The reason film series become film franchises is that their producers know exactly what the audience wants out of its product. Most often, that one thing turns out to be a recognizable face playing a memorable character.
“Austin Powers” fans wanted more of Mike Myers’ shtick; hence, “Goldmember.” “Terminator” devotees wanted to see a certain muscle-bound Austrian again, and they got him in “Judgement Day” and next year’s “Rise of the Machines.” After the Academy Award onslaught, hundreds of millions of dollars and characters with quips that live on in Americans’ collective consciousness over a decade later, producer Dino de Laurentiis knew the average movie-goer needed only one thing to make a sequel/prequel to “The Silence of the Lambs” possible: Hannibal Lecter.
He got his way in last year’s “Hannibal,” a tolerable, if conspicuously over-crafted, sequel to “Silence.” Fittingly, the film was greeted by a lukewarm reception from critics and sub-par numbers at the box office. But that’s nothing compared to the inaudible splash made by the first film in the Lecter saga, 1986’s “Manhunter.”
While a little rough around the edges, director Michael Mann’s interpretation of Thomas Harris’ first novel in the trilogy, “Red Dragon,” is the ideal archetype for the psychological thriller — expertly directed, handsomely acted and scary as all hell. If you’ve never heard of the film, there’s a reason, and it’s the same reason that must have occurred to de Laurentiis some 18 months ago — no Anthony Hopkins.
The Hannibal Lecter character in “Manhunter” seemed to have been mostly an afterthought, but with Hopkins at their disposal, de Laurentiis and company flaunt Lecter ad nauseum in the “Manhunter” remake, “Red Dragon.”
The story begins years before “Silence,” with detective Will Graham (Edward Norton, “The Score”) surviving a near-deadly fracas with Lecter and subsequently jailing him for several life sentences.
Several years later, Graham is seen lounging on the beach in semi-retirement as a result of the incident, only to be called back to duty in order to catch a killer dubbed the “Tooth Fairy.” Baffled by his seemingly random selection of slaughtered families, Graham visits Dr. Lecter in jail for advice.
Meanwhile, the Tooth Fairy, whose actual name is Francis Dolarhyde (Ralph Fiennes, “The English Patient”), carefully inches toward his next victim, while developing a relationship with blind photo developer Reba (Emily Watson, “Gosford Park”). It seems Dolarhyde is a fan of Lecter’s as well, and the two correspond via coded personal ads in a national tabloid.
When it is discovered that Lecter has given Dolarhyde Graham’s home address, things get dangerously personal. From there, an all-too-familiar third act is set up, building to a finale that is, admittedly, as ridiculous as it is entertaining.
“Red Dragon” shares many of the same problems “Hannibal” had — namely, ones that can mostly be traced back to incompetent direction (Brett Ratner for the former film, Ridley Scott the latter). After showing signs of non-ingratiating, anti-“Rush Hour”-ish skills in “The Family Man,” Ratner seems to be looking for a Chris Tucker throughout “Red Dragon.” Unfortunately, his choice is the formidable Anthony Hopkins.
Hopkins’ performance is, as expected, creepy through and through. But in the hands of Ratner, he turns into comic relief, and by the end of the film, Lecter is reduced to a caricature. The most glaring example of this is a scene in which, after Lecter has given valuable information to Graham in exchange for a carte blanche dinner, Ratner crosscuts between Graham intensely piecing together clues and Lecter daintily eating.
Any dramatic tension given to the film by Hopkins’ mere presence is promptly undermined by Ratner. And it certainly doesn’t help that Hopkins’ face, always the main source for communicating Lecter’s underlying malevolence, is caked in digital effects to make him look younger.
This story has compelling characters (as “Manhunter” demonstrated), but their motives are consistently lost in the muddled storytelling. Frequent references are made to Graham’s ability to think like the killer and the resultant toll this has taken on his professional and personal life, yet we never see this onscreen. Francis Dolarhyde’s homicidal tendencies are attributed to his abusive mother, something that provokes him to anthropomorphize a Romantic painting of the Red Dragon (which, in the film’s most puzzling scene, he destroys and devours at the Brooklyn Museum).
Who is the protagonist of this film, when Graham and Dolarhyde share equal amounts of screen time? With whom are we supposed to sympathize? Ratner would like us to believe it to be Graham, but his actions amount to little more than a glorified Sherlock Holmes. And Dolarhyde is certainly supposed to be the antagonist, but why does Ratner make it that much easier for us to forgive him by pawning off his despicable actions on a troubled childhood and mysterious painting rather than on, you know, evil?
These are but a few of the many questions de Laurentiis and Ratner leave unanswered, or rather, ignored. If they had their way, “Red Dragon” would’ve been nothing but Hannibal Lecter staring into the camera and spouting witticisms easy enough for the audience to remember and work into conversations the next day.
But, hey, you gotta give the people what they want.
Grade: B/C
