoy it, but it is pretty much pointless to watch them both.

Dont get me wrong it was better than most but Hopkins didnt have the same charm he did in the others and Norton (whom is one of my favorite actors) was kind of bland.

Got to watch an entertaining movie after quite some time.

This film is definitely one of the most entertaining, well directed and well acted movies of this year, by far.

But.. It was a tad predictable, we all new that his guests were eating a batch of `Special meat' the second the scene began.

The beginning starts with some intense drama and scuffles between Graham and Lecter, then delving into the mysterious background of the melancholy Francis Dolarhyde (Ralph Fiennes).

"The Tooth Fairy" (Ralph Fiennes, in a gripping and scary performance, Tom Noonan from "Manhunter").

I enjoyed it though, and it does not tarnish the legacy of the legendary original.

Brett Rattner did the rush Hour movies, films that rest on actors and quick predictable banter.

Clarice Starling, on the other hand, has no such interests, and so the psychological dynamic between her and Lecter can be much more intense, more personal.

Riveting .

Overall, with RED DRAGON is dark, brilliant, seductive, intense and very amazing and is a great conclusion to the Hannibal Lector trilogy and fans and people should be very pleased with this remake / re-imagining because it is better than MANHUNTER.

Without this bias, it can seem like a rather enjoyable and even scary movie.

If the story's too slow the audience will lose focus and interest if it's too fast this will also happen.

His character, however, is the most compelling in the movie.

However, the movie feature was entertaining, fast-paced, and not as gory as "Hannibal" (although by no means was this one tame).

Graham, Red Dragon, and Lecter will be on a collision course leading to an exciting climax.

Red Dragon is a good film made absolutely fantastic by a beautifully moving and powerfully stunning performance by Emily Watson.

The music (Danny Elfman) was fantastic and was a good addition to an already exciting movie.

The movie is well worth seeing just for Anthony and Ralph alone..Their performances were mind blowing..and the story, the plot, everything was just so perfect!!

There are still Ralph Fiennes, Harvey Kietel, Mary Louise-Parker, Emily Watson and Philip Seymour Hoffman, pretty good actors who make "Red Dragon" as thrilling as it could be.

Why it would have to take Joel Schumacher himself to muck up Ted Tally's script of Thomas Harris breathtaking novel.

It is slow, gradual and ends climatically.

Red Dragon is just an intense, atmospheric, really well directed crime movie.

Anthony wins by default..Will Graham, who, as written, and as should be played, is an intense, quiet man almost literally haunted by his preternaturally empathic abilities.

Luckily, Red Dragon focuses more on the suspense and character development, rather than the pointless gore of the previous movie.

The similarities are striking, while the differences are dazzlingly entertaining.

Stunning performance!!

On its own it is a fair thriller but for anyone seeing the other Hannibal Lecter movies,it all seems a bit pointless.

The subtler acting of Brian Cox (as Lecter) and Noonan (as Dolarhyde) made Manhunter far more compelling than the remake.

It seems uninteresting and bland.

The characters are great and engaging.

(Michael Manns directing around the discovery of the letter in Hannibals cell was superb and so gripping).

Did anyone else feel a little empty.

I had an enjoyable movie experience that'll stay in my memory for sometime.

Suspenseful .

Anthony Hopkins returns in his Academy award winning role as Dr. Hannibal Lecter in this well acted and suspenseful prequel.

This story was interesting, shocking and suspenseful filled with rich characters that you hate and then end up feeling sorry for in the end and characters that you love and then end up felling some apathy towards in the end.

take the time to read Red Dragon and you will see why the movie seemed slow...

RED DRAGON is one of the most intense films of the year.

XXX, Scooby doo etc. were just too boring.

One of my favourite actresses, Emily Watson superbly plays the blind woman who tentatively - and rather tenderly - seduces the monster - it is us knowing what may come and when, when she is so trusting greatly enhances this movie and whilst some might say that these scenes slow the pace and water down the action, I think it a big plus.

The results are much more enjoyable (if a bit repetitive), making one wonder what might have happened had THIS been the original?

The marginalisation of Hannibal Lecter, parallels to The Silence of the Lambs, predictable plot and frequently superficial nature make this a more standard thriller than TSOTL, and one which certainly won't be remembered nearly as much.

The only issue personally has to be the end where the 'final showdown' is a bit contrived and forced to seemingly tie off a loose end which was previously established.

The story and serial killer (Red Dragon) in the movie is really intriguing and thrilling.

I thought Red Dragon was enjoyable.

Disturbing, suspensful and exciting, I give this the highest rating I can.

(the lady sitting behind me in the theatre fell asleep--you decide).

Ed Norton, though compelling, is badly miscast.

boring.

Ed Norton once again shows why he is one of favourite characters with his troubled and traumatised take on Will Graham whilst Hopkins feels a little bored with his Hannibal Lector role although still amusing , he is given very little to play with.

Well, this was a great movie and i enjoyed it 100%, great story, acting, music and pretty much everything.

He is insane yet brilliant and watching him work with the detective that caught him makes this manhunt even more exciting.

A welcome departure from the tired villain focuses on a different spree killer suffering from some predictable childhood trauma.

The reason this new breed of Faux-Greats imitate the more slow-burn, classical film styles of the Old, True Greats like North by Northwest, or the original Haunting is because the hacks doing the films are probably pretentious film buffs that don't realize the movies they idolize are considered great because they were actually innovative trailblazers in their time.

I just love following intense investigations and not knowing what is next.

Their performances are powerful and intense, makes the movie more watchable.

The stupid horror movie routine of the killer coming back one more time is dragged out to please the stupid masses.

Hopkins, Norton and Fiennes are all enjoyable

To it's credit it is worth watching if only for the opening scene and the joy of seeing Hopkins (albeit older) lurking in his (Slience of the Lambs) cell.

I thought this film was absolutely breathtaking.

Excellent cinematography, acting and a good script make for very enjoyable viewing.

I found this film very entertaining.

The only two that actually make the film worth watching are Ralph Fiennes and Emily Watson.

RED DRAGON benefits from a typically intense and dedicated turn from Edward Norton as the criminologist hunting down a serial killer, played with eerie relish by Ralph Fiennes (much more effective than he was as Voldemort).

See Red Dragon, don't waste your hard-earned money on a snooze-fest like Manhunter.

Red Dragon is a far better movie than Hannibal and is worth the watch for any Silence of the Lambs fans.

He had some amazing scenes in the movie, I also believe he interacted well with Hopkin's Hannibal Lastly, I would definitely recommend this movie to any fans of the book or those just interested in staying home one night to watch an exciting thriller.

predictable....

'Red Dragon' opens with a wonderfully suspenseful prologue detailing the infamous Dr. Hannibal Lecter's (Anthony Hopkins) capture, and the unbearable tension rarely lets up for the remainder of the film.

And this movie is gripping from beginning to end.

And give Ratner credit for setting up gripping and suspenseful scenes - some which can rival those of Silence!

RED DRAGON has some flaws but it's still a highly entertaining and well-made thriller.

Anthony Hopkins playing Hannibal deprived of the charm he had in The Silence Of The Lambs is convincing, but boring.

Director Brett Ratner's interpretation of Red Dragon results in a film that is more colorful, more suspenseful, and more artistically significant than its predecessor.

This movie was just very entertaining and fun to watch.

The third instalment in the Hopkins-as-Hannibal trilogy boasts an instantly enjoyable ensemble.

I've just come home from watching Red Dragon and have to say that I really enjoyed it.

In FIGHT CLUB, Norton's disengaged, monotone worked.

Red Dragon is an entertaining prequel to the Oscar-winning classic, Silence of the Lambs directed by Jonathan Demme.

Emily Watson portrays a vulnerable woman, handicapped by blindness who's attracted to Dolarhyde and her fate is predictable.

I've gotten used to dismissing the former movies achievements, but Red Dragon made me aware of how rousing the developments in the original were, by squandering every one of them.

The movie was slow and the print I saw suffered greatly from totally amateurish, unprofessional jump cuts during the final violent scenes, which appear as if shots are purposely missing (a head being blown off at the killer's house, and then again a bizarre cut when the killer is shot a second time).

4/10Quality: 2/10 Entertainment: 5/10 (most of the movie was a bore) Replayable: 4/10

Overall, the newer, film, while visually and technically stunning is flawed and often clumsy and seems to be just a remake for the money, rather than for the art.

Brett Ratner's interpretation of this story is very bland.

As stylish as it is stunning, Red Dragon delivers a powerful performance by both Edward Norton and Anthony Hopkins.

While Silence does have solid narration, and overall contains a very enjoyable film, I think it's the lesser of what was to come.

I enjoyed it.

This is scary were "Hannibal" just managed to be boring, this is shocking were "Hannibal" was gruesome.

Never has a stellar cast been so wasted, or the making of a film so empty and meaningless.

Although many reviewers, even those who pan the movie, praise Phillip Seymour Hoffman's portrayal of tabloid reporter Freddie Lounds, I found him bland.

The dialogue and overall fast paced style of the movie made it really worth watching, and if this movie had been released a year before Silence rather than a year after Hannibal, they would be great together.

Great plot, enjoyable characters.

The stories are basically the same, but Manhunter plays out in a much more suspenseful and interesting manner.

Poor and pointless remake .

Does this wind up tired and trite like most plot rehashes?

I went into the film with no expectations, only hopes of an entertaining film.

He successfully captures the pain and confusion of a mentally unstable type, who at times, seems ready to break free from his past.

The scenes with Will Graham and his family were very emotional in Manhunter, but here they mean almost nothing, which makes the addition of an end scene (where his family are in peril) pointless, as well as predictable and cliched.

I promise you will appreciate all that went into such an unexpected masterpiece.

Still go see with an empty mind and no expectations and you'll probably enjoy, just don't expect high art because its not here, and nor should it be.

It's as mind boggling and it is intriguing it will engage you every minute and every second you watch it.

This film was boring,not interesting and almost the same like Manhunter,with this old story,what is well known from very old classic films.

Enjoyed the first installment of this sequence of films but I thought the first was a bit dragged out and I'm not a big Jodie Foster fan either.

) man " scene so basic and empty.

Most of the dialogue is lifted straight from Michael Mann's Manhunter; the acting is uninspired, especially Harvey Keitel's and Philip Hoffman's flat and uninteresting characters; Edward Norton's character remains distant and unlikeable for the entire movie.

The preqeul to "The Silence of the Lambs" and "Hannibal" is a strangely engrossing and vastly interesting film-going experience.

"When doing a remake, there should generally be some compelling reason.

This is too long, too ponderous and came at least 12 years too late.

It ceases to be about Graham's battle with his own disturbed thoughts (the most compelling aspect of the story) and this more widely focused story suffers in its balancing act to include Hopkin's charismatic version of 'Hannibal Lecter', who winds up eclipsing the most important elements of the film.

The movie has the same suspenseful style as Silence of the Lambs, making up for the fact that Hannibal hardly had any suspense at all.

Red Dragon is focused more on the Serial killer, than the FBI agent and it is less psychological than Silence of the lambs, and somehow is a little more suspenseful throughout the movie, unlike 'Silence' where the suspense is broken up into moments.

Ralph Fiennes is great, but even an actor as fun to watch as him cannot save this uninspired, pointless motion picture.

In this, the third Hopkins Hannibal film and prequel to the Oscar winning Silence of the Lambs, it is this infamy, along with two diverging story lines, which plague an otherwise entertaining and excellently portrayed study of the criminally insane.

The usual provoking Edward Norton sadly gives a monotone performance as Will Graham and those who are familiar with Manhunter will be disappointed.

The film definitely could have done more with Graham's character, who lacked the colour and dimension that went visibly into Lecter and Dollarhyde, Graham was too dull, too ordinary and too clinical to me here.

Red Dragon, for me, is actually better than "Hannibal", the sequel to "TSOTL" because it is fast paced and has a lot of thrills and tension - which is more in line with what "TSOTL" built.

You get the feeling everything Ratner touches turns bland.

And even though I normally hate suspenseful movies that add sudden loud noises or things jumping out at you for a cheap scare, all that type of stuff fits pretty well, I think.

I certainly remember back in the 80's seeing Manhunter and enjoyed it immensely so I was curious about this film if it could relive my great interest.

While "Red Dragon" was a moderately entertaining popcorn film, it in no way overtook the first (and best, in my mind) Hannibal Lector movie, Michael Mann's 1986 "Manhunter," also based on the novel "Red Dragon" by Thomas Harris.

Stupidly entertaining .

Great cast, great acting, but somewhat boring story.

The film is seems somewhat more contrived than it's trio of siblings and may be somewhat the lesser member of the family.

Overwrought, unbelievable and boring.

Red Dragon certainly leans more towards Demme's awesome 1991 thriller The Silence of the Lambs than Hannibal did, but rather than use said example to feed off of and create nothing more than a by-the-numbers templatelike thriller, Red Dragon feels original enough and ends up weaving a tale that's close to all but just as fascinating and just as gripping.

So, it was with a lot of disappointment that I left the theater after seeing the long awaited sequel to "SOTL", "Hannibal".

Flat and dull characters build in a saucer depth psychology.

Exciting Hannibal-movie .

The photography and cinematography were breathtaking.

What I was guessing as the "end" of the movie (what I least tried to visualize as a reasonable end for such an obvious plot), when Dolarhyde "commits" suicide in front of his blind girlfriend, is followed by a really stupid, predictable & cheesy epilogue!

It has some enjoyable moments, the few scenes that Anthony Hopkins and Edward Norton share were terrific, and Ralph Fiennes certainly delights in his performance of a complete psychopath, his characterisation was perfect, every cast member was very dedicated to their roles.

The movie was dark and suspenseful and gave me something to think about and appreciate.

Definitely the weakest of the three movies that feature Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, this prequel is a dull, at times boring, other times unintentionally funny picture that doesn't give the fans of the book or film series their money worth of entertainment and is as utterly disappointing as it is frustrating.

The first one is easily the best while the second lacks something, and that is the weak characterisation of Reba, it's confusing, at one point she is the sad, kind blind woman and then she turns into a sex freak.

It is most certainly more intense.

Another riveting performance is by Emily Watson, a side character who happens to be Fiennes' love interest.

Some good work all round, but all the actors in the film have much better performances to their credit, in the end the climax is surprisingly formulaic, and the final scene is only successful at provoking a wry smile with its reference to much superior 1991 movie.

RED DRAGON commits the worst sin a thriller can commit: IT'S BORING.

This is an scary, exciting and even funny thriller.

' Of the three book adaptations, 'Red Dragon' is far and away the most interesting story, with a plethora of interesting characters and a suspenseful storyline rivaling that of 'Silence.

Both have intelligent exchanges of words, and both are thrilling.

Only a by-the-book-movie very predictable film with actors not giving there best performance (Hopkins is a caricature of himself, Norton is suprisingly very ordinairy, Keitel play the only character he knows, himself) except for Fiennes and Watson who are terrific.

I am another pointless re-make.

Ratners direction turns this dark plot that should be as disturbing yet thrilling as Silence of the Lambs, into not much more than a popcorn movie for casual enjoyment.

They are chilling, scary and very entertaining.

Instead of the sweeping, elegant artistic flair of Hannibal's cinematography, we're given flat, perfectly ho hum shots in every scene, with overly saturated lighting and a sense of stagnancy, instead of movement (the actors very rarely steer away from the central focal point of the camera).

Frankie Faison as Barney (one of my favourite characters from the books and SOTL and HANNIBAL and who played Fisk in MANHUNTER) needn't have bothered, what a waste of his time and talent.

Harvey Keitel (Jack Crawford) Philip Seymour Hoffman (reporter Freddy Lounds) Emily Watson (Reba McClane) and Ralph Fiennes (Francis Dolyerhyde - is the most stunning of them all).

She is fantastic as Reba, Dolarhyde's blind love interest, and her performance is utterly compelling and totally believable.

Fortunately, it's quite enjoyable to watch although I hate the typical "twisted ending".

An enjoyable movie and a potential Oscar contender.

RED DRAGON is a utterly exciting movie, and it has captured a lot of a thriller's thrilling excitements, and it really helps this movie becoming a worthy part of the Hannibal Lecter series.

They have added their own bits of course {the pre-credit sequence involving Lecter & Graham sets things up perfectly}, but ultimately it's a loyal enough telling of a gripping and goose flesh inducing story.

The movie smells of a dull focus group cuddling up to the advertising department.

it had not only the expected incredible acting from greatly acclaimed stars such as Anthony Hopkins, Edward Norton, and Harvey Keitel, but it also had excellent cinematography, screenplay, lighting, and kept an interesting, gripping, and twisted plot.

I actually experienced this scene as one of the most exciting scenes I've ever seen.

The plot was predictable and the characters were not believable.

On the other hand, the Red Dragon is more about the guy they are trying to catch and also the intense feelings the two lead characters have for each other.

The most suspenseful scenes merely serve to delay the conclusion you know is coming.

That is the special value of this movie which makes it not just fun or pastime, but makes it a drive compelling you to think about what you saw after it's over.

Entertaining and exciting...

"The Silence of the Lambs" was a fresh attempt at telling a routine but thrilling story with interesting people in it.

An entertaining return to Silence's roots.

Fiennes though, could be counted as being as compelling as Hopkins, as we look into his character with even handed sympathy and amazement (amazement that a man can be so mentally disturbed).

The set design is superior and the music is thrilling.

'Red Dragon' is 124 minutes long in running time, and each minute there is something gripping in store for you.

An enjoyable thriller, that keeps you shaking.

It was exciting watching the plot unfold, though there were no complete surprises.

As usual Anthony Hopkins gives a stunning performance as Hannibal and Edward Norton once again captures the role as it should be.

", but it's still very thrilling.

A lifeless and tedious thriller.

Predictable , bad scripting ...

Between him and Buffalo Bill (of 'Silence' fame), Fiennes' character easily wins out as the most intriguing of the two.

Overall,enjoyable film to watch.

Another thing I did not like was the ending; a final twist where a villain believed to be dead suddenly reappears to threaten the hero, and has to be killed for a second time, has become an overworked cliché in the thriller genre.

I went to see this movie last night, and I enjoyed it.

I am kinda disappointed, even though, to see how Edward Norton chose such an uninteresting character to portray.

I easily rank this film to be amongst the most gripping thrillers ever made!

The movie itself was riveting, exciting, and was about 100 times better than I thought it would be.

The cast is excellent and was very enjoyable for most parts.

Red Dragon is very intense.

Red Dragon is still a very good film, and a million times better than Hannibal, but I'm a little undecided about whether it is better than Manhunter, I get the feeling that begrudgingly it isn't as good, but it is still entertaining.

RED DRAGON is a crafty, inventive, clever, delicious, and suspenseful masterpiece!

"Red Dragon" was disjointed, forced & artificial, while "Manhunter" was smooth, logical and stylish.

The film knows Lecter is the would-be star of the series, and despite Graham's expertise; the film shoots his slow trudging up the corridor towards Lecter's cell with the same nervous energy given to most whom we have witnessed venture up there.

Overall, with RED DRAGON is dark, brilliant, seductive, intense and very amazing and is a great conclusion to the Hannibal Lector trilogy and fans and people should be very pleased with this remake / re-imagining because it is better than MANHUNTER.

A dreadful pointless remake .

The movie was also interesting from start to finish as the suspense and mystery of the plot were always suspenseful and never superficial.

Because of this, the whole movie seems flat and pointless.

I enjoyed it thoroughly and was overwhelmed at the intensity and great acting sustained throughout the film.

Ralph Fiennes, as Francis Dolarhyde, eclipses every role he has taken in his career with a performance that is darkly acerbic, powerful and evocative.

"Red Dragon" does jump through all the hoops of its kind, but if anything, it comes across fresh and thrilling, and this is all I ask for in a thriller.

The extras on the DVD are lackluster and trivial, particularly silly is the pretentious interview with a real FBI profiler.

Ed Norton gives a riveting performance throughout the movie.

Intense, prolific and just simply brilliant!

Fiennes as the villain worked particularly well - he played intense and creepy really well, he actually surprised me with this role.

Boring movie .

It's just a commercial movie where everything is predictable and full of "donuts" :A maximal security jail and Dr Lecter play with the phone , make a conversation ( how can you dial like that on a digital line ?!

The "do you need the sound" question is a little TOO CONTRIVED!

Thrilling and suspenseful movie.

This movie is ultimately pointless.

Ralph Fiennes may be too attractive for Dolarhyde, but he puts on a stunning performance as well.

Stunning Film and Tremendous Interpretation of Novel .