|
|
I saw Red Dragon today.
I agree with videdrome - less Lecter would be better. I found him far more effective in Manhunter, simply because he was played SO straight. It was disturbing to think him mad because he seemed so... normal. Hopkins' leering just isn't as convincing.
But it makes many changes for the better. All the cast are fabulous, really. I thought Fiennes couldn't possibly live up to Noonan, and perhaps physically he can't - but he grabs sympathy far better. The real change between this and Manhunter, I felt, was the focus on Dollarhyde. He's not just some generic-wacko; he's portrayed more personally. The mother's influence is stronger, and the glimpses of his humanity (and, when he's watching Reba walking around the fountain, his weaknesses) are very powerful.
The whole thing is about contrast: Dollarhyde is meant to be compared to Lecter; the reason Dollarhyde isn't as successful, as focused, and ultimately loses is because he isn't entirely mad - some of him's still human, some of him perhaps could have been saved. Lecter is insane - and the thing about being made, becoming, or (as in Lecter's case), what you are from birth, is most effectively played out.
Similarly Graham: part of him's the cop, as played by Harvey Keitel, who gets stuff done, detaches entirely, and is workmanlike; part of him's the psychopath, Fiennes and Lecter, because (much as he hates it), he can think like them; and, most importantly, part of him's the victim, like Emily Watson, and that's the part that keeps him human and (just about) alive.
Some weak moments? Perhaps. I did find there was a little too much "love" given to Lecter - not so much screen time, but simply how he was shown on screen; he seemed to be painted like a star, and Brian Cox was painted entirely normally. But I loved some of the camerawork - the floating-dolly up to the Dolarhyde house is fabulous, and the IR-stuff in the processing lab is great too.
There's only ONE shot I'd have liked from Manhunter back, and that's Dolarhyde when he finally acquires his "wings". It'd have been nice, that's all. But it was most enjoyable, if still (for someone who's seen Manhunter) quite scary - a decent thriller with no descent into crappy action sequences. And, unlike Mann's film, it kept the title of the book and wasn't afraid to give the William Blake the respect it deserves; it's now restored to its rightful important place. Similarly, the themes of Family, Sight, etc, are all much more strongly brought out without being too evident. Oh, and (much as I'm not into tatts/bodymodding/anything like that), Fiennes' tattoo is just marvellous... watching it flex is most impressive
I thought the opening bookend was perhaps too long, but didn't find too many obvious flaws. Phillip Seymour Hoffman perhaps wasn't as good as I'd hoped. And there was too much foreshadowing - it clearly fits into the trilogy in the correct place, but I wished they'd leave it out; leave this film as a standalone thing. The last thirty seconds after the shot of the boat were particularly heinous in that respect. But bar that, I enjoyed it a lot; it's solid, interesting if not conventionally 'enjoyable', and refreshingly intelligent.
Useless trivia: the voice of the YOUNG Dolarhyde is Alex D. Linz, who was the kid in Home Alone 3, and as a result, I left considering that perhaps he maybe DID deserve a little of what he got... |
|
|