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…

This is no time for puns! Even good ones.

Mr. Peabody and Sherman (2014)
Perhaps I've done DreamWorks Animation (SKG, Inc., etc.) a slight injustice. The studio has been content to run an assembly line of pop culture raiding, broad-brush properties and so-so sequels almost since its inception, but the cracks in their method have begun to show more overtly in recent years. They’ve been looking tired, and too many of their movies haven’t done the business they would have liked. Yet both their 2014 deliveries, How to Train Your Dragon 2 and Mr. Peabody & Sherman, take their standard approach but manage to add something more. Dragon 2 has a lot of heart, which one couldn’t really say about Peabody (it’s more sincere elements feel grafted on, and largely unnecessary). Peabody, however, is witty, inventive and pacey, abounding with sight gags and clever asides while offering a time travel plotline that doesn’t talk down to its family audience.

I haven’t seen the The Rocky & Bullwinkle Show, from which Mr. Peabody & Sh…

Espionage isn’t a game, it’s a war.

The Avengers 3.3: The Nutshell
Philip Chambers first teleplay (of two) for the series, and Raymond Menmuir’s second (also of two) as director, The Nutshell is an effective little whodunit in which Steed (again) poses as a bad guy, and Cathy (again) appears to be at loggerheads with him. The difference here is how sustained the pretence is, though; we aren’t actually in on the details until the end, and the whole scenario is played decidedly straight.

Set mostly in a bunker (the Nutshell of the title), quarter of a mile underground and providing protection for the “all the best people” (civil servants bunk on level 43; Steed usually gets off at the 18th) in the event of a thermo-nuclear onslaught, the setting is something of a misdirection, since it is also a convenient place to store national security archives, known as Big Ben (Bilateral Infiltration Great Britain, Europe and North America). Big Ben has been stolen. Or rather, the microfilm with details of all known double agents on bot…

I know what I'm gonna do tomorrow, and the next day, and the next year, and the year after that.

It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)
It’s a Wonderful Life is an unassailable classic, held up as an embodiment of true spirit of Christmas and a testament to all that is good and decent and indomitable in humanity. It deserves its status, even awash with unabashed sentimentality that, for once, actually seems fitting. But, with the reams of plaudits aimed at Frank Capra’s most enduring film, it is also worth playing devil’s advocate for a moment or two. One can construe a number of not nearly so life-affirming undercurrents lurking within it, both intentional and unintentional on the part of its director. And what better time to Grinch-up such a picture than when bathed in the warmth of a yuletide glow?

The film was famously not a financial success on initial release, as is the case with a number of now hallowed movies, its reputation burgeoning during television screenings throughout the 1970s. Nevertheless, It’s a Wonderful Life garnered a brace of Oscar nominations including Best Picture and…

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

He’d been clawed to death, as though by some bird. Some huge, obscene bird.

The Avengers 5.6: The Winged Avenger
Maybe I’m just easily amused, such that a little Patrick Macnee uttering “Ee-urp!” goes a long way, but I’m a huge fan of The Winged Avenger. It’s both a very silly episode and about as meta as the show gets, and one in which writer Richard Harris (1.3: Square Root of Evil, 1.10: Hunt the Man Down) succeeds in casting a wide net of suspects but effectively keeps the responsible party’s identity a secret until late in the game.

Ah yes, the legendary 007 wit, or at least half of it.

The World is Not Enough (1999)
(SPOILERS) The last Bond film of the 20th century unfortunately continues the downward trend of the Brosnan era, which had looked so promising after the reinvigorated approach to Goldeneye. The World is Not Enough’s screenplay posseses a number of strong elements (from the now ever present Robert Wade and Neal Purvis, and a sophomore Bruce Feirstein), some of which have been recycled in the Craig era, but they’ve been mashed together with ill-fitting standard Bond tropes that puncture any would-be substance (Bond’s last line before the new millennium is one Roger Moore would have relished). And while a structure that stop-starts doesn’t help the overall momentum any, nor does the listlessness of drama director Michael Apted, such that when the sporadic bursts of action do arrive there’s no disguising the joins between first and second unit, any prospect of thrills evidently unsalvageable in the edit.

Taking its cues from the curtailed media satire of Tomorr…

Dirty is exactly why you're here.

Sicario 2: Soldado aka Sicario: Day of the Soldado (2018)
(SPOILERS) I wasn't among the multitude greeting the first Sicario with rapturous applause. It felt like a classic case of average material significantly lifted by the diligence of its director (and cinematographer and composer), but ultimately not all that. Any illusions that this gritty, violent, tale of cynicism and corruption – all generally signifiers of "realism" – in waging the War on Drugs had a degree of credibility well and truly went out the window when we learned that Benicio del Toro's character Alejandro Gillick wasn't just an unstoppable kickass ninja hitman; he was a grieving ex-lawyer turned unstoppable kickass ninja hitman. Sicario 2: Soldadograzes on further difficult-to-digest conceits, so in that respect is consistent, and – ironically – in some respects fares better than its predecessor through being more thoroughly genre-soaked and so avoiding the false doctrine of "revealing" …

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …