It was the co-worker Ralph (not Peter), and I think in the book he only gave her a ride home. They hadn’t gone out on a date.
Okay, I’m surprised. Reading through this thread it seems like the overall impression is that Red Dragon was a disappointment. I had the opposite reaction. After seeing Hannibal I went into this movie expecting to be let down and was pleasantly surprised. The story was reasonably faithful to the book, both Hopkins and Fiennes were extremely and appropriately creepy, and I actually thought that the plot device of having Lecter be one of Graham’s primary resources for tracking down serial killers was a more believable reason for Graham’s visiting him in the asylum than was given in the book. The novel simply made a vague reference to Graham needing to “get back into the proper mindset.”
Since I seem to be in the minority, I am prepared for the flames that will inevitably come.
Hop down off that cross will you, ForgottenLore? Sorry, but I very much doubt someone will come along to flame you for your innocuous opinion.
And read the damn thread. The consensus so far is generally favourable.
Didn’t mean to get your back up, Narrad. That last comment of mine was supposed to be read as a joke. On rereading it I admit that’s not too obvious. I shoulda included a 
at the end.
And I did read the thread. While no-one said the movie was downright bad, more than one person said that they thought Brian Cox was a better Hannibal than Hopkins, and that I really disagree with. Another consensus is that Manhunter was better overall than Red Dragon, which I also disagree with. I thought Manhunter was watchable, but nothing special.
Back to the topic: I seem to recall that in the book Red Dragon there was no mention of Lecter being a cannibal. He was a more run-of-the-mill (if there is such a thing) serial killer. The cannibalism angle didn’t surface until the second book. Anyone remember differently?
Then let me be the first: the movie was downright bad.
I recently saw the DVD of Manhunter, which I liked better than when I saw it originally in the 1980’s. I also prefer Brian Cox’s version of Lecter, and wish he could have done Silence of the Lambs. An interesting item in the special features on the Manhunter DVD is that the director said they tried various forms of tatoo on Tom Noonan as Dolarhyde, but decided against it because they thought it would trivialize the character. I haven’t seen Red Dragon, but the movie poster tells me that they made a different decision.
Fiennes’ character did have the tattoo, but I don’t think it worked to his detriment. It was mostly because no one made a big deal out of it-- they showed it close-up only once, and it wasn’t played up by the other characters, so it wasn’t distracting.
I don’t remember if the book Red Dragon mentioned Lecter’s cannibalism either, but he did commit murders in which he ate and served human body parts to his guests. I figure it must have been mentioned, and my memory’s going kerflooey.
I should’ve smiley-fied my post too. On re-reading, I sound more pissed off than I meant to be. Didn’t mean to come down hard on you. 
I think you should see it.
I just saw it, and enjoyed it.
You did mention that gory and disturbing are not for you. In fairness I’ll point out that you might feel that way about this movie.
I’m pretty sure the nickname “Hannibal the Cannibal” was mentioned somewhere in Red Dragonthe book.
I thought it was pretty good. I was pleased that the movie followed the book as faithfully as it did. I was sorry, though, that the movie focused more on Graham’s investigation than on Dolarhyde’s interior life, though of course I understand why it was done like that. I thought Ralph Fiennes did a nice job with Dolarhyde, though he wasn’t nearly as heavily muscled as he should have been. That made the scene in which he shows Lounds his tattoo more (what’s the word I want? poignant?) than frightening – I actually felt sorry for him then.
Will Graham was able to help catch the psychos because he is crazy himself. Did they play to that in the new movie?
I never read the book and I saw Manhunter while I was, er, otherwise preoccupied.
That being said, I really liked Red Dragon. True, it wasn’t the same caliber of psychological thriller as Silence of the Lambs but it was a fairly decent (regular?) thriller.
I’m glad I saw it and I’ll buy the DVD when it’s released.
Disclaimers, whatever: I didn’t like Manhunter at all when I saw it. I thought the novel Red Dragon was Thomas Harris’s best work featuring Hannibal Lecter (which isn’t saying much; I don’t think he’s that great of a writer. But as critics and reviewers have pointed out, Harris does write some dialogue that works well on film; compare the novel texts with Ted Tally’s screenplays.). I loved The Silence of the Lambs, and thought Hannibal was pretty awful.
I felt sufficiently entertained by Red Dragon. I thought Ed Norton was a little miscast, in that I couldn’t buy him as an FBI profiler at all. He didn’t have the maturity, nor the physical presence that, I agree, William Petersen did in Manhunter. I despise Mary-Louise Parker in anything she does. Anyone could have stepped in for Harvey Keitel and played Crawford; he gave nothing to the performance. Ralph Fiennes was far too gorgeous to be playing a psychokiller; I was ultimately more disturbed by the fact that I was intensely attracted to him (and the full frontal nudity didn’t help) than I was by any of his crimes. I wanted more Dolarhyde, though, and a little less Lecter. Emily Watson was amazing. Philip Seymour Hoffman, eh. He does some good smarmy, and he was great glued down to the chair, but he played his character was so much like Freddie Miles in The Talented Mr. Ripley. Anthony Heald was great, again, as Chilton. Anthony Hopkins has turned the role of Hannibal Lecter into a parody. Although there was a great deal of pomposity and camp in the previous Lecters, this one was teetering on farce. But call me a cheeseball, I did like the ending.
On a side note: There seems to be no new ground to break in contemporary films about serial killers. So much of Red Dragon, and Silence was completely lifted from Hitchcock’s Psycho. I mean, the grandmother’s voice flashback while Dolarhyde is working out? Straight up Mrs. Bates. The same goes for the creepy old Gothic-ish house.
I think the literary characters were based on the same guy.
And “Our mother’s made us that way” seems to be true of serial killers as well as other testosterone poisoned issues. 
Yes. Robert Bloch’s Norman Bates was based in large part on Ed Gein, as was Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs (which also used elements of whatever-his-name-was who kept girls in the basement of his house). There’s also a bit of Dahmer, wherever you go.
Thanks, brondicon.
I didn’t remember the name because I don’t bookmark stuff like that. I’m afraid my Mother will find it, and…
So, how did you find out about Ed Gein? Are you an avid fa…
Never mind.
My personal opinion is that this movie is better (and much less gruesome) than Hannibal. It still doesn’t match up to Silence of the Lambs.
I have not read Red Drago, nor have I seen Manhunter. However, after seeing this movie, I plan to check the original out.
I tend to agree with brondicon’s assessment of Keitel - could have been anyone. Ralph Fiennes was pretty chilling (although yes, he’s a little too hot to be truly repulsive). I also echo the sentiments that Edward Norton might not really have been the right choice for his role. Normally I love him to death, but I’m not sure I would have picked him for a role like this.
We saw it as a matinee (which at $7 is only $2 cheaper than full price) and we were entertained. If you’re only going to see a handful of movies in a year, I’m not sure this should make the cut - but if you go fairly regularly, there are many worse movies out there, to be sure.
All in all, I’d recommend this film. I thought SOTL was a classic, and this isn’t even close to that, but is worth seeing. I saw it yesterday and I’d rate it three notches below SOTL and about 8 notches above Hannibal.
The gore level was pretty tame considering the subject matter. No scenes like the “facemask” in SOTL or the Liotta dessert in Hannibal. The goriest crimes were not shown, although the aftermaths (bloodsplatters, crime scene photos) were. There were a lot of references to children being killed, as well as pets, if that bothers you in films.
I’d agree with some other posters that considering the cast, the acting wasn’t all that great. I think Ed Norton is amazing, but was miscast here. Keitel didn’t do anything in a limited role. Hopkins was so menacing in SOTL; here he seems to be playing a caricature of that role. Emily Watson and Ralph Fiennes were the pick of the lot in my opinion.
There was one thing that annoyed me in the ending and tainted the film a bit. I’m going to put in a box just to be safe, even though this thread is labeled spoilers.
[spoiler]The police+FBI track a mass murderer to his home. His blind girlfriend tell them that he’s dead, and they just take her word for it. She doesn’t mention the coworker who dropped her off two minutes before she was kidnapped, or if she does the cops don’t bother to track him down and get his statement to confirm her story, and they also don’t seem to notice the big bloodstain by her front door from when he was shot. Ed Norton goes home, and a week later, gets a call telling him that the body wasn’t the killer’s, and wow, coincidentally the killer is breaking into his house at that exact same moment.
I realize dramatic license allows for a lot, but that chain of events seemed pretty thin to me.[/spoiler]