Red Dragon (2002)
6/10
Unnecessary
6 April 2007
There are many reasons for remaking a classic, apart from just making money. These reasons include contemporary relevance (War of the Worlds), the original was the directors favorite film (King Kong), experimentation (Psycho), re imagining the original (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) and a 6/6/06 release date (The Omen). However, one of the worst reasons ever is so that Anthony Hopkins can replace Brian Cox and take the originals place in a classic horror franchise.

Manhunter is a classic, as is The Silence of the Lambs. The problem is that Anthony Hopkins is more well known as Hannibal Lecter, and as such he needs to appear in the 'official' Manhunter remake, rendering the original obsolete in the series.

So how is the film anyway? Well, it goes without saying that Manhunter was far better. As far as remakes go, Red Dragon is OK, but nowhere near as good as the original two.

Anthony Hopkins is terribly overused. His performance is good, but his effect in the previous films came from his hardly appearing.

Edward Norton is good in his simple everyman role, and Harvey Keitel brings a solid supporting character. Ralph Fiennes is an excellent villain, easy to both detest and feel sorry for.

The direction is par, without any of the style of the previous films. The script is very good, keeping close to the novel.

In all, Red Dragon is a good film, but wholly unnecessary. Stick with the brilliant Manhunter.
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed