Just saw it tonight, and wow what a great movie. If you like "Silence of the Lambs" and "Hannibal," then you will love this one. Its not that gory, but yet it will still make your stomach turn. It was a good waste of 12 bucks( i paid for my gf).
so what happens if you loved silence of the lambs and hated hannibal? what then? also, if you just got back from a date with your girlfriend, why are you posting on big soccer. go get some, my friend. you paid for the movie, you earned it.
Lambs was good, but best picture of the year? Has anyone seen Manhunter? I hear its under appreciated.
Silence of the Lambs deserved every award it got. Manhunter was OK .... the movie wasn't a Hannibal-centered movie, it focused more on the detective. I watched it out of curiousity a few years ago. In my opinion, nothing special. Better than Hannibal though
I enjoyed the movie, though some parts dragged on. I liked Edward Norton's character and the chemistry he had with Hannibal. I thought the blind girl's romance with the dragon wasn't really essential to the plot though, and could've been left out. It just caused the movie to drag on a bit more. All in all though, I'd recommend it.
It gave the red dragon guy more of a character. But i thought for sure the blind girl had to do something with the glass eyes.
On second thought, the blind girl was important near the end of the movie where she stated that the dragon had shot himself.
I saw it today. Silence of the lambs was better. I think Red Dragon was better then Hannibal. Hopkins's Lector was not the star of the movie It was Norton. Co stars were Dragon and lector. One thing made no sense lector hated Norton. After he escaped in the first movie Silence why didn't he go after Norton? Evidently he just forgot about him in Hannibal Lector character did not seem like somebody who would leave loose ends.
Normally I would say R should have been put in the thread title, BUT.... a BIG arse Butt A normal thinking person should have know what the posts were going to be about. Did you think it was going to about what theaters the move is playing in and the times of performances?
just saw the movie. it was good. nothing super fantastic, but hopkins was good. i thought in hannibal, which was a terrible movie, lector was more of a cliche of himself, like a perverse SNL sketch. In Red dragon he seemed to find the character again. An earlier post said that hopkins wasn't the star, that it was norton. I agree and that's why I enjoyed this movie. in silence, jodie foster was the star and there was just enough hannibal to keep things interesting. he's creepier in small doses.
Question Of the three movies (Lambs, Hannibal, and Dragon), which one is supposed to be the first, second, and last in the storyline?
STOP READING MY POST IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE I thought there were holes in the plot as to why the dragon was actually doing what he was doing like with the mirrors in the eyes. All they really explained was he was doing it cause the painting told him too. After the movie I was still a little confused.
That was the problem with the film, I thought, but not quite for the same reason...until the last 5 minutes, the girl was perhaps the most important character, and that relationship the most important (in a sense) in the film, causing the dragon to, apparently, want to "stop", which is definately a character trait we haven't seen in serial killers. Then they go for the cheesy "Friday the 13th" ending, and it all falls apart. Smells like they changed stuff because of a test audience to me. Then again I havent read the book. Not my thing. Great cast though. Just not a very well developed story outside of Ed Norton wrestling with his inner demons, which was interesting, mostly because Edward Norton is a great actor. And in a movie where the most recognizable character is Hannibal, it's amazing that he had so little to do with what was actually going on. Totally wasted Hannibal the Cannibal IMO.
They said in the movie that it makes them look alive .... also, i think the book (and movie?) mentions that he can see himself in their eyes that way. Also, ART: That's the way the book ends. it wasn't a test screening thing.
Saw it the other night and thought it was great. Haven't seen the other 2 so I'll want to check those out now. Just a minor inaccuracy, the Chinese character that the killer carved on the tree means "middle" (as in "middle country", ie China), not whatever they said it meant in the movie. Alex
Manhunter is fantastic. No, it doesn't focus as much on Hannibal, as this version apparently does, but it is great cinema. I'll eventually check it out and keep an open mind, but give me Michael Mann over Brett Ratner any day.
Re: Question The correct order in the storyline would be Dragon, Lambs and then Hannibal. Correct order of quality of the movie would be: Lambs, Dragon and then Hannibal!
Not surprisingly, I disagree. I thought Manhunter was pretty terrible. Very cheesy...huge leaps in the plot (which Red Dragon also suffers from)...bad acting from the dectective character (I started laughing out loud when he was sitting in the tree talking to himself "you sat here and watched them from this tree! Didn't you!!! DIDN'T YOU!!! AARRRRGGH"). As for Red Dragon, they needed to expand on the relationship between the blind chick and the tiger! Someone needs to tell her that just because SHE'S blind, doesn't mean that WE can't see (her grab tigercock).
even though Hannibal was the worst out of the three movies... I think it was the best book and of course as always... book is much better than the movie.