Red Dragon (2002)
Grade: A-
Cast: Edward Norton, Anthony Hopkins, Ralph Fiennes, Harvey Keitel, Emily Watson, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Mary-Louise Parker, Anthony Heald
Director: Brett Ratner
Rated R for violence, grisly images, language, nudity, and some sexuality


If you have ever discussed movies with me, or visited the website in which you are currently reading this review, then you know that I am one of the few (and this is a small minority) who disliked Michael Mann’s “Manhunter” a great deal. That slow-moving, strangely acted piece of crap (enhanced in its crappiness by the awful cinematography and soundtrack) really screwed up a great novel. Now, with “Red Dragon”, that great novel has been made into a great movie.

I know, I know. I’m a complete moron. But stay seated. Put down the stones. I have actual reason for loving “Red Dragon” (while also realizing that it has noticeable flaws). And I have reason for thinking it probably shouldn’t exist at all, either. That’s right…I can explain.

If you have ever discussed movies with me, or visited the website in which you are currently reading this review, then you know that I am one of the few (and this is a small minority) who liked Ridley Scott’s “Hannibal” a great deal. “Hannibal”, despite my affection, was released to a great deal of opposition from both the general public and film critics. But, of course, it made a ton of money. Here’s the part where I admit “Red Dragon” is completely unnecessary—it is, on the surface, an attempt to cash in on the Hannibal Lecter franchise, and nothing more.

But notice I say on the surface. “Red Dragon” also takes the time to be a good film. You would think this would stem from brilliant direction, but no—“Red Dragon” is directed by Brett Ratner, known merely as “the guy who did ‘Rush Hour’” to most people.

This is a movie review, and if you’re familiar with mine, I typically follow a format. So, loyal to my format, here’s the plot: Will Graham (Edward Norton), who captured Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins, back in his most famous role), is asked by agent Jack Crawford (Harvey Keitel) to assist the FBI in the investigation of a serial killer known as the Tooth Fairy. The Tooth Fairy has broken into two houses and proceeded to brutally murder the families and rape the wives/mothers. It is said that the Tooth Fairy is called the Tooth Fairy because of the bite marks he leaves on victims; I always assumed it was because he is a visitor of the night who leaves a surprise for the morning. Anyway, Graham decides to go to Lecter for help, and this creates an interesting situation since he is asking for help from the man he, as far as they both currently know, locked up for life.

We meet the Tooth Fairy, and unlike in Mann’s cold “Manhunter”, he seems like a real person. What is interesting is that most serial killer thrillers that want to explain why the killer is so screwed up can never find the perfect balance between horror and sympathy (2000’s visually vibrant “The Cell”, for example, came across as begging for us to feel sorry for a man who kidnaps girls and drowns them). “Red Dragon” is one of the few that can do so. As Francis Dolarhyde, the insecure and fragile human being who happens to be a serial killer, Ralph Fiennes gives a really rather brilliant performance. He drops his accent and never really slips in his American one—what he does do is create the voice of a person afraid to speak, afraid that his every word will only do harm to his self-image, and so he speaks with a slow, nervous delicacy, making sure every syllable is received as intended. The story gives Dolarhyde a love interest—a love interest that didn’t work at all in “Manhunter”, and had its weak points in the book, but works almost perfectly here—the blind Reba McClane (a curious, sensational Emily Watson). Because of the script by Ted Tally (the guy who won an Oscar for so faithfully adapting “The Silence of the Lambs” back in 1991) and the greatness of these two performances, this third portrayal of the relationship between Dolarhyde and McClane is the first to truly perfect it. As if it already isn’t enthralling, a new dimension is added when we realize that the Red Dragon, the nonexistent being that Dolarhyde believes controls him, wants Dolarhyde to kill Reba. The romance becomes tragic beyond anything in…yes, I’m going to say it: “Manhunter”.

But what about the rest of the story? It isn’t as interesting as Dolarhyde and McClane, but it’s still pretty fascinating. If “Red Dragon” never measures up to “Silence”, a big part of that is that Will Graham is never as interesting as Clarice. In the book maybe he is, but here we aren’t even told about how he spent time in a mental hospital due to the internal pressures created from his job. Here, Norton is good, but the great actor may just give his weakest performance yet—others would say that honor goes to “Death To Smoochy”, but I think he found the perfect tone of a kiss-ass, saintly kiddie-show host—because we never really feel like he’s as urgent about the case as we know he really is. I guess Tally may be to blame about it, but it’s probably more the fault of Norton (apparently, director Ratner wanted him to put more emotion into the role, and Norton wanted even less). He lights up on occasion, although never as interestingly as Jodie Foster did as we realized why the film was called “Silence of the Lambs”. His best moment? The last scene, as he’s using information he knows about Dolarhyde to weaken him. I won’t elaborate, but that scene reminds us how powerful an actor Norton can be. The rest of the time he is understated which is not bad but, let’s face it, not as entertaining as he can be.

Many people didn’t like Hopkins in “Hannibal”, saying he reduced a terrifying character to a Freddie Kruegerian caricature. I greatly enjoyed “Hannibal”, but I’ll willingly admit there’s some truth to that. Here, he rarely comes off as powerfully as in “Silence”, but that’s partly a novelty thing; he’s infinitely better in comparison to his solid “Hannibal” performance. Tally, Ratner, and Hopkins realize that Lecter is angry at the situation and at Graham, but doesn’t want Graham to know this, because Lecter wants nothing more than to come across as King of the Room. This is a more conflicted character than either of the other Hannibal movies, and Lecter is well portrayed in the sense that we can’t see him as a mad, Kruegerian slasher. He’s a character here, not a Villain™.

“Red Dragon” is not exactly scary; I saw “The Ring” the night before watching “Red Dragon”, and I can easily say that “The Ring” is scarier. “Red Dragon” is, however, extremely disturbing. When thinking of just how disturbing it is, the scene that comes to mind involves Freddie Lounds (Philip Seymour Hoffman). He is a tabloid reporter who has been given false information to print about Dolarhyde (as a part of what was supposed to be some sort of trap), and Dolarhyde decides to punish him. I won’t reveal how, but the way things unfold are enormously unnerving, and I knew what was going to happen. I may have been even more disturbed if I weren’t so distracted by the reaction of the three-year-old a couple rows in front of me, but I suppose there’s no need to venture too far off topic.

Does this prove that Ratner is a great director? Not really. A great director wouldn’t have signed on to “Rush Hour 3”, although that is completely beside the point. He does a very good job with “Red Dragon”, but I don’t hesitate in placing the blame for 95% of the flaws on his shoulders. He never completely screws up, but if ever anything is the slightest bit sloppy, it is because Ratner has over-directed (or in some cases even under-directed) it.

Two other things worth noting: Mary-Louise Parker and Tally. Parker plays Molly Graham, Will’s wife, and she is very good. I wish she had had more screen time. As for Tally, I thought he did an excellent job of adapting it—omitting some unnecessary scenes, and not making the added Lecter scenes seem superfluous. Some changes he made were well appreciated by me—especially the last two scenes. That right there is good writing.

So I’ve told you why I liked “Red Dragon”. The lazier readers may have decided to skip to this last paragraph to see my general consensus. I suppose this review is a little overlong—I can’t blame those out there who did so—so I might as well reward them with a summary of my opinion. “Red Dragon” works on one level because it is a fascinating, mysterious criminal procedure. It works on a higher level because we have a central character (Lecter) that is fighting off anger at the man who is seeking his help—building an irony in that storyline that is not unpredictable but nevertheless juicy. But the reason it is finally as good as it is is that Francis Dolarhyde, the wounded, abused human who has caused the murders everyone is racing to stop, is three-dimensional (even four-dimensional, thanks to Fiennes). The film wisely never apologizes for his acts (murder is wrong, period, whether you have a tortured past or not), but it does help us understand what it is like to be an outcast, and how hard it is for some to socially bond with the rest of the world. Explosions, grisly images, and amusing one-liners from Hannibal aside (and greed-driven motivation grudgingly aside, too), that is the emotional core of “Red Dragon”, and that it strives to be about such a thing despite its subject matter is just short of amazing.


-Alex, October 2002