Skip to main content

Remarkable boy. I do admire your courage. I think I'll eat your heart.


Red Dragon
(2002)

So you have a strong script from Ted Tally, Oscar winner for adapting the follow-up novel ten years previously. And you’re working from a novel that is arguably even better than the one that resulted in awards glory. You have Oscar winner Anthony Hopkins, reprising his most iconic role for the second time. You have a dream supporting cast of well-respected actors, from Edward Norton and Ralph Fiennes to Philip Seymour Hoffman and Emily Watson. What could go possibly go wrong? I guess, employ Brett Ratner.

Dino De Laurentis was nothing if not opportunistic. His 1986 production of Red Dragon, directed by Michael Mann and released as Manhunter (the title was changed because Dino didn’t want it to be confused with his flop Mickey Rourke vehicle Year of the Dragon) bombed at the box office despite being critically acclaimed. It was only natural, then, that he would try and make something off the back The Silence of the Lambs’ success.

First came Hannibal, a ropey novel turned into a slightly-less-ropey film by Ridley Scott. It was a huge hit thanks to the return of Anthony Hopkins as lip-smacking, courteous serial killer Hannibal Lector. Jodie Foster demurred, however, and was replaced by Julianne Moore. Never one to mince words De Laurentis commented that Moore was a better Clarice as she had “sex appeal”. It may just be the producer’s clumsy English, but he did seem partial to bull-in-a-china-shop comments. His view of Manhunter was that it was “no good”. Presumably it was this keen artistic sensibility that guided him to select Ratner as the director of the remake, which appeared hot-on-the-heels of Hannibal (one year later). That Michael Bay was offered the reins first gives you an idea of how far Dino’s head was up his own arse (although, just for the perverse curiosity’s sake, I’d have liked to see what Bay’s ADD approach would have yielded).

I think I was slightly more charitable to Red Dragon when it first came out, perhaps appreciating how much close it hewed to the novel. But in Ratner’s hands it becomes a tiresomely literal retread. Where Manhunter remained true to the source material, we frequently find Red Dragon is a word-for-word remount of scenes. But minus any of the style or atmosphere Mann brought to the material. Ironically, Ratner’s cinematographer of choice, Dante Spinotti, also lensed Mann’s film. Manhunter is iconic ‘80s noir, a film of deep, dark blues and uneasy synths. Ratner’s has no identity. And worse, no guiding intelligence. Mann’s smarts are in every scene, carefully composing the visuals and editing to work hand-in-hand with FBI agent Will Graham’s insights. Ratner can only clumsily trail the master at best; although he makes no attempt to copy Mann’s visual style, he shows undue deference to Silence, returning us to Lector’s familiar cell and bringing back staff members Anthony Heald (Dr. Chilton) and Frankie Faison (Barney). One of the few instances where Ratner leaves an impression is the single take leading us through locked door after locked door down to this dungeon.

A good example of how creatively bereft Ratner is comes in Graham’s survey of the house where the second murders took place. Norton’s Graham comes in at night with a flashlight (because dark = atmosphere, right? – we’ve all seen The X-Files) and, as in Mann’s film, he speaks into a tape recorder as he puts together the scene of the crime. But Ratner accompanies each insight with a barrage of quick cuts of the carnage; that’s what is going through Graham’s mind, see? Which is the most familiar and banal device possible. In contrast, Mann lets the sequence play out on Graham alone. Norton’s a bit unstuck in all this. He gives it his best shot, and certainly sells the idea of a fearful, nervy guy who doesn’t want to be there. But he has none of William Peterson’s low-key, haunted brooding. With Peterson, you can sense the pain. With Norton, Graham is just earnestly limp.

Tally’s script understandably beefs up Lector’s involvement; the prologue sets the scene with Graham’s realisation of Lector’s true nature and the ensuing face-off between the two of them. This should be dynamite, and as written by Tally there is little to complain about. But Ratner shoots it without any sense of atmosphere or build-up; the evidence of Lector’s guilt is just waiting there on the sideboard for Graham to open. There is more tension in Peterson’s account of the incident in Manhunter than there is here. Admittedly, Ratner can put together a perfectly serviceable action sequence; the fireworks at the beginning and climax work reasonably well. But “serviceable” is the key word here. You could find them in any thriller, but you’d wonder why such a strong cast is slumming it there.

Graham has three further encounters with Lector. One might argue this serves to lessen his abilities; in Mann’s film he has the one meeting to “pick up the scent again”. I don’t think this matters too much, as you can clearly see Norton enjoying himself with Hopkins; it’s the same kind of vibe you get from The Score, where the thesps are clearly superior to the film they’re in. But Ratner flunks the Rolodex scene that, as played by Brian Cox, may be the most wining Lector moment on film. There is no scene-setting here; the Doctor is just on the phone (apparently at his leisure to call whomsoever he chooses), and Hopkins can’t resist piling on a bit of ham. Hopkins is predictably fine, but there is no challenge here, and he looks every bit 10 years older than when he first played the role (not the 10-ish years younger that the film has in mind). Again, you might argue this doesn’t matter too much as it’s just nice to see him back (for the last time, unless we’re due an octogenarian Hannibal at some point). But it does rather press the point that it is all rather unnecessary and has been done far, far better already.

I’m afraid I’m going to continue comparing the two versions, as it’s the best way of illustrating how mediocre Red Dragon is. Ralph Fiennes’ Francis Dollarhyde is certainly established with more defrence to the book; he lives in his grandmother’s disused nursing home and we hear her voice (that of Ellen Burstyn) haunting his thoughts. So now we can make the connection with whose false teeth he is wearing, and identify the abuse that he has suffered. Certainly, Dollarhyde’s flash pad-with-a-view seemed entirely incongruous in Manhunter, and was the one area that stood out like a sore thumb.

But Dollarhyde as played by Fiennes never seems especially, well, special. I might point to the hair lip failing to disguise Fiennes’ handsome features, but it’s ultimately the director who cannot make his monster memorable. Tom Noonan’s trod the line between creepy and sympathetic with such skill that Ralph cannot compete. It was suggested at the time of Manhunter’s release that some of the excisions from the novel were wise, for the benefit of verisimilitude. Like Dollarhyde eating the Blake painting. Ratner includes it, of course, but it just hangs there with no meaning or resonance. Not even hyperbole. He includes it because it’s in the script. The exquisite scene in Mann’s film where Dollarhyde takes Reba (played by Joan Allen there, here by Watson; there’s little to choose between them, performance-wise) is similarly lacking in potency. Mann made it almost overpoweringly sensual; if his soundtrack choices in that film are variable, he decisively scores in that scene. Danny Elfman’s score for Red Dragon is mostly forgettable, the odd moments aside (his accompaniment to the sight of second crime scene is one of the few unsettling moments in the whole film).

So, although we know much more of Dollarhyde, there’s a sense of less-is-more. In Manhunter you feel his wounded rage. Here he is rendered just another psycho, despite Tally’s attempts otherwise. Philip Seymour Hoffman seems like perfect casting as Freddy Lounds, but his flabby schlub holds none of the weasely power seen in Stephen Lang’s iteration. You can only shrug when Norton grabs Hoffman, but you’re shocked when Peterson throws Lang across the bonnet of a car. And there’s a palpable horror to Lounds’ encounter with Dollarhyde, utterly absent here.

Mann eschewed Harris twist ending. Perhaps he though it was a De Palma moment too far. Or maybe it felt too contrived. It’s undoubtedly the case that it became a de rigueur move for any thriller or killer movie over the next 10 years. Again, Ratner reinstates the scene. He puts it together with an efficiently action-orientated eye. While Mary Louise Parker benefits from having something extra to do in the wife role, Graham’s psych-out of Dollarhyde is faintly silly as showcased by the director’s pedestrian method. This is another point about Harris’ novel that makes you realise how shrewd Mann’s choices were; Dollarhyde’s back-story is so derivative of Norman Bates that you risk looking ridiculous even going there. And you ensure that you will look daft if you’re a approach is utterly prosaic.

Red Dragon isn’t a bad film, but it demands attention for its resolute blandness. This is a textbook case of what happens when you employ a director with no feel for material or genre. It could have been worse, certainly (the hash Ratner made of X-Men: The Last Stand bears testament to that). That there is a classic film version of Red Dragon in existence makes Brett’s failure neither here nor there. It might have been a shame, for completion’s sake, if this had ridden on the coat tails of a superb screen version of Hannibal. The lack of reason to exist is highlighted by the film’s last scene, where the visit of a young FBI agent is announced to Lector; all Red Dragon amounts to is a scene-setter for Silence. As it is, Brian Cox and Anthony Hopkins remain one-for-one starring in great Hannibal Lector movies.

***

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

If a rat were to walk in here right now as I'm talking, would you treat it to a saucer of your delicious milk?

Inglourious Basterds (2009)
(SPOILERS) His staunchest fans would doubtless claim Tarantino has never taken a wrong step, but for me, his post-Pulp Fiction output had been either not quite as satisfying (Jackie Brown), empty spectacle (the Kill Bills) or wretched (Death Proof). It wasn’t until Inglourious Basterds that he recovered his mojo, revelling in an alternate World War II where Adolf didn’t just lose but also got machine gunned to death in a movie theatre showing a warmly received Goebbels-produced propaganda film. It may not be his masterpiece – as Aldo Raines refers to the swastika engraved on “Jew hunter” Hans Landa’s forehead, and as Tarantino actually saw the potential of his script – but it’s brimming with ideas and energy.

Check it out. I wonder if BJ brought the Bear with him.

Death Proof (2007)
(SPOILERS) In a way, I’m slightly surprised Tarantino didn’t take the opportunity to disown Death Proof, to claim that, as part of Grindhouse, it was no more one of his ten-official-films-and-out than his Four Rooms segment. But that would be to spurn the exploitation genre affectation that has informed everything he’s put his name to since Kill Bill, to a greater or less extent, and also require him to admit that he was wrong, and you won’t find him doing that for anything bar My Best Friend’s Birthday.

Hey, everybody. The bellboy's here.

Four Rooms (1995)
(SPOILERS) I had an idea that I’d only seen part of Four Rooms previously, and having now definitively watched the entire thing, I can see where that notion sprang from. It’s a picture that actively encourages you to think it never existed. Much of it isn’t even actively terrible – although, at the same time, it couldn’t be labelled remotely good– but it’s so utterly lethargic, so lacking in the energy, enthusiasm and inventiveness that characterises these filmmakers at their best – and yes, I’m including Rodriguez, although it’s a very limited corner for him – that it’s very easy to banish the entire misbegotten enterprise from your mind.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994)
(SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump. And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

That woman, deserves her revenge and… we deserve to die. But then again, so does she.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2  (2004)
(SPOILERS) I’m not sure I can really conclude whether one Kill Bill is better than the other, since I’m essentially with Quentin in his assertion that they’re one film, just cut into two for the purposes of a selling point. I do think Kill Bill: Vol. 2 has the movie’s one actually interesting character, though, and I’m not talking David Carradine’s title role.

The adversary oft comes in the shape of a he-goat.

The Witch (2015)
(SPOILERS) I’m not the biggest of horror buffs, so Stephen King commenting that The Witchscared the hell out of me” might have given me pause for what was in store. Fortunately, he’s the same author extraordinaire who referred to Crimson Peak as “just fucking terrifying” (it isn’t). That, and that general reactions to Robert Eggers’ film have fluctuated across the scale, from the King-type response on one end of the spectrum to accounts of unrelieved boredom on the other. The latter response may also contextualise the former, depending on just what King is referring to, because what’s scary about The Witch isn’t, for the most part, scary in the classically understood horror sense. It’s scary in the way The Wicker Man is scary, existentially gnawing away at one through judicious martialling of atmosphere, setting and theme.


Indeed, this is far more impressive a work than Ben Wheatley’s Kill List, which had hitherto been compared to The Wicker Man, succeeding admirably …