If you've been reading this blog for a while, you probably know that Silence of the Lambs was the first movie I took off the list and reviewed, and fucking loved it. And unlike its first sequel, Hannibal, which wasn't nearly as good, Red Dragon is just as good as the first one. It may lack some shock value, being the third entry in the series, but even then it's a great film.
Red Dragon is actually a prequel to Silence of the Lambs (the novel it is based on came out before Silence's). Thus, it follows the same formula: an FBI agent needs Hannibal Lecter's help to catch a crazed mass murderer. Only this time, that agent is actually Will Graham (Edward Norton), the man that exposed Lecter as the psychotic cannibal he is. So the relationship between the two is even more fierce than the Sterling and Lecter had in the first film. Oh, and the psycho this time is known as the "Tooth Fairy" but later on is revealed to be the eponymous Red Dragon, played by Ralph Fiennes.
Red? That looks black to me.
To be honest, I liked both the protagonist and the killer much more than their counterparts from Silence of the Lambs. Graham is a much more interesting character than Sterling: he's smater, stronger, and more experienced; he has a clearer motivation to catch the killer; and, as I said, he is more involved with Lecter, who truly despises him from the very beginning (as well as admiring him for his capture). And did I mention that he is afraid of his own ability to deduce and figure out clues by thinking like the people he pursues? The killer, mockingly referred to as "the Tooth Fairy", is probably less believable than Buffalo Bill as a real-life serial killer but even then, he is WAY better developed, other than being just a demented crossdresser. I don't want to spoil anything about him, it ruins the experience. Lecter is very downplayed, though. The fact that Graham knows every single one of his tricks and doesn't let them get to him is probably the main reason.
Same as the audience. It's not that unsettling the third time around.
The plot is pretty much the same. The way it unveils a bit better in my opinion: instead of making conjectures througout the whole film only to reveal everything at the last thrity minutes, it has a steadier pace. Both the clues and traits of the killer are revealed much more gradually. It is a different approach but basically... yeah. It's the same plot.
In the end, I liked it just as much as I liked Silence of the Lambs. Sorry if I insist on that, but you can't help but compare them since they follow the same formula. But the characters (except Lecter) are better, the pacing is better: everyone would agree it's a better film if it came before the first one. Totally worth two hours of your time.
No comments:
Post a Comment