Red Dragon (2002)
Crime | Drama | Thriller

l Pictures and Dino De Laurent is present in association with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Red Dragon, based on Thomas Harris' 1981 novel, which first introduced the character of serial killer Hannibal Lecter, later immortalized in his subsequent best-sellers The Silence of The Lambs (1988) and Hannibal (1999).

Oscar nominee Edward Norton stars as ex-FBI agent Will Graham, an expert investigator who quit the Bureau after almost losing his life in the process of capturing the elusive Dr. Lecter, played again by Academy Award winner Anthony Hopkins.

Years later, after a series of particularly grisly murders, Graham reluctantly agrees to come out of retirement and assist in the case. But he soon realizes that the best way to catch this killer, known as the Tooth Fairy, is to find a way to get inside the killer's mind. And the closest thing to that would be to probe the mind of another killer who is equally brilliant and equally twisted. For Graham, that means confronting his past and facing his former nemesis, the now-incarcerated Lecter. Oscar nominee Ralph Fiennes plays Francis Dolarhyde.

User Comment: andrewmc500 ohio o I am fascinated with this trilogy. They are, by far, my three favorite movies of all time. Hannibal Lecter is a character no one can ever forget, and he surely has made his mark in history (Hopkins of course).

I completely understood that Red Dragon was basically another Silence of the Lambs. However, if you really think about it, Silence of the Lambs was basically Red Dragon. Both the premise of both films are the same, yet brilliantly different. I saw Red Dragon, and I have to say, it is by far, the most terrifying of the three. I was never scared in the sequels as I was in Red Dragon; however, I will admit that I think Lecter was the creepiest in Silence Of The Lambs - probably because that was his first take on the character; yet if anyone has ever owned a character it is Anthony Hopkins.

But I digress, all three films have a very different atmosphere to them, which in these films, is so important. "Dragon" has an atmosphere of getting there in time. The entire film is based on the chase of finding the "Tooth Fairy" before he strikes again - very suspenseful. It also has a psychological suspense, not from Lecter or Graham, but from Dolarhyde. We are actually involved with the "becoming" of a serial killer. The entire plot of this film completely revolves around Ralph Fiennes character. He owns this movie when it comes to complex characters - as we already were introduced to Lecter before. (Had this actually been the first film, then there certainly would be more of a debate).

In Silence of The Lambs, the atmosphere is all psychological, and as much of a symbol as "Buffalo Bill" is, and as much of a psychologically tortured man he is, he is not the primary focus. Lecter is much more of a monster, in a cage nonetheless, then "Bill" is. The film, in essence is "Dragon's" suspense of stopping another murder, but the focus is heavily on Starling. She is new, she is trying to prove herself, not only as a women, but as a great agent. Her very first assignment is to interview Lecter. She has to immediately learn to match wits with this man that is so undeniably brilliant. Both the characters, and the actors, of Lecter and Starling are absolutely stunning that there is no debate; they both commanded the well deserved Academy Awards they earned.

Lecter was the most terrifying man alive at that point, and he was caged. He couldn't go anywhere, yet he could get inside your head. He was brilliant. Starling prevailed, of course, and learns more about herself from Lecter, than anything the FBI could have taught. She learned from an absolutely horrifying, yet thrilling experience.

I also thought Hannibal was brilliant. Most people disliked it for many reasons. It was beautifully shot and made. Here Lecter is no long the Lecter we know, he is free. We are seeing this man, who again, is so brilliant that he is mad, in a completely new element - the open world, where he can actually be more himself. This was Hannibal's movie, and like "Dragon" and "Silence" he is no longer a supporting character, this is his time. Starling now becomes the supporting character. I also thought Julianne Moore portrayed Starling wonderfully. Her portrayal was probably how Starling would have been, after 10 years with the FBI. She is hardened a bit, but she deserves it for being who she is, and what she has accomplished.

All the gore was an added bonus. We never, NEVER saw Hannibal in his moments before. We know what he had done, and what he was capable of doing, but were never treated to it. And lets not forget that this is the way the character was written by Harris. Lecter was unbelievable in the open world. And his fascination with Clarice was not disgusting, it was morbid, yes, but true. I think Lecter thought he helped Graham, why not Clarice in "Silence". But with Starling, he made a connection that he did not with Graham. He had fresh, new person to mold-one who knew of him, but not him the Graham did, and it intrigued him.

These films are masterpieces, the beginning, the middle, and the end. Lecter could terrify audiences for years to come, and there are rarely these opportunities where a series can capture everything and still be fresh. I think, however, that this should be it. It ended wonderfully like "Silence". Lecter is out in the world. He of course, will always be the demon that he is, but it leaves us, the audience, with a feeling of terror, that even though it's over, it will never be. He is out there, and that should be the vision we should be left with to truly be a great suspense film. They did it so brilliantly, how can you refute.

Summary: The Trilogy of Terror

Trilogy 1:
Manhunter
Sequel: Silence of The Lambs
Second sequel: Hannibal

Trilogy 2:
Silence of The Lambs
Sequel: Hannibal
Prequel: Red Dragon

Second Prequel (to both): Hannibal Rising

--- JOYA ---

º º