Hannibal Lecter films

I've been re-reading RED DRAGON and I have to say that for me William Petersen IS Will Graham. It's perfect casting to me. Ed Norton isn't a bad choice for the other version. I can't think of a better choice from ten years ago, at least not off the top of my head.



But as with everyone else in that movie, Norton was in for the fat check. It's like he's on valium. And his hair is F***IN' weird in that movie. He doesn't look like a guy who fixes boat motors in the Keys. So Petersen is Graham to me.

Lecter/Lecktor? Well, I'm firmly in the Hopkins camp overall, but I like Brian Cox as well. When it comes to these two films, though, I go for Cox because Hopkins is, like Norton, obviously in it for the money. Granted, I've not seen Ratner's movie in several years. This is all from memory.

Jack Crawford? Well, I think Harvey Keitel is physically right for it because he strikes me as being more like John Douglas. Of course, I'm also a big Scott Glenn fan, and he portrays the right intellectual quality. I like Farina, but he's really too "blue collar cop" to me. He was a detective in real life, but he comes off as "cop" to me rather than as "FBI man".

Dolarhyde? Noonan. But Fiennes, from memory, was the bright spot in RED DRAGON for me.

Russell Crowe would have been my choice for Will Graham in Brett Ratner's RED DRAGON. No idea whether he was considered for the role, but he's the actor I'd have chosen. As for Jack Crawford, your mention of John Douglas made me think Michael Douglas might have been a good fit for the part.

RED DRAGON is by far the most compelling of the Lecter flicks, if only thanks to Norton, Fiennes, and an unusually good Danny Elfman score.

A thread isn't a thread without Sharky popping in to give an unorthodox opinion. ;)

I haven't seen either HANNIBAL or RED DRAGON in years, but I recall RD being the single most perfunctory movie I'd ever seen. Everyone was in it for a paycheck. As I recall it's not a "bad" movie, just a lifeless one.

I only saw SILENCE and HANNIBAL. Never had that much interest in seeing the others, even RED DRAGON. MANHUNTER seems intriguing, so I might give it a watch someday.

Oh yeah and I have to mention HANNIBAL RISING because it will never be mentioned in this thread ever again.

Sharky wrote:

RED DRAGON is by far the most compelling of the Lecter flicks, if only thanks to Norton, Fiennes, and an unusually good Danny Elfman score.

I just remembered something. I said a few months ago that LAMBS is a faithful adaptation of the book, and you said, I believe, "that's why it fails".

But RED DRAGON, whatever it's flaws, is also a very faithful adaptation of the source material (albeit with added Lecter scenes and that horrible tacked on ending).

:|

At least LAMBS has life. DRAGON is utterly hollow if memory serves. I'll be seeing it again soon, though.

LAMBS takes a good book and puts it on the screen, preserving the journey of Starling and her relationship with Lecter. DRAGON is a cynical cash-in.

Makeshift Python wrote:

I only saw SILENCE and HANNIBAL. Never had that much interest in seeing the others, even RED DRAGON. MANHUNTER seems intriguing, so I might give it a watch someday.

Oh yeah and I have to mention HANNIBAL RISING because it will never be mentioned in this thread ever again.

I'll guess you haven't read the books. I'd say watch RED DRAGON first to get an idea of what the novel is like in terms of story, though they add more Lecter scenes. Graham and Lecter only meet once in the book, and once in MANHUNTER. And the book doesn't have the prologue that Ratner's film has. But then watch MANHUNTER.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAAT-C_-snA#t=7m28s

I only cared for Manhunter and Silence of the Lambs.

I tired to watch the sequel to Silence of the Lambs with Julianne Moore and I ended up walking out of the theater.

There was another one after that, wasn't it?

I didn't even bother to see it in the theater or on home video.

I watched SOTL in January on blu-ray. Twas a great film.

Then in Media, my teacher said we were studying it. So, I've seen it three times this year, plus the opening and closing scenes about 7 in total in three months. I'm a bit over it now...

But it's a fantastic film. The score, the acting - especially Hopkins -, the direction. The direct camera sometimes cheapens the film's impact, though sometimes it's fantastic - especially during Clarice's first meeting with Hannibal. Plus, it's not the prettiest film to look at, but that's understandable given the subject matter.

My media teacher recommended that we don't watch the sequels because they don't compare to the SOTL. Eventually, I'll probably check them out, though I'm not in any hurry to.

FieldsMan wrote:

My media teacher

Destroy the West now.

After seeing MANHUNTER, I've never been willing to return to the other Lecter films.

I'm not a fan of the PC gestapo, but I was hoping that "gay slur" would have ruined Brett Ratner's career so I'd never have to see or hear his name again.

Sharky wrote:

...and an unusually good Danny Elfman score.

The main theme was pretty decent, from what I remember.

Mr. Brown wrote:

After seeing MANHUNTER, I've never been willing to return to the other Lecter films.

I'm not a fan of the PC gestapo, but I was hoping that "gay slur" would have ruined Brett Ratner's career so I'd never have to see or hear his name again.

It's amazing how Brett Ratner can embody all of the vices and none of the qualities of Hollywood.
He's what happens when you continue to hire and pay a person who got into the business to snort cocaine off the T&A of wannabe actresses.

Δ

Salomé wrote:

He's what happens when you continue to hire and pay a person who got into the business to snort cocaine off the T&A of wannabe actresses.

I'd like to say I've found better things to do in life, Oppers, but I haven't.

Mr. Brown wrote:

After seeing MANHUNTER, I've never been willing to return to the other Lecter films.

Gonna watch the Hopkins trilogy tomorrow. I still like TSOTL, probably about as much as MANHUNTER, though in different ways. I've got the Mann commentary on now, good stuff.

And Brett Raturd needs to have a visit from Brian Cox and Anthony Hopkins.

I'm watching MANHUNTER FOR MORONS, aka RED DRAGON. It's worse than I remembered.

Thoughts thus far?

-The added prologue is actually pretty decent. The only decent thing I've seen from the movie yet (I'm paused at 48:55).
-They have Lecter on a bungee chord inside of a gym at a mental hospital?
-The normally irritating Phillip Seymour Hoffman seems to have no personality here.
-Nobody seems to give a fuck. Hopkins might as well be asleep. I like Cox in MANHUNTER better than Hopkins in RED DRAGON.

Good God, Hopkins doing the scene where he's getting Graham's address... It's got no energy.

Δ

I gave up on RED DRAGON. The movie is just getting worse and worse as it goes along. I skipped the to last few minutes, it was laughably bad.

I'll tell you the moment that killed it for me. It's when Emily Watson hands the (whatever it was) to Dolarhyde, and she's got it feet away from him. Fuck you, Ratner. That wasn't Watson's fault, it's Ratner's, because he makes movies for fucking morons.


"Emily, make sure you hand it to the Ralph about five feet from him because you're supposed to be blind and blind people are fucking retarded fags. And ACTION!"

Δ

Sharky wrote:

Norton and Fiennes alone put it head and shoulders above the rest of the Lecter flicks. .

I think Petersen and Noonan own their roles in MANHUNTER. Petersen is perfect. I've been (slowly, bit by bit) reading RED DRAGON, and I picture Petersen totally.

Not that I'd call MANHUNTER perfect. My jury is still out on my ultimate opinion of the film.

Oh yeah, I also prefer Foster to Norton, though I think Norton is doing good work in RED DRAGON. I think the film is crippled by Ratner's direction. Tally's script is alright.

I also don't like Ratner's cheap scare tactics.