BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


the new Hannibal Lecter franchise...

 
 
priya narma
17:20 / 17.08.01
edward norton is slated to star in Red Dragon which is going to be a new adaptation of harris' Red Dragon (the first novel with hannibal lecter). anthony hopkins is in talks to play lecter again.

this got me thinking...does anyone like Manhunter, michael mann's 1986 adaptation of the novel? most people that i have asked don't even remember this movie and if they do the only comment they make is that they didn't like brian cox as lecter. i can't help but wonder if that is the only reason that hollywood is even making a new one...hence "the new hannibal lecter franchise". it annoys me to think that manhunter will be even less remembered after red dragon comes out. granted mann did seriously date the film in his miami vice kind of way and the whole thing does come off as way too clean and anticeptic but still, i really liked that movie. i liked william petersen as graham, i liked brian cox as lecter and tom noonan's 'tooth fairy' was so very very creepy ("do you see?").
perhaps i'm just being pigheaded in refusing to expand my horizons but an updated version of this movie really grates on my nerves. it's so hollywood with it's "let's milk this (insert new fad) thing for all it's worth" style. i can just see the pitch for this flick..."we'll get that hot young method actor, ed norton, and of course anthony will play lecter again..." *sigh* and don't even get me started on the movie soundtrack that will be put out with all of those cool new MTV bands on it...it literally makes me ill to think that the scene with shriekback's "coelocanth" and the tiger will be replaced or completley left out.

ok, well, i have completely succeeded in depressing myself over this...dammit.

so anyway, has anyone here seen manhunter, what did you think of it and what do you think of the "hannibal lecter franchise" mentality that is so prevalent in hollywood?

[ 17-08-2001: Message edited by: ari ]

[ 17-08-2001: Message edited by: ari ]
 
 
The Strobe
20:09 / 17.08.01
I rather liked Manhunter. I haven't really read Red Dragon, but I feel they should have stressed the idea of the Red Dragon itself a bit more. That said, Tom Noonan (iirc) is fantastic... he really IS huge, and a nutbag. He works. William Petersen is surprisingly good, given his real edginess working with Lecktor (as it's spelt in this movie) and his fear of the case. The forensic side of it is, of course, interesting, and the actual mystery is highly satisfying. Lecktor is interesting because it's evident he's insane (or whatever); the fact he's also vital to the case makes the whole lot so tricky.

OK, so it has the 80s score, and the overdose on Neon that you see in this period... but it's surprisingly effective and intelligent. Not to mention at times disturbing - the flaming chair is nasty. I haven't seen Silence of the Lambs or Hannibal yet, and aren't fussed about Hannibal... but I'd say Manhunter's a solid film. Not a classic, and not brilliant, but very good. Worth watching, certainly.
 
 
Imaginary Mongoose Solutions
20:22 / 17.08.01
I really enjoyed MANHUNTER and I'm kind of annoyed at the remake just to milk the franchise. I mean, it's not that old a movie.

Are studios going to start remaking flicks from the 90's? Boy, RUSH HOUR 2 was such a success, let's remake RUSH HOUR with James Van Der Beek and that kid who played Short Round in THE TEMPLE OF DOOM!

Besides, the recently released DVD of MANHUNTER has INVISIBLES in-jokes in the liner notes.
 
 
A Bigger Boat
06:52 / 18.08.01
OK, here goes:
***SPOILERS, BTW, I guess***

IMHO Hannibal Lecter has been the most ineptly handled character in modern prose/cinema. What has been done to this poor psychopath dispays the most outrageous kind of of misunderstanding between a writer and his creation that I have EVER seen in print (and the films just followed suit).

In Red Dragon Lecter is a sign, the signifier of which is unknowable to the 'sane' world of consensual ethics/behaviour/normality. He's also scary as fuck in that book. He's a caged tiger and you have to get close to the flame, close to the danger of that mindset in order to save lives. The book is called Red Dragon and it's about the fucking Red Dragon. The film is called Manhunter, and who's the man they're hunting? It's the Red Dragon/Tooth Fairy.
Lecter's caged - an unknown quantity - NOT THE FOCUS OF THE NARRATIVE.

For Silence of the Lambs re-read the above and replace Red Dragon with Buffalo Bill.Except I get the impression now that Harris kinda likes Lecter a little bit, feeds him a few more lines, busts him out. Poor old Bill in SOTL hardly gets a look in, and by the end of the film Lecter's final line of dialogue sounds like it's coming straight from the Freddy Krueger school of irony.

Can you see the rot setting in here, folks?

Hannibal. Oh, Christ. For a start it's reputed that Harris now has a five book deal, starting with Hannibal (so guess who's not gonna get caught/die anytime soon?) BTW, at a rate of one book every 10 years Harris must be pissing himself with laughter.
Secondly, the book's called 'Hannibal' and is about that unknown quantity. That quantity is now horribly, horribly known, and guess what? The emperor's got no clothes.
What was originally concieved as - I would argue - one of the scariest and most evil creations of modern writing - is now the star of his own book/Hollywood movie. He's a superhero! Witty one-liners, inventive homicides.

Ignoring the ending of the book (was Hariss' editor asleep during that meeting?) we're now told that Hopkins may reprise Lecter in the remake of Manhunter, except it won't be a remake of Manhunter will it? Remember how odd it was for Hopkins to be given on Oscar for about 10-15 minutes screen time? Well there's gonna have to be some furious adaptationing going on in H'wood right now to crowbar old Lecter into the story of Red Dragon. I'm sure they'll succeed miserably.

From what I understand, it will be the story of Lecter's capture (which is only briefly mentioned in the ENTIRE book. How stupid will it look watching the films in the chronological order of that universe? Gnarly old Lecter gets captured in New Red Dragon, undergoes massive Oil of Olay therapy on the inside before SOTL, only to age again horribly over the next 10 years of freedom before Hannibal.

The moral? Being institutionalised is good for you.

I'm sorry, Francis Dolarhyde and Jame Gumb, you both tried so very, very hard, but you just can't kill a franchise.
 
 
Ganesh
10:10 / 18.08.01
Well, the other 'moral' is 'killing people is okay if you do it with style'.

I liked the ending of 'Hannibal' the book; I think Starling's 'defection' from the FBI had a certain internal consistency, and was plausible, psychologically. What I thought was less forgivable was Harris's 'explanation' of Lecter - the stuff about his childhood traumas, etc., etc. The scary thing about Lecter is that fact that he can't be 'dissected' with the 'blunt little tool' of psychology; he defies analysis. He kills and cannibalises because he likes killing and cannibalising. Period.

In seeking to 'explain' Lecter, Harris reduces him to just another case study - and in doing so, defuses him.
 
 
The Strobe
11:06 / 18.08.01
Another remake coming up that is pointless is Christopher "Memento" Nolan's version of INSOMNIA, which was made four years ago in Sweden and starred Stellan Skarsgard. And was great.

Half the point was that the Swedish cop went to _Norway_, where of course he couldn't sleep because of all the bloody sunlight.

Nolan has transposed it to...

Alaska. With Al Pacino as the cop, and Robin Williams as the villain. Oh, and Maura Tierney-from-Er, and her fabulous ass.

This smacks as being remarkably pointless. Nolan stole half his directing technique from that film (watch it, then see Memento... they look similar. They look very similar. They both look very good, though, so I don't MIND that he stole it)... it's completely pointless. The only reason they're doing it is because the original was in subtitled Swedish.

This leads me to scream: "FUCKSAKE". It's daft. Just bleet about how the original was better.
 
 
MJ-12
00:00 / 19.08.01
that'll be so great...

Lector: If you're not more intellignet than me than how did you catch me?

Graham: Because everything you say, your tone of voice, your facial expressions and body language are screaming out "I'M A TOTAL BUGFUCK NUTCASE!" By the way, you've got some scenery stuck in your teeth.

The nicely done, and ultimatly more frightening thing about Cox's Lector was that is was subtle enough that although he was definitly odd, he wouldn't be so easily identified as a nutter. He could the guy sitting next to you on the bus, and didn't seem much more dangerous than anyone your might meet. Or at least no more than any other slightly heavyset Scottish psychiatrist.
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
08:49 / 20.08.01
quote:Originally posted by Paleface:
That said, Tom Noonan (iirc) is fantastic... he really IS huge, and a nutbag. He works.

And he has a website.

I agree with Paleface; while Manhunter is a flawed film (Crockett and Tubbs should be there at some point, for starters), there are some fantastic moments. And Iron Butterfly. What more could you want? Noonan was indeed great in the film, as was - some incredibly cheesy moments notwithstanding - most of the cast. What I find interesting about this whole plan to film Red Dragon is the fact that Hopkins had, after Hannibal wrapped, knocked the idea on the head. I guess, in Krusty-style, they backed a truck of money up to his house. He's not made of stone, after all.

I think the problem is, generally, with the cult of Lecter that's risen up since Silence, which Hannibal (the book) did nothing except feed. I'm seriously hoping that Harris doesn't cheapen the first two Lector books any further than he already has, frankly - it's veering far too far away from the canned weirdness of them, towards cheesy schlock. Hannibal was bearable, but I shudder to think of a Young Hannibal series, which is a distinct possibility...

[ 20-08-2001: Message edited by: Rothkoid ]
 
 
DaveBCooper
08:06 / 28.08.01
I think Manhunter's not a bad film, of a very decent book. A remake seems unnecessary, as they'll probably play up the Lecter character, who works, I feel, better as a catalyst than a foreground character.

Dunno about the film of Hannibal, because the book was disappointing to the point of appalling, and I don't want to waste any more time on tales of Lecter and Starling. Since Red Dragon (the book) ends with Lecter setting the Tooth Fairy on Graham at home, makes me more than wonder why 'Hannibal' didn't feature Lecter trying to bring down the man who caught him... oh, yes, just realised : because then Harris couldn't sell the film rights for as much ca$h, because Starling's a more recognised character.

And incidentally, I have serious doubts about the time TH claims it takes him to write these books; like Star Wars Episode 1, 'Hannibal' (the book) looked suspiciously like a rush job.

DBC
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
08:33 / 28.08.01
And incidentally, I have serious doubts about the time TH claims it takes him to write these books; like Star Wars Episode 1, 'Hannibal' (the book) looked suspiciously like a rush job.

That'd fit. I watched Hannibal on DVD again yesterday - I still think it's a better stab at the story than the book was - and in the "Making Of" documentary on the second disc, Dino and Martha DeLaurentiis (the producers) talk about constantly haranguing Harris with phone calls asking about when he was going to deliver the product. Maybe that's why there was so much feeling of "let's see 'em film this!" at particular points in the book?
 
 
DaveBCooper
08:33 / 28.08.01
Yup, that'd explain it.
Of course, that does has the knock-on effect of making it hard for a reader to visualise the story's events in their head either...
Still, by that time, I guess TH had cashed the cheque.

DBC
 
 
videodrome
15:00 / 14.06.02
This purports to be the first pages of the Red Dragon script. Not bad, fairly straightforward, giving the people what they want to see - Hannibal.

I can't help loving this character for some reason, oddly driven more by Hannibal than Silence of the Lambs, despite the fact that the former is a generally awful film. Dunno. But read the pages, if'n you feel like...
 
 
Elijah, Freelance Rabbi
12:40 / 15.06.02
i was very upset that they didnt have Graham in Hannibal. I watch the usually good show CSI just for the actor (in my mind it is Graham, but im strange)
What i'm worried about is ed norton, sure he is a great actor, but he always looks worried. I say do a big schmaltzy re-release and leave Manhunter as it is, or even rename it really.

I will need to look for the invisibles inside jokes on my dvd when i get home
 
 
videodrome
13:48 / 20.06.02
The Red Dragon trailer is online. Dunno what to think, based on this. I'm curious, since both this and Manhunter were shot by the same man - Dante Spinotti. (Is that a first? Same photographer on original and remake?) But there's a number of shots in the trailer that are near copies of their Manhunter equivalents...inneresting.
 
 
gridley
15:48 / 20.06.02
Ok, I have to disagree. Manhunter is not a film of Red Dragon. It is sooooooo loosely based on the book, that they're hardly the same thing at all. It's basically just a "very special episode" of Miami Vice.

The book Red Dragon is amazing, and I, for one, am thrilled that it's now being given a more serious treatment.

(That said, I do like they scene where Hannibal is tracking down Will's home address from a prison phone.)
 
 
Hieronymus
18:03 / 05.07.02
This from Dark Horizons: "The BBC recently ran "A Taste for Hannibal", a biography program which looked at Anthony Hopkins on the set of the 'Silence' prequel "Red Dragon" and really shows off his 'younger look' a lot more than the recent teaser.

Hopkins himself was asked about the role and gave an interesting answer: "I did have some misgivings about doing this third one, because, well, I’ve done it now and I can’t get much more mileage out of it and it becomes boring and tedious. And I thought, well, it wouldn't do any harm to do one more. As long as I'm more of a background figure I think, more of a shadowy figure. And I think it would be more effective that way and more powerful that way. Because I think [Lecter] is less on screen than he was in Silence of the Lambs. The great thing about Silence of the Lambs is that I wasn’t in the film very much. And I don’t want to do the cutesy cutesy stuff of Hannibal Lecter so I’ve prepared it in a way that hopefully will be a different, more angry, more shadowy figure. I don’t want to be in full blaze of light".
 
 
ill tonic
23:12 / 05.07.02
Well, it was an excellent cast ... too bad they had to pick such a weak director. Of course, I see everything, so I'm there.
 
 
videodrome
17:45 / 05.10.02
So it's out. Anyone else seen it? On the whole I thought it was better than it had any right to be, though undeniably weak in some places. The amount of direct borrowing from Manhunter was amusing, but the central story (Dollarhyde and his transformation) was treated pretty well. Still, it's diluted with Lecter, who I think should have about half as much screen time. I've got more to say, but I'll post it later...
 
 
The Strobe
11:44 / 07.10.02
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...
 
 
doglikesparky
12:15 / 07.10.02
I saw this yesterday aswell. I can't think of much more to say that hasn't been covered by the previous 2 posts. Overall I enjoyed it a lot. Much better than Hannibal and not as good as Silence...

Oh yeah, I saw Manhunter a long time ago and I don't really remember much about it suffice to say it's a movie I always considered to be not that good. Think I'll go back and check it again in view of earlier posts here though
 
 
videodrome
13:25 / 07.10.02
I've written a fairly long take on the film, posted to both my site and Blogcritics, so I'm only going to cut and paste from it here. The fact that Paleface has hit most of the sailent points makes it easier, but there's a few things I'll add here:

The main thing about Ratner as director is you've got a director of one successful franchise moving to another highly successful franchise. And the franchise treatment is the downfall, as screenwriter Ted Tally and Ratner spend valuable time pandering rather than getting to the point. In keeping with the franchise design, Tally's script is cut from the Silence mold, with a structure that is laughably similar to that film and a final sequence that insultingly reminds the audience that they're being bled dry by the franchise mentality. I'm surprised the final shot wasn't an ad for the Silence of the Lambs on DVD. As such, Red Dragon is a film that can never stand on its own, endlessly inviting comparisons to The Silence of the Lambs and Manhunter. Ratner uses the latter film as a crutch, in some sequences remaking it shot for shot rather than move into unfamiliar territory, leaning on cinematographer Dante Spinotti, who also shot Manhunter.

The good, interesting stuff:
Dollarhyde is a perfect image of emerging male sexuality. He sees himself as an undesirable misfit, ostracized from society. We've got to assume that he's a virgin, outside the context of whatever impulses he inflicts upon his victims. He uses violence, imagery and the act of seeing to attain a measure of sexual power - all plausible links to pornography and the media depiction of sexuality. When at last he meets a woman willing to take him for who he is, Dollarhyde encounters a dilemma; all this time he's been murdering to attain personal and sexual power, and suddenly, he doesn't have to do it anymore. A woman he's attracted to returns his affections, rendering moot everything he's done up until this point. Yet he watches pornography as he has his first sexual relationship with her. Can these two sexual ideas co-exist, the 'real' and the pornographic? Which does he prefer? This is strong stuff, but Ratner and Tally don't know how to handle it once the ideas are out there. Instead, they take the easy road, cutting back to a funny scene with Lecter, who's been downgraded to comic relief through social assimilation. (For a good example of this refer to the scene in the gym, in which Lecter lunges freely at Graham before being pulled up short by a chain, or puppet string, that extends into the sky.)

Ratner tries to force Ralph Fiennes into a stony serial-killer facade, but he breaks through it whenever possible, particularly in scenes with Emily Watson. The two have a disquieting chemistry; one of the liveliest scenes in the film plays in Dollarhyde's living room, as the two tighten their sexual orbits around one another before a series of locked-off camera angles. Their two performances are the best in the film, and it's nothing but a shame that Ratner and Tally choose instead to enact more funny but pointless scenes with Lecter. The relationship between Dollarhyde and Reba was big in Manhunter as well, but this time it feels more affecting, perhaps because Fiennes breaks down some of the distance built into the script.

Further, the film hints at but doesn't explore the idea of a life-cycle of violence, and not the "killer inspired by killer" cinema cycle. To save his son, Graham uses the same abusive tactics experienced by Dollarhyde. It works, but what is the consequence? His son, verbally abused in the heat of a particularly impressionable moment? Despite any rational assessment of his father's motives, this kid will be forever scarred by the same force that created a murderous deviant in Dollarhyde. This chapter of the film closes with an image that promises little hope: Graham and family on a boat, isolated from the society that's threatened to destroy them more than once. This is not healing, or progress, but an unremittingly dark ending to an already grim tale. That it's followed by a superfluous chapter announcing the arrival of Clarice Starling exemplifies the film's submission to the commandments of franchise.
 
 
Rev. Wright
13:55 / 07.10.02
Being the ignorant fucknut I can be at times, I have not read any other post than the first few lines of this thread. Here is my addition.

Manhunter is the best
 
 
some guy
14:16 / 07.10.02
Yet he watches pornography as he has his first sexual relationship with her.

Isn't he actually watching one of the family tapes he's stolen from work?
 
 
videodrome
14:33 / 07.10.02
Isn't he actually watching one of the family tapes he's stolen from work?

Yes. Sounds like serial killer porn to me.
 
 
The Strobe
14:34 / 07.10.02
Well, yes. But to him, it fulfils the same role as pornography. He's preparing for his 'work'. And he gets off on it - come on, these are home movies of swim parties, he's freeze-framing it; it may not be conventional porn, but it performs that role.
 
 
videodrome
14:38 / 07.10.02
But on the topic of the family films...

I liked Manhunter's silent Super8 films rather than Red Dragon's video tapes. Obviously, no-one would buy his watching super8 now, but it's an issue of sound. The films should be silent, because then, when Graham watches them, it more closely approximates Dollarhyde's action: watching from a distance, these families and their vibrant normality. The overt sexual overtones of the videotapes in Red Dragon dilute this, making it crass rather than creepy. And all Ratner had to do was have Graham reach out and turn the sound off...
 
 
The Strobe
14:46 / 07.10.02
OH yes! I'd forgotten they were super8. And you're right, it's a crucial thing.

I still really like RD, though, I must admit.
 
 
some guy
15:35 / 07.10.02
it may not be conventional porn, but it performs that role.

Yep, but it's still not porn. However, it would have been nice to have played with the link between porn and violence more by having another scene with Dolarhyde and the tapes...
 
 
videodrome
15:55 / 07.10.02
Of course it's porn. In that scene, the videotape serves one purpose: to create in Dollarhyde a sense of sexual power. That's porn. And the image is more resonant in the context of typical male sexuality by reflecting society's image of 'acceptable' porn, like Maxim and the SI Swimsuit Issue. What do we need to see to cement this image as porn? A mountain of crumpled Kleenex next to his couch?
 
 
gridley
17:26 / 07.10.02
Saw it on saturday and I loved it. Two and half hours just flew by. Without a doubt (in my mind), this is best film that could have been made from that wonderful book. I truly felt for Dolarhyde and felt joy at his potential redemption.

The last bit was certainly cheesey, and I could have done without it, but otherwise excellent.
 
 
some guy
17:41 / 07.10.02
In that scene, the videotape serves one purpose: to create in Dollarhyde a sense of sexual power.

I agree it fulfills the role of porn, but that doesn't make it porn. That's what's so interesting - there was an opportunity there for the filmmakers to explore the "violence as pornography" subtext to modern cinema in a visceral way. Given that Brett Ratner "directed" the film, however, I'm not surprised we didn't get it.
 
 
Mr Tricks
18:51 / 07.10.02
Saw it, liked it...

still like MANHUNTER, nut this is certainly a "better fit" trilogy-wise.

Ed Norton was great, pleased with the bittersweet ending of the family on the boat.

The bit with Hanabal & Clarise...cute...

nice to see that damn doomed doctor again...

cary on with the intelligent discussion
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
08:56 / 08.10.02
I liked Manhunter... though it was indeed a little too Miami Vice.

(Regarding Hannibal-the book- being a rush job, I have to concur- I read it when it came out and thought it awesome. Then just before the movie came out I read 'em all again back to back- and was struck by just how much better the first two were).

I actually quite enjoyed Hannibal (crappy new ending and all). But it had fuck all sense of menace. To be honest, I don't think Hopkins is gonna be able to be scary after being the "lovable rogue who likes biting people's internal organs out, but hey, he's okay really".

However, this is a moot point, as I shall be parting with cash to see Red Dragon anyway, which is all the fuckers care about at this point, isn't it?
 
 
Wrecks City-Zen
00:10 / 17.10.02
Inna-gadda-da-vida honey...

That truly rocked in MANHUNTER.Made the entire movie for me...considering I saw it years before Silence of the Lambs.

Do they remake that scene as well? Using the P Diddy remix of Iron Butterfly?
 
 
deja_vroom
11:11 / 07.11.02
I never read "Red Dragon", but I so want to... anyway, I think in the end of the book, Lecter slits Graham's face open with a linoleum knife, isn't it right? And they don't show this happenning in the "Red Dragon" movie. Why is that??
 
  
Add Your Reply