I saw 'Manhunter' ages ago so I won't bother with making comparisons. Ratner's 'Red Dragon' is smeared with blood, gore and violence (obviously to pull a crowd). It's nowhere near as good as 'Silence of the Lambs' but an okay watch, mainly because of the cast (which range from very good to awful). We'll come to that later.
What bothered me most about 'Red Dragon was the use of clichés and silly twists (I mean how many times do we have to see the killer return from death in the last moment just to die in the hands of the hero?). The writing too does not convince. Crawford and his team's indifference towards Hoffman's Freddie's death didn't settle quite well with me. After all, they were responsible for it. Ratner's film is pretty much like an average slasher thriller with some strong characters (like Emily Watson's Reba and Ralph Fiennes's Francis) famous actors and good technology.
Now speaking of the actors, Anthony Hopkins really seems to go over the top this time almost as if he's spoofing Hannibal Lecter. Perhaps he's fed up of playing the cannibal. Ralph Fiennes looks miscast as Francis but he's brilliant in his scenes with Watson. Harvey Keitel is quite bad. Edward Norton does a good job overall. He's exceptional in a few scenes but Graham's indifference towards Freddie's death takes away from his performance. I don't understand why an actor like Philip Seymour Hoffman chose to play a typical character like Freddy Lounds who's a jerk whom we know will die. Mary-Louise Parker makes good use of her little screen time. Emily Watson is excellent (she clearly acts the best of all).
Overall, if it weren't for the actors, I wouldn't have liked it as much. There are some scenes that are very effective and it is the actors who convince. Examples include the scenes with Watson and Fiennes, the last scene with Norton and Watson, Parker and Norton's scenes and the first scene with Hopkins and Norton.
What bothered me most about 'Red Dragon was the use of clichés and silly twists (I mean how many times do we have to see the killer return from death in the last moment just to die in the hands of the hero?). The writing too does not convince. Crawford and his team's indifference towards Hoffman's Freddie's death didn't settle quite well with me. After all, they were responsible for it. Ratner's film is pretty much like an average slasher thriller with some strong characters (like Emily Watson's Reba and Ralph Fiennes's Francis) famous actors and good technology.
Now speaking of the actors, Anthony Hopkins really seems to go over the top this time almost as if he's spoofing Hannibal Lecter. Perhaps he's fed up of playing the cannibal. Ralph Fiennes looks miscast as Francis but he's brilliant in his scenes with Watson. Harvey Keitel is quite bad. Edward Norton does a good job overall. He's exceptional in a few scenes but Graham's indifference towards Freddie's death takes away from his performance. I don't understand why an actor like Philip Seymour Hoffman chose to play a typical character like Freddy Lounds who's a jerk whom we know will die. Mary-Louise Parker makes good use of her little screen time. Emily Watson is excellent (she clearly acts the best of all).
Overall, if it weren't for the actors, I wouldn't have liked it as much. There are some scenes that are very effective and it is the actors who convince. Examples include the scenes with Watson and Fiennes, the last scene with Norton and Watson, Parker and Norton's scenes and the first scene with Hopkins and Norton.