He spreads my wings and takes pleasure in my slavery.
A wonderful recipe for a dish called 'Red Dragon' Take two blood-colding skillful maniacs, mix with a cute, intelligent and fair detective, add riddles, puzzles, charades, season a dynamic plot with an intriguing story and an unpredictable ending and, voila, you can enjoy!
For me personally, this film is a godsend. Because here we won't see a brainless schizophrenic gutting his brainless victims like a Thanksgiving turkey. We won’t see the dummy detectives who all day do nothing but drink coffee and eat doughnuts, and the maniac scurrying under their noses is not noticed. There are no chases and no labudas. This movie is really scary and scary.
Movies about maniacs have any value only when the maniac has his own history of formation, his motives and his own murder. Maniacs are not born, they become. As Will Graham (Edward Norton's hero) put it: 'I read the diary. Sadly. Very sad. I felt sorry for him. For he was not born a monster, he became one through many years of humiliation.39 And indeed, no movie killer has evoked in me such contradictory and natural feelings as the Tooth Fairy & #39. On the one hand, it is horror at his actions and even disgust, and on the other hand, sympathy and sadness, the desire to save him. Somewhere inside he was still hiding a vulnerable, good-natured and innocent child. . . But the inner evil created by his sick grandmother took over. This film shows this moment of struggle between two opposing personalities in a schizophrenic person. And that makes it really scary. God forbid someone to experience this. .
And also, I can’t help but mention the scene when the hero of Rife Fiennes bares his tattooed back and the viewer sees the Red Dragon – the Devil himself! Skin goons!
After reading a couple of other reviews, I saw that people complain that the filmmakers did not fully disclose the motives and sources of the atrocities ' Tooth Fairy'. For me, this movie only wins at this point. Now we, the audience, can be detectives ourselves, analyze everything we have seen, puzzle over mysteries and draw our own conclusions.
39 Without imagination, we would be part of a stupid herd. '
Hannibal Lecter, so to speak, without wrinkling his facial muscles and shouting, “Is this ethical?” became a national “hero.” United States. The prototype of Lecter are some serial killers-cannibals, based on the stories of murders which created his unique character Thomas Harris (author of the collection of novels about Lecter). But the doctor of the American writer, who seemed a little more interested in serial killer stories and their nightmarish deeds than others, gave Lecter a rare mindset, gave a degree in clinical medicine based on the study of mental disorders and everything else casual in the human soul, a musical ear (letting him choose the most delicious, fake spiritual musician in a symphony orchestra), ah, and made him an extraordinary gourmet. It was too valuable, Harris probably thought, when he gave the character all these qualities. There are probably no such wonderful people. Too idyllic character. Why not make him a cannibal? Let at least something Mephistopheles in him play to the fullest, let all these magnificent qualities of the soul and his type of personality be squeezed and take to himself the ugly, wormy concept - "crazy cannibal."
It is possible that someone will be touched to the core of his heart by the First Symphony of Brahms, someone by Schopenhauer’s treatises on sexual love, and someone will gladly read a non-trivial story about a doctor who has survived out of his mind, eating his patients and not only them. Whether the minds of people have become so distorted that the stories of maniacs (not Lecter) are filmed on an especially large scale, or whether this is a wonderful way to show that murderers became murderers thanks to us, terrible profanators of human souls. Whether it's just film culture - a rather strong drink, which sometimes needs to be diluted with something in consistency resembling "water". If we take into account the latter, then the cultural civilization of the planet would instantly be divided into two camps (" sharpeners" and "stupids", so to speak): those who see in cinema continuous decline and stupid "products" (finished pessimistic skeptics with syndromes of paranoid ideas) and those who believe that this "mechanical enlightener" can be rehabilitated (finished optimistic enthusiasts with syndromes of clinical delirium), rejuvenated, destroyed, and released into good-quality entertainment.
Why do my parentheses about each type of person seem too cynical and even caustic? Because I don't believe the first or the second. You can’t turn back time, and that’s a good thing. This also applies to people involved in cinema. In my deep conviction, such a certain principle of humanistic induction should have worked (if you accidentally hit a dog, you should automatically feel sorry for all animals), i.e. if unsuccessful pictures were shot at the very beginning, and more or less understanding people saw that this would spoil the entire industrial “picture” as a whole, measures should have been taken to exterminate such samples for the benefit of the immaculate image of cinema in the future. But given our society and capitalist principles of existence (hello, Carl), such procedures are simply impossible, because the entertainment industry brings in huge sums of money, and better when it is second-rate comedies or horror movies. My utopian idea is impossible. Time has proven it.
For the film...
Originality, the inspired sigh of a man scratching his forehead and coming up with something out of the ordinary, has always been valuable, in my humble opinion. When the overwhelming success of “The Silence of the Lambs” was supposed to cross everyone who in any way tried to develop or supplement the previously agreed, well-established success of the franchise “Lecter and Comrades”, Dino de Laurentiis and Brett Ratner, who were, apparently, invincible atheists who perceive nothing but originality and victory at the level of intuition, shot the picture “Red Dragon” based on the novel of the same name by Harris. The film tells the story of Dr. Lecter before his meeting with Agent Starling, as well as how the doctor got behind forty bars under the control of harsh guys with automatic rifles and stun guns. Another character appears – William Graham – a detective who managed to expose and stop Lecter (almost with his guts released). A new storyline is being conducted, which is very, very interesting to watch probably because the older sister of the picture caused so many emotions and ambiguous impressions. So many times we subconsciously did not envy the pretty Clarisse in the last tape, so many times we felt both frightened and happy thanks to the “spooky”-interesting canvas of the plot, so many liters of cold sweat came out thanks to the convex emotional play of the actors. It was nice to see Dr. Chilton again played by Anthony Hield. The wonderful Anthony Hopkins can be kept quiet. There can be no other Lecter.
In principle, it is difficult to say what emotions people can feel when they take up the film adaptation of another ballad about something, knowing that there is already a very successful, almost patriarchal model. And you feel genuine satisfaction when you realize that the idea did not fail and formed a worthy company for your intellectual-mechanical colleague.
The movie "Red Dragon" languished for a long time in anticipation in my personal list of films that must be seen, but hands still did not reach. The mood is not that, the Internet is slow — in general, I watched it only a couple of days ago on TV. And within five minutes of the film, I realized that it should have been seen much earlier, and then revisited and revised, because this picture struck me.
I am a huge fan of the movie about maniacs, especially if it is not so much a bloody mess and cruelty, as a smart, thinking movie, in which you want to immerse yourself and understand the motives and causes of certain actions. Red Dragon is just such a movie. From the first seconds, you sink into it like an ocean, and you can’t come out until the end of the credits. It is worth going through the main characters to get to the bottom.
Hannibal Lector (Anthony Hopkins) One of the main characters of the film, ruthless and crazy on the verge of genius maniac gourmet, whom we all know from "Silence of the Lambs" and "Hannibal". He was not shown very often, but the fact that the actor is no less brilliant than his character is clear from the first minutes. That unblinking look that reads you like an open book, all the magic and tension felt even through the TV screen. During the film, you forget that Mr. Hopkins is in front of you, you only see the Lector, with his passion for riddles, with his extraordinary mental abilities, with his disgusting aesthetics. It is these qualities that lead the investigator to turn to him for help, and it is on Hannibal that the entire outcome of this story may have depended directly. Bravo to Anthony Hopkins!
Francis Dolorhain, The Tooth Fairy (Rafe Fiennes) Rafe is one of my favorite actors, and he was one of the reasons I got to watch Red Dragon. I don't think anyone would be particularly outraged if I coughed up, thought for a second, and slowly said, "Rafe Fiennes is one of the geniuses of modern cinema." The way he knows how to play negative characters, how much he puts into each of his roles, probably no one invests. A crazy maniac who imagines himself to be a Red Dragon, who came to perform some great mission only to him. We all come from childhood, and he was no exception – the constant humiliation and pain that Francis endured from his relatives turned him into a monster. Fiennes’ bottomless eyes read everything – pain, madness, obsession, fear, humiliation, tenderness, yes, tenderness towards the poor blind girl who personified all that was still human in this deeply unhappy character. Fiennes managed to make his character both hated and regretted, so that we wanted to understand the reason for his actions. The only thing that bothered me a little bit was that Dolorhein was complex because of his appearance, and that's why he broke all the mirrors in his victims' homes. Such a beautiful man as Rafe has no right to complex because of his appearance, so there was a kind of dissonance, which, however, did not interfere with the holistic perception of the picture.
Will Graham (Edward Norton). A wonderful actor, but as sad as it sounds, for me personally, he was losing against the background of two brilliant villains. Negative characters, for the most part, are always more colorful and interesting than positive ones, so all my attention was turned to the Lecturer and the Tooth Fairy, and the main character - a smart, astute investigator Will merged with the landscape and did not cause any special delights. But in the end I was worried about him, I admit.
Result:
10 out of 10
All those nuances I mentioned are not worth a point, and each of them is easily overshadowed by great acting, video effects and soundtracks. Thank you to everyone and each individual who had a hand in creating this truly film masterpiece, I will not be afraid of this word!
FBI Special Agent Will Graham (Norton) after a long search finally manages to catch one of the most dangerous maniacs in history - Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Hopkins). After this case, Graham retires. However, when his old co-worker Jack Crawford (Katell) asks Will to investigate the case of a new serial killer, he cannot refuse him. Will has to turn to the prisoner Lecter for help, because the killer named Tooth Fairy (Fanes) has already managed to brutally deal with two families, and he is not going to stop there.
Despite the fact that the first book of quadrology by Thomas Harris “Red Dragon” was already once filmed (the film “Human Hunter” in 1986), producer Dino De Laurentiis could not deny himself the pleasure of bringing this story back to the screen. After all, by that time the image of Dr. Lecter had already firmly staked out Anthony Hopkins, brilliantly playing both in the Silence of the Lambs and in its sequel Hannibal. It was a sin not to invite the actor to enter this river for the third time.
If we talk exclusively about the plot of the film, while not forgetting the correct chronological sequence of the books, we see that “The Silence of the Lambs” is by and large just an improved and more thoughtful version of “Red Dragon.” in the prequel, dialogues are less capaciously made, there is no intersexual conflict between the main characters, less tasty psychological details, however, the plot canvas seems to be written off as a blueprint – “Dr. Lecter helps catch a maniac killer FBI agent.”
The Red Dragon also has advantages. First of all, it's Norton, who, in my personal and very humble opinion, is an actor of a much higher order than Jodie Foster. The Tooth Fairy looks at least as colorful as Buffalo Bill, and the lack of logical connections in the deductive chain of investigation is not so striking. In "Red Dragon" there is something to catch the eye in the field of second roles. Philip Seymour Hoffman, Emily Watson and Harvey Keitel worked out for a solid "good."
And, of course, Anthony Hopkins is always inimitable. The image of Hannibal Lecter goes to him better than the most expensive, tailor-made suit, and as he stuck to it - not to tear. This role (in all three films) became a truly canonical portrayal of evil.
So I liked Red Dragon as much as Silence of the Lambs. Just when watching it, you need to abstract from all the achievements of the predecessor and watch the film as an integral, combat unit of cinema. In this case, you should like it.
You got caught because you were out of luck, Doctor. You're crazy.
The sequel to "Silence of the Lambs" many fans of the original were unhappy. Like, Ridley Scott in his “Hannibal” bred a genuine decadence and mocked the human race. Everyone shouted that the sequel had lost all the psychology once laid down by Demme, and in its ugly physiology reached the apogee of disgust with an episode of freshening the brains of a Febeer. How can you forgive that? In addition, "Hannibal", despite the similar blue-yellow color palette, was noticeably modernized - a leisurely, dense drama gave way to action, there were slow-mo and other visual delights, character accents were shifted - the characters were noticeably added, Lecter-art historian in all senses "untied hands", and Starling was removed in the shadows so as not to unnerve the audience with a change of the actress. By the way, I liked Clarissa Moore more than the squeezed intern Foster, which pretty contributed to the plot, and “Hannibal”, despite all its features (I will not say “flaws”) – my favorite film trilogy about the doctor. Of course, as soon as "Dragon" appeared at the box office, I was ready to pounce on it as a delicacy, forgetting about the prices and composition of ingredients. Despite the fact that I usually do not go to prequel restaurants, my brain is reluctant to accept the broken chronology of events. But this is Lecter. I'm coming.
At that time, I had not read books, did not even bother to look into the synopsis, and therefore expected that the prequel would become a biography of Lecter before he was caught and placed in the Chilton clinic with an explanation of his “illness” and gastronomic addictions and, as a result, the disturbing story of his exposure and sentence to life imprisonment. What he did, who caught him and how - for an hour and a half of screen time. Thanks. I close, I give you the menu. Needless to say, the three-minute prologue that captured the arrest of the Baltimore psychiatrist was the entire contents of the plate that the waiter put in front of me, and swallowing it with one fork left me extremely unhappy and hungry. Delicious, but damn little! Very soon there was a cappuccino - just to stand the delicacy, cooled, weak and unsweetened. Cappuccino is Graham. A ragged, tired, crippled agent who would have been perfectly pale-sick-ordinary had it not been for Norton. During his dialogue with Lecter in the starter of the film, I was characteristically chuckled for a second by either Aaron Stampler or Tyler Durden, and I was seriously worried about the doctor, but very soon it became clear that William Graham is a good, kind, bland character in depressing positivity, and there will be no duels between him and Lecter. What will happen?
And I will find an error in the account submitted to me, which I will indignantly take for malicious intent. Namely, a one hundred percent story repetition of the “silent lambs”, the main advantage of which was the help of the monster in the search for a smaller monster. And since I can't bear the absence of Starling in the picture, this fint made me pretty angry. After all, I thought that Clarissa, considering her special, a good monster undertook to help for the first time, and then, excuse me, it turns out that Hannibal is ready to sell himself-kind for the sake of trifling privileges and fun to everyone who is not lazy! Ah, Doctor... Forgetting all manners, I argue with the waiter. Not only is Lecter old, and no tight corset with computer blore wrinkles no longer mask the appearance of Hopkins, who strongly lifts the chin, so that the head is not drawn into the shell, so there is still such petty treachery! Yes, by the way, your restaurant interior is unsightly and dull, and the music is so sluggish and monotonous that you can hear the tinkering in the kitchen. I do not know whether to rejoice or to grieve, but in the conversations between Will and the imprisoned psychiatrist there was neither the eschatological power of Lecter’s persuasion, nor the sophistication and intensity of passions, nor the soulfulness and intimacy, which is a dubious, but still a compliment to Clarissa. So, I pay the bill, I go to the wardrobe.
There's another trouble ahead of me. Namely, the ignorant wardrobe minister Frances Dollarchide. Despite the fact that Fiennes is a wonderful performer of freaks and scum, his Dragon is a schematic figure, undeciphered and not at all terrible, but pathetic in his opposition, because of which in the image-likeness he significantly loses Buffolo to Bill Levine. His motivation is vague and ordinary, references to Blake are understandable only to fans of Blake’s talent (I was forced to turn to Google, because I never heard what kind of dragon and who is a “woman dressed in the sun”). More precisely, by what criterion did he choose his mother for the upcoming "transformations", although the Lector three or four times persistently persuaded the Febeer to clarify this point. Only the lazy did not lament that Dolarheim "divide to maniac" too quickly, and also quickly, briefly revealed. Slip and slide. In Criminal Minds, maniacs are treated more respectfully, despite the fact that there are hundreds of them, and here there is one. Well, two. And both are taken from a distance. Scary Ratner, come closer! Closer, closer!
My coat was found, but there are spots on the hem! It's trampled! Dirt is a blind Reba Watson, who is supposed to regret her disability and a tragic affair with a schizophrenic gentleman, and I would probably regret, despite my dislike for an ugly actress, if the blind lady did not suddenly begin to feel the genitals of an animal, so that then this indecent gesture can be successfully repeated with the genitals of a newfound lover. The high spirituality of relations in this manner turned out to be neat at the level of the Dolorheid width and higher was no longer rushed. A little more dirt is Freddy Lands. The talented Hoffman is disgusting everywhere, but disgusting in a good way. Well? Again good, but again little!
I got dressed, I'm leaving. As a film separate from the Hannibal-Cannibal trilogy (combined by both book and cast), Dragon would have been an average, quite entertaining thriller, however, since it was designed primarily for discerning fans of the trilogy, in my eyes he is a Baltimore flutist whom Lecter deservedly ate, so that the woeful musician did not spoil the sound of the philharmonic orchestra with his play. Bon appetite, Dr. Lecter!
“Red Dragon” by Brett Retner precedes the events of “The Silence of the Lambs” and “Hannibal”, because the picture is perceived in a completely different way and looks like a more independent, more independent film work from the literary source. The structure of “Red Dragon” is similar to the first film, because Hannibal Lecter in the brilliant performance of Anthony Hopkins in this tape again a little.
Brett Retner’s film moved away from the stylistic delights of the two previous films, focusing on the skillful injection of suspense and the acting of the entire cast, which included Edward Norton, who perfectly played Will Graham, an FBI agent who caught Hannibal-Cannibal, and Harvey Keitel, who played his boss, and Ralph Fiennes, who managed to reincarnate from an intellectual Russophile into a monstrous maniac named “The Tooth Fairy”, who became a worthy competitor to Hannibal. In small roles even coveted Emily Watson and Philip Seymour Hoffman, who played their roles on 10 plus.
"Red Dragon" is a bright, tense thriller with a wonderful cast, unpredictable plot and delightful music of Danny Elfman, creating a Hitchcock atmosphere in the film. Fans of high-quality psychopathological thrillers should not miss the film in any case.
9 out of 10
The third part of the franchise about the brilliant madman Hannibal Lecter is not full of originality. There is no Clarissa Starling and no one eats their brain. Bloodiness decreased, but interest disappeared only a little. In particular, the first half of the session is all detective, the thriller is not observed. It's all talk. But minutes from the sixties or so, the viewer will be pleased with something “sharp” with a love seasoning. And if at all allow myself the audacity to put labels, I can confidently call this "hannibal" series the most soulful among all the others. And immediately recalls the film, released even before “Silence of the Lambs” and is a kind of the first of its kind filmed “Red Dragon”, but its name is somewhat different – “Human Hunter”. So the first screen version of the story replicates pretty much everything you've seen or seen in CD, but in a slightly different light, and the film is a bit old. We don’t even see a maniac there.
Naturally, in the film adaptation of Brett Ratner in a different way: the monster “Toot Fairy” just polishes the screen, which, however, is even better. The melodrama also looks more vivid: the feeling for a blind girl is played wonderfully. And in general, you can boast of the entire cast. Edward Norton had only appeared before my eyes so far in American History X, where he did not fail, but now it was interesting to see him as a blonde FBI agent. The moment when Will Graham walks down a dark corridor to visit Lecter, generally draws an analogy with the same tense minutes when Clarissa was still walking to the same famous character. Beautiful for suspense.
The final scene was dynamic and even touching in some ways, just like when the house was set on fire. And the most recent episode already with Lecter is a direct premise to "The Silence of the Lambs."
That’s how everything is wonderful and without unnecessary anatomical delights, although human meat is also eaten a couple of times. But it doesn't savor.
And so you need to suffer some boredom at the beginning of the viewing, if you really want action. But it’s not just the action that awaits you...