bnorthup
10-07-2002, 10:57 AM
Red Dragon (R)
At the Gaslight
*** 3 stars
Tastes good, but less filling
By Brent Northup
Hannibal doesn’t have any friends for dinner in his latest film, but he does enjoy eating away at the best crime minds in the business.
Anthony Hopkins is back again as the Hannibal the Cannibal in “Red Dragon,” a prequel to “Silence of the Lambs.” Moviegoers should be forewarned that Hannibal spends virtually the whole film in jail – this is NOT a Hannibal film.
Instead, this is a crime drama in which Hannibal’s mind is picked by a detective who is trying to solve some gruesome murders. The good doctor Hopkins, world expert on criminal mischief, becomes a willing/unwilling assistant in the investigation in order to earn a few small favors from his prison captors.
Or so it all seems, at first.
Although “Lambs” remains the tour de force of the Hannibal films, this entry is a respectable chapter. Despite some excessively graphic violence and a sense of cinematic déjà vu, “Red Dragon” is a classy horror film, featuring some fine acting, visually elegant cinematography – and a passable crime mystery.
As for me, I can enjoy Hopkins no matter what he’s doing. He’s the ultimate invisible actor whose own personality – whatever that might be – dissolves into whatever role he’s playing. He’s a malleable mannequin waiting for his next wardrobe.
The supporting cast is stellar as well. Edward Norton is fine as the Porfiry-like investigator playing with the mind of the criminal. Ralph Fiennes is frighteningly effective as the tattooed villain whose satanic soul is committing some gruesome crimes. And Emily Watson does a nice Audrey Hepburn turn (a la “Wait Until Dark”) as a blind woman tiptoeing through the world of a killer.
The film never adds up to great illumination, but it is a solid genre film. Translation: Horror fans should be sufficiently entertained to be pleased, while fans of “Gandhi” and “American Beauty” may notice slight hollowness at the core of this cinematic appetizer.
It’s worth asking, with such gruesome fare, what purpose horror films serve? The traditional answers range from providing a socially acceptable adrenaline rush to providing an escape valve for pent up dark emotions in people who need such a release. (That’s a scary thought, by the way.)
My personal view is that horror films provide an exploration of fear – and that is what fascinates us. Fear can be explored without graphic scenes, of course, as Hitchcock proved. Modern directors substitute gore when they aren’t good enough to generate fear the old fashioned way – through our minds, not our eyes.
“Silence of the Lambs” was a classic horror film, worthy of a nod from Hitch. But the Hannibal sequels and prequels are ultimately genre films without the psychological depth of the original.
END
At the Gaslight
*** 3 stars
Tastes good, but less filling
By Brent Northup
Hannibal doesn’t have any friends for dinner in his latest film, but he does enjoy eating away at the best crime minds in the business.
Anthony Hopkins is back again as the Hannibal the Cannibal in “Red Dragon,” a prequel to “Silence of the Lambs.” Moviegoers should be forewarned that Hannibal spends virtually the whole film in jail – this is NOT a Hannibal film.
Instead, this is a crime drama in which Hannibal’s mind is picked by a detective who is trying to solve some gruesome murders. The good doctor Hopkins, world expert on criminal mischief, becomes a willing/unwilling assistant in the investigation in order to earn a few small favors from his prison captors.
Or so it all seems, at first.
Although “Lambs” remains the tour de force of the Hannibal films, this entry is a respectable chapter. Despite some excessively graphic violence and a sense of cinematic déjà vu, “Red Dragon” is a classy horror film, featuring some fine acting, visually elegant cinematography – and a passable crime mystery.
As for me, I can enjoy Hopkins no matter what he’s doing. He’s the ultimate invisible actor whose own personality – whatever that might be – dissolves into whatever role he’s playing. He’s a malleable mannequin waiting for his next wardrobe.
The supporting cast is stellar as well. Edward Norton is fine as the Porfiry-like investigator playing with the mind of the criminal. Ralph Fiennes is frighteningly effective as the tattooed villain whose satanic soul is committing some gruesome crimes. And Emily Watson does a nice Audrey Hepburn turn (a la “Wait Until Dark”) as a blind woman tiptoeing through the world of a killer.
The film never adds up to great illumination, but it is a solid genre film. Translation: Horror fans should be sufficiently entertained to be pleased, while fans of “Gandhi” and “American Beauty” may notice slight hollowness at the core of this cinematic appetizer.
It’s worth asking, with such gruesome fare, what purpose horror films serve? The traditional answers range from providing a socially acceptable adrenaline rush to providing an escape valve for pent up dark emotions in people who need such a release. (That’s a scary thought, by the way.)
My personal view is that horror films provide an exploration of fear – and that is what fascinates us. Fear can be explored without graphic scenes, of course, as Hitchcock proved. Modern directors substitute gore when they aren’t good enough to generate fear the old fashioned way – through our minds, not our eyes.
“Silence of the Lambs” was a classic horror film, worthy of a nod from Hitch. But the Hannibal sequels and prequels are ultimately genre films without the psychological depth of the original.
END