You can't help but to keep thinking of Manhunter and I went into this film thinking what did they have to offer that the first version didn't already do on another level? Well, it is more faithful to the book. There's no denying that. But Manhunter is clearly a much more superior film. Lecter's role is of course expanded and thats okay but lets compare the rest of the film. Edward Norton and William Petersen. Petersen's Will Graham is a very complex person with psychological problems and his family also suffers because of it. Norton's version has none of that, he's just dutiful to his job. Mary Louise Parker as his wife just sits there and nods her head! Where was the development of her character? The biggest flaw for me was Ralph Fiennes as Dolarhyde. Fiennes is really not very tall. In fact when he stands next to the wee Emily Watson he's not that much taller. Tom Noonan was a much better Dolarhyde. He stands like 6'7" or something, a real monstrous presence. Fiennes is maybe 5'9", MAYBE!! And now to Brett Ratner. He does a decent job here but does this film have any real style or vision? Not really, and we all know Michael Mann is a genius with his visionary style. Noonan's character was a real monster. Fiennes seems to come off as just a kook. While I didn't dislike this film, it just seems to be made by the numbers. It looks good, has great actors and is faithful to the original story. But where is the heart and vision? Manhunter had all of that, and more.
Review of Red Dragon
