‘Red Dragon’ a beastly disappointment

Whew. What a disappointment. A lot of sources reported it was a

striking improvement over last year’s dismal “Hannibal,” but that’s a

statement I need to disagree with. “Red Dragon” is an even bigger

disappointment. It’s the weakest installment yet in a trilogy that

began in 1991 with one of the most frightening psychological

thrillers of all time: “The Silence of the Lambs.” Both sequels (“Red

Dragon” is technically a prequel) have squandered their vast

potential and damaged the integrity of the original.

Taking place nearly a decade before the events depicted in

“Silence,” “Red Dragon” tells the story of Will Graham obsessively

(or so we’re told) on the trail of a killer dubbed by the tabloid

press as The Tooth Fairy (Ralph Fiennes) because he leaves an imprint

of his crooked teeth on the flesh of his female victims.

Director Brett Ratner, who perhaps should stick to more “Rush

Hour” sequels, was a poor choice to take over the franchise. He lacks

a distinctive style and his cinematic choices are uninspired and

derivative of his predecessors. Ratner is likely the reason “Red

Dragon” sinks to the bottom of Hannibal Lecter trilogy.

Although “Silence” screenwriter Ted Tally was cajoled to adapt

Thomas Harris’ novel and delivered a strong, serviceable script,

Ratner fails to mine any of the material for drama. Important clues

are lost because the director hasn’t called visual attention to them.

For instance, there is no indication that Lecter’s first victim in

“Red Dragon’s” prologue (which depicts Lecter’s capture) is the

musician Benjamin Raspail, mentioned several times in “Silence.”

Ratner’s touch is too sloppy to make a strong connection with the

original film. I guess he figures having Anthony Hopkins back is

enough -- and for many he’s probably correct.

The cinematography is boring and unadventurous. It’s nothing more

than a steady stream of static shots that lack any movement, tension

or pace. Every opportunity is squandered, the most notable of which

are the scenes of Graham analyzing crime scenes and photos. Instead

of showing us what happens, we are told directly by Norton as he

speaks into a tape recorder; a pathetic story device.

The only scenes that are visually dynamic are Graham’s visits to

Lecter’s dungeon-like maximum security holding cell -- an exact

replica from the original. Graham’s first scenes with the imprisoned

Lecter are a shot-by-shot retread of Clarice Starling’s first decent

into Lecter’s living hell. This includes a waiting folding chair

placed a few precautionary feet from the glass. You cannot continue

to judge “Red Dragon” on its own merits when it pilfers so boldly

from its predecessor.

Even “Hannibal” was more entertaining because Ridley Scott is an

accomplished enough filmmaker to give his movie a visual flair and

style all its own. Scott was given a far more flawed script than

Ratner was, Scott was just more prepared to rise to the occasion; at

the very least, he individualized the film with his own signature

rather than develop a shameless rip-off. Ratner possesses none of

these skills, condemning “Red Dragon” to mediocrity.

This brings us to the central problem with “Red Dragon” -- the

relationship between Lecter and Graham. This time around we meet an

angrier Lecter; a caged lion still resisting his confinement by

lashing out violently. Although Graham and Lecter have a mutual

respect for each other, their interaction boils down to Lecter’s

thirst for revenge and Graham’s thirst for information. Lecter

torments himself for being reckless enough to have been caught by a

man who considers inferior to himself mentally. It’s an insult to his

intelligence.

Comparison to the Starling/Lecter relationship in “Silence” is

unavoidable. They formed a tight but twisted bond. Even though

Starling never forgot what Lecter was capable of, Lecter developed an

affection for her that actually catalyzed Starling to develop a

deeper maturity and sophistication.

Lecter toughened her up. Lecter was, of course, deviously

manipulating his own escape, but there was no doubt he admired

Starling and we believed him when he promised never to ‘call on her’

because he felt the world was a more interesting place with her in

it.

The one exception in “Red Dragon” is some rich character

development between The Tooth Fairy and the blind girl (Emily Watson)

whom he develops feeling for. Both deprived of human companionship

and living with a deep loneliness, their moments of intimacy nearly

convince the Tooth Fairy to stop his murderous rampage. However, even

this element ends in cliche.

“Red Dragon” has an Oscar-caliber cast, but most are wasted.

Although it was a pleasure to see Anthony Heald back as the slimy Dr.

Chilton. Even Hopkins appears on autopilot although he could probably

make most viewers squirm in his sleep. Edward Norton, despite valiant

effort, simply feels miscast. His acting style is too sedate and

understated to hold up against Hopkins.

* ALLEN MacDONALD, 29, is currently working toward his master’s

degree in screenwriting from the American Film Institute in Los

Angeles.