25 | 08 | 2002 anon writes ...

" I'm really looking forward to Red Dragon and cringe when people call it a Manhunter remake. It is not a Manhunter remake as Manhunter was not representative enough of the book Red Dragon. From all accounts Red Dragon will be true to the book. While no movie is an exact representation, Manhunter was too far off the mark. The film had several problems the least of which were bad editing and a poor soundtrack [manhunter.net: ooh! I have to disagree with that comment]

The ending in the book was far superior than the TV cop show level ending we got in Manhunter. I read the book after seeing Manhunter and was really mad that they changed the book ending. The pacing was also too slow. Many parts of the film dragged. Brian Cox was ok as Lecter, but he in no way embodies the character of the book. He is big, loud and boorish, not the charming, elegant, sleek man of the book. On the plus side for Manhunter I thought the actor (his name escapes me) [manhunter.net: William L Petersen] playing Will Graham did a good job. Red Dragon has a good cast and if Ted Tally has done half as good of a job adapting Red Dragon as he did Silence of the Lambs, then we are in store for a great flick.

As long as I'm writing there was another subject I wanted to touch on. Someone made a comment something to the effect that in the Hannibal book Lecter was written out of character. I couldn't disagree more. There was not enough written about Lecter in RD or SOTL to fully develope the character, so in Hannibal Harris was free to explore more fully the character's background, motivations, etc. Why some people want to pigeonhole Lecter into being a one-dimensional boogeyman is beyond me. That's what Jason and Freddy Krueger are for. He is much more interesting as a grey-area character than black or white. Lecter locked up is much more menacing and vicious than the free Lecter who easily blends into society. Remember, before he was caught he was highly respected and no one would have thought him capable of the crimes he committed.

In Red Dragon, Lecter is at his most vicious because he hasn't been locked up as long and is still pissed about it. He agrees to help Will, but he sees his opportunity to get some revenge on Will and goes for it. In Silence he agrees to help Clarice because he wants out of Baltimore State and away from Chilton. She lies to him in the "Anthrax Island" scam. At that point he already has his deal with the Senator, he has no reason to help Clarice. In fact, you might expect he would want to exact some revenge on her for trying to pull one over on him, but he doesn't. He still helps her. The one-dimensional villain wouldn't do that. So, perhaps we see a little glimpse that he isn't 100% evil after all. In the book he also expresses some sympathy for Sammie's illness. We're also told in SOTL by Barney that Lecter never sleeps at night. Hmmm ... remember in Red Dragon when he tells Will that at night is when the nightmares come? Perhaps the hint of his post traumatic stress that we find out about in the book Hannibal? So, you see the leap to anti-hero after th! e first two novels is a small one. In Hannibal, Harris gives us a little taste of what's behind Lecter's behavior, but still leaves enough out to maintain an air of mystery. I like that it's not cut and dry, black and white. I like how it explores that everyone has a good side and a dark side, even Hannibal and Clarice. So, in Hannibal he becomes more of a three-dimensional character, I don't know how anyone can complain about that. I just wish more of that came out in the film version ..."

24 | 08 | 2002 Lester, from Washington in the USA writes ...

" I have never read the book "Red Dragon" [manhunter.net: there's still time!] However, I have seen Manhunter about 100 times. Each time I see something different. Such as the last scene where Will Graham goes to visit what would have been the next family. His presence there, his demeanor, the look on his face and the cinematography suggests to me that he had become and as a part of becoming he had to "see" them (remember, his primary sensory intake is seeing)

I also saw Silence of the Lamb and Hannibal. I am quite pleased about the remake since I like the story period. I agree with some readers that Silence of the Lamb was better from a dark, gothic picture of evil standpoint. And I absolutely love Sir Anthony Hopkins as Doctor Lecter. However, I love the deductive reasoning, intuition and the manner in which Will Graham transformed his mind as depicted in Manhunter in what is NOW the classic profiler sense.

Also, I would have loved to see another actor as a younger Lecter. The only actor that this reader feels could have done Sir Anthony Hopkins version any justice and be able to give a perfomance that stands on its own would have been (drum roll please) ... Kevin Spacey. If you saw him in his earlier work on the CBS show "Wiseguy" as Mel Profitt, you would under stand. He has the kind of controlled insanity necessary to make the character come alive. After all, who else to portray the kind of control the Tony Hopkins did in his very first scene in the Silience of the Lambs. The scene where Starling sees him for the first time in his cell. Not a muscle in his body, face or hair moved. It was awesome and to this day it still amazes me.

Also, I truly enjoy this forum to both read and speak to others who have the same passion as I do for these characters ..."

24 | 08 | 2002 Ketan G writes ...

" I'm thinking about the film in terms of pros and cons. Ted Tally is a definite plus and so usually would be Ed Norton, but the trailer doesn't make the film look too impressive. First, the interrogation scene didn't feel scary at all. It seemed lame and forced, and Norton made it unintentionally humorous. Note the "you were insane" line. Think of how different it would have been if Peterson delivered the line than the way Norton does.

Next, look at Anthony Hopkins. He's had a bad string lately with the less than well received Hearts in Atlantis, Instinct, and of course, Bad Company. However, he is an excellent actor who has fun with the part. Brett Ratner: 3 Chris Tucker Comedies, The Family Man, and the producer of Double Take. The only one I liked as a well made film was Rush Hour, for one reason because of Adam Goldberg's work on it. The rest of the movies were not of any real quality. None of them signal that he could possibly take on a project of part Horror and Thriller.

Other people on the film like Harvey Keitel have a good history, except for Little Nicky. Once again, from the trailer alone I feel Ed Norton is wrong for the role, though I have not seen his performance in American History X. Danny Elfman cannot really deliver interesting scores anymore. Howard Shore was perfect for SOTL and Zimmer is also great. Other points of interest: Dante Spinotti the DP will be working on a film he's shot before, as he is a favorite of Manhunter director Michael Mann. At least he is one of the best in the buisiness. You can see the helicopter shot in the trailer as being similar with Norton instead of Peterson. I didn't like that the interrogation chair seen from a first person view had to be copied just to remind the audience of SOTL. Also, as confirmed by this site, the only person to have been in Manhunter, SOTL, and Hannibal is Frankie Faison. He is mostly known as Barney, but appeared for a split second as a cop (Lt. Fisk) leading up to the film's climax. I hope he gets at least a small role.

Overall I want to be proved wrong by this film, though more for mine and Tally's sake than Ratner's. Let's hope the series stays somewhat respectable. Because of Manhunter's low recognition with the public, the whole set of films might just be remembered for SOTL ..."

22 | 08 | 2002 Gary Bernhardt writes ...

" I believe that Red Dragon will be a far superior film to Manhunter. I have one word - CHEMISTRY. Anthony Heald has returned to play the part of Dr. Chilton. In the novel, Lecter and Chilton interact, brief as it may be, they interact nonetheless. Anthony Heald portrays Chilton in the very nature of Thomas Harris' intent. He represents everything that Lecter despises in human nature.

In regard to Andrew Tenebrae's comments: Was Tom Noonan muscular? He was very tall yes, but maybe 185 pounds soaking wet? It is obvious why they chose not to show Tom Noonan lifting weights. Noonan was average as the 'tooth fairy', Feinnes is the more capable actor. Have you seen Schindler's List? His eyes and persona tell a story. Hair color, character names are all meaningless. It boils down to acting.

Brian Cox brought his own uniqueness to 'Lector', but was much to loud and harsh. He reminded me more of a Scottish thug than the Lecter we know in the novels. Standing in his cell smacking his chewing gum in his mouth? They should have put him in a leather jacket and gave him a chain to wrap around his hand. Anthony Hopkins plays Lecter to chilling perfection. Still like a cat, almost putting captors at ease, but will kill with lethal vengeance if given the opportunity.

"How fake can a serial killer be" Andrew? Have you heard of Dr. Harold Shipman, convicted in 1999 on 15 counts of murder. He was a feeble old man, and to this day they are exhuming bodies and believe Shipman to be responsible for possible 300 counts of murder, making him the most notorious serial killer of modern time. Murders took place in England beginning in 1974 and ended in the mid to late nineties. His intelligence and bedside manner were his cunning and allowed him to prey on the unsuspecting. Was Ted Bundy 'menacing'? He looked like a tennis pro, not a serial killer. I believe what makes serial killers most terrifying is their normality. Serial killers don't walk the streets wearing masks and carrying chain-saws. This is what makes Hopkins' portrayal award winning. His Lecter is subtle but deadly.

The supporting cast of Dragon is outstanding. Phillip Hoffman is a first rate actor who was outstanding in Magnolia and other films. Harvey Keitel's resume speaks for itself, and Ed Norton, young though he may be is a tremendous talent. Need I remind you of his performance in Primal Fear? Fight Club? Last but not least Ted Tally has done the screenplay. Silence of the Lambs? Academy Award? Enough said I think ..."

22 | 08 | 2002 Ronald Retsch writes ...

" I'd first like to express how big a fan of "Manhunter" I am. It made an impression on me at an eary age and was one of the driving reasons for my degree in criminology and my current career in law. I identified with Graham, and his ability to combine intuition and visual accuity with empathy (all traits I use everyday) to understand others viewpoints, even those we drastically oppose. Remember, understanding is not sympahty or advocacy. It can be used as a predator's tool" as well, as Lecter uses it. Graham put it best in "Manhunter" when he described his differing viewpoints on the Red Dragon as having sympathy for him as a child and now wraith and vengeance against him as an adult. That line is a mantra for my life and a good way of dealing with real life monsters like Dollarhyde dramatized.

But I digress. As good as "Manhunter" was, it was not "Red Dragon". Having read and seen both the movie and the book numerous times at various stages in my life, I have seen new levels in each, and now at my adult age I can truly see what "Manhunter" lacked. I was advocating a "Manhunter" remake right after Silence to fill the void between Silence and the resulting, disappointing sequel "Hannibal". (Is it just me or would that story have benefited enormously if Harris wove a down-and-out Will Graham in as a "consultant" to Verger in his hunt for Hannibal, with each man having their own agendas in using each other and Starling to bait Lecter, Graham's being perhaps killing the man that helped ruin his family and himself and thus finally being "comfortable with his nature" as Lecter suggested. After all, Graham used himself as bait against the Red Dragon so using Starling wouldn't be out of character. Alas that story was not to be)

The first trailer got my attention, and the instant I saw the newest 2nd trailer (and if anyone knows how to save it in Ouicktime, let us all know please!), I was hooked. What I've seen really suggests the book, and the choice of Norton as Graham is in my opinion a good one. This part could make him like Starling "made" Foster. I didn't like Norton until "The Score", and I myself lacked a sugestion for the role of Graham, as Petersen had the tormented act down pat. (Maybe Russell Crowe?) But since Graham is a "hero" character of mine (loosely based on Robert Riessler, a real life profiler), I find Norton apt for the challenge.

Hopkins is a no-brainer, and though Cox played it more realistically, Hopkins made the part his own, and I always wondered what Hopkins would be like as Lecter against Graham. "Silence" always rubbed me the wrong way as Starling was a novice compared to Lecter, and though the teacher-student dynamic Lecter and Starling shared made the film, I wanted to see Lecter matched by a equal opponent. The FBI, (which I plan to apply to in two years)would never send a student against someone like Lecter, who has demonstared in the past novel that he was dangerous ebven behind bars. A profiler like Graham is much more real, and interesting. A "domesticated wolf" like Graham striving to get back the killer instinct that a "wild wolf" like Lecter has so he can "hunt" his prey, whereas Starling was, no pun intended, a "lamb" trying to think like a wolf is a good analogy to illustrate the difference. Graham fit that role, and keeping Lecter a strong supporting villain (and let's remember, he is a villain, not an anti-hero like "Hannibal" and others tried to make him, a pov "Red Dragon" seems to take.)

All the chosen actors seem well suited to thier roles, and whereas Noonan "creeped" me out like a pedophile would, Fiennes actually "scares" me like a maniac like Dollarhyde should. (See that quick clip in the trailer where Graham turns and Dollarhyde swings that knife? Excellent!) The only gripe I have is their inability to get Scott Glenn back as Crawford. What was the reason for that?

I have read some reviews written by some who have actually seen the test screening for the movie. The reviews seem like they were written by someone who saw the movie, and not just a rumormonger. And all of them have praised the film, citing an ending that will leave you smiling. I am curious as to why Graham was absent from Silence. Harris really pissed away a great character in his basic dismissal of him in the book. Hopefully the Red Dragon movie will better explain, and I have heard that it does. And to answer all those that said the new movie is just being made to make money for Dino, well you're right. But it seems they are actually trying hard to recreate the book and in the process care about it as well, or they wouldn't have gotten the talent they have, including Ted Tally to write what is arguably the most important part, the screenplay, which I've heard is fantastic. (Anyone have a copy of it or have a site where it is at besides the first six pages?) And for those that are ripping on Ratner, remember Demme had some films in his past that were less than Silence caliber, like Married to the Mob, and he pulled out some Oscars for his work, so don't count Ratner out yet. Going to him may be a way to recreate that Demme magic. Seen the trailer? Looks good, no? Well lighten the hell up and see the movie for what it is and not try to compare it to "Manhunter". Sure "Manhunter" was great for what it was and underappreciated to boot, but this new movie may cause people to go out and get "Manhunter" just to see for themselves. And that is only a good thing. Thanks for the forum and the site. Questions, comments? "

22 | 08 | 2002 Garv420@aol.com, from the internet writes ...

" Hi, I am a HUGE fan of the Thomas Harris trilogy, I saw SOTL and thouht it was pure and simply remarkable. I saw Hannibal, and thought it was OK. I then saw Manhunter aka Red Dragon on the shelf of in a Blockbuster store. I learned it was before SOTL so of course I rented it. I thought it was a great movie. Take it away from the trilogy and it's just a great psychopath thriller. But of course when you add it to the trilogy it's just the one w/out Hopkins. I think that with the success of SOTL and Hannibal they wanted to have Manhunter as the red-head in a family of blondes. Granted, it was based on the book Red Dragon, but after reading the book, Manhunter and the book are completely different. Manhunter left sooooooooo much out of the plot and story behind Francis Dolarhyde as well as Hannibal and Graham ...

The makers of SOTL and Hannibal had to make their version of Red Dragon, not only to make some money but fix what the makers of Manhunter screwed. I think they will do everything right, from everything I have seen in the Dragon trailer it's perfect, except for the fact that Francis is played by a pretty boy, which isn't what the book describes him to be. I think if they just fix the little things the movie will be the best of the three. Like, for example, they fixed the house of Dolarhyde. In the trailer it's just what the book describes it to be. Well thanks for listening and feel free to email me about this subject @ Garv420@aol.com ..."

21 | 08 | 2002 Jack, from Ohio in the USA writes ...

" Personally, I am looking forward to Red Dragon. I do not see this film as a remake of Manhunter, but a retelling from the Red Dragon's point of view. Manhunter is one of my top ten favorite films of all time. I saw it the first week it came out and loved it ever since. After watching the film the first time I began to remember reading the book a few years earlier and despite the being an excellent film something was missing. I re-read the book and realized it was the Dolarhyde character. Mann's film missed the character completely. Do not get me wrong ... Tom Noonan was simply outstanding as the tooth fairy ... he was not the Red Dragon ... this was no fault of his own, just simply an artistic choice Mann made. What was missing was Dolarhydes "becoming in Manhunter he was becoming someone loved and desired, but in the book he was becoming a god. The Red Dragon, Great and Terrible. What was missing was the tattoo, the two sets of teeth, the journal, the workout room, the old gothic house, the grandmother, all of these were essential to the character of the Red Dragon.

Mann chose to make an outstanding film emphasizing forensics ... the book was a character study of two individuals - one mad man who may find redmption in love, one sane man who could lose his redemption. From what I have read and seen of the two trailers is that Red Dragon is filming those themes. I was paticularly interested in the scene showing two sets of teeth - one for talking, one for biting. That is what Dolarhyde was about. As far as the Lector thing, I thought both Cox and Hopkins got the parts perfect and they both were terrific. Edward Norton may be playing Graham closer to the book. In Manhunter he starts out burned out but in the book he digresses. Graham too is "becoming". In closing, Manhunter is one of the most underrated movies of the last 20 years, and yes is in it's own way Red Dragon. I am hoping that this new film will complete the circle. And by the way, Fiennes is perfect for Dolarhyde. Just like Mann cast Noonan because Noonan is a first rate actor. Ratner cast Fiennes, not for physical prescence, but because he can act. I am not worried about Ratner. I think he seems to respect the material and is hungry to prove what he can do ..."

16 | 08 | 2002 Justin Anderson, from the USA writes ...

" Personally, I do feel this is just a "for money" project Dino de Laurentiis felt was necessary. I find some of his comments a bit disturbing. "Manhunter was not Red Dragon (the book)." Not many book-to-film adaptations make it 100%. If most did, they'd be incredibly long films. Lord of the Rings is a perfect example, having been divided into 3 film projects. And the first film already bordered on 3 hours long.

Does he seriously think this fim will include more book material? Maybe different material, but probably not more. Some may be a bit truer to the book (Dolarhyde's house, a few names and such), but there will still be changes. I can't comment fully on the actors. I've never seen a single film with Edward Norton, and I've never heard of Ralph Fiennes (though I think they cast an "unknown" on purpose)

Harvey Keitel as Jack Crawford, I do like. I think he can pull it off. While he's not Dennis Farina, who was pulling his reference from his time as a police officer, he has a bit more professional look than Scott Glenn did (and I think this was Harris's fault, not Scott's. By the second novel, Crawford had degenerated due to personal issues, and in the movie, with his wife removed, he was basically a jerk who didn't strike me as being leadership material). I heard Anthony Heald was returning as Chilton. I don't know if this happened, but if it did [manhunter.net: it did!], I'll be happy. The Chilton presented in Manhunter (including the director's cut footage) was a professional, and knew Lecter was dangerous, but still didn't fit the character of the novel. Which, Iguess in the end, he had such little screen time, keeping him true to the book wasn't a major concern.

Hopkins ... well, I admit, as Lecter, he's fairly creepy. We know he's dangerous. But, Cox pulled it off differently. He wasn't "in your face" with it. He didn't obsess. We knew he could tear us up with a knife given a chance. He taes his change to send Dolarhyde after Graham and never regretted it. Then had a conversation with Will as if nothing had happened. A further psychotic. Lecter seems to have purpose, while Lecktor is out to have a good time, which makes him unpredictable.

I have problems with the novels. The "sixth finger" staring in novel 2 was a bit weird, and didn't do much to add to the plot (was this mentioned in the first novel? I don't emember it, and it seems like something that would stand out). I wasn't happy when I read that Will Graham was basically turned into a disfigured drunk in book 2. The whole "psych test" for criminals seemed a bit of a far-fetched idea, probably stretched a bit from the actual test it was based on.

Hannibal I won't comment much on, except for the last few chapters destroying everyone's character. Clarice evil. Lecter a cry baby. Nice going, Harris. This HAD to be a slap to the face of someone. I question the seriousness of Lecter and Starling as a romantic couple. I think Ridley Scott changed the ending for a reason - believability (though those who hated the changed ending tend to ignore Jodie Foster requesting many of these changes before she dropped the project)

Brett Ratner flat frightens me though. I've read his comments. I guess Dino wanted someone who would do as he was told. He's good at directing action, to a degree (Jackie Chan even commented on the martial arts in the Rush Hour films being a bit forced). Ratner has clearly never seen Manhunter, and I think it does prove this is a money project. Otherwise, why not hire a serious director? Or just put Manhunter out in theaters again?

The casting of Hopkins is also a money draw. This film takes place before "Silence", but he looks a lot older. Again, if they had been 100% serious, why not cast a younger actor? Hopkins didn't even agree to the film until they paid him a huge sum of cash. With that, I do have to add this - Todd McFarlane wanted to do a Hannibal Lecter toy in their movie Maniacs line (hints have been dropped a prototype was made). Hopkins refused to give them permission to use his face. he claims "he doesn't want a character such as Lecter within easy reach of children". McFarlane toys has "indirectly" stated that he wanted a lot of cash(which they generally can't pay anyway). I'm inclined to believe McFarlane. Not only is Lecter "accessible by kids" in an easy manner anyway (as is most media, regardless of rating), but many stars (and the estates of deceased actors) have agreed to likeness use for no money (the exception being cases where no actor's face is seen to begin with - Jason, Pumpkinhead, etc) "

09 | 08 | 2002 Peggy Black, from Colorado in the USA writes ...

" I have to respond to the comments of David Chase. He said in closing that he hopes that Thomas Harris writes another book, a prequel to Red Dragon. It is obvious that he hadn't read Hannibal before stating this wish, and Iwant to warn him not to waste any time or effort reading it. Thomas Harris did not want to write a sequel to Silence of the Lambs and had the last laugh on everyone who pressured him into it with one of the most poorly written, poorly edited and poorly concieved books to ever be published. And somehow the movie made from it was even worse !!

Thank you for allowing me to vent. On to the Red Dragon remake: I agree that Edward Norton is questionable for the Will Graham character. I too can only see Will Petersen in that role. I saw the movie before i read the book (which is actually the best way to do it, in my opinion. Reading the book afterward explains a lot of things that they couldn't get in the movie) and all the actors fit the characters well enough that visualising them while reading was very easy. I do think that Ralph Fiennes' intensity will make up for any lack of physical presence (although he has plenty of that too!) When Isaw the poster for Red Dragon and saw who was in the cast I knew I had to see it ! "

04 | 08 | 2002 David Chase, from Saint John, New Brunswick in Canada writes ...

" I have to admit I am a little surprised by some of the comments I've read regarding Manhunter. A lot of people are saying it is the best of the series, better even than Silence of the Lambs, and at the risk of being unpopular, I don't think there is any comparison. Silence is, in my opinion, one of the greatest American films ever produced, and ranks near the top of my own personal favourites list.

Jodie Foster was fantastic as Clarice Starling, and Anthony Hopkins ... well, if anyone was ever born to play a part, it was him. With all due respect to Brian Cox, Hopkins IS Hannibal Lecter. Also, I thought Scott Glenn was perfect as Jack Crawford, but that may have been because I saw the film before reading the book, so that was how I pictured him in the book as well. I had seen Dennis Farina's portrayal a few years earlier, but again I feel that the casting in Silence was better.

By now you must be getting the picture that I am a huge fan of Silence of the Lambs. I know what you must be thinking, "Hey, this guy is really trashing Manhunter", but that is not my intention at all. In fact, I think Manhunter is a great film, and totally underrated. I saw the movie before reading or seeing Silence, and it was only after reading Silence that I read Red Dragon. Full marks should be given to Michael Mann, I was a big Miami Vice fan, and I loved the glossy look of Manhunter.

I talked (ad nauseum) about the casting in Silence, but I must also give Manhunter it's due. William Petersen was perfectly cast as Will Graham, and even now, if I watch CSI, I still think of him as Graham. I also think Tom Noonan did a good job as Francis Dolarhyde, particularly because he was so Imposing physically (but I didn't quite agree that he deserved an Oscar for the role, as one comment suggested). Manhunter, in my opinion, is one of the best of the Serial Killer genre movies (if such a genre exists) along with another really good film, Citizen X. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it. In fact, if it weren't for Silence, I would likely put Manhunter at the top of the list. As I said, it has a great look to it, and a great (although somewhat dated) soundtrack. The suspense is tight, and the acting is top notch. The scene in which Petersen is watching the home movies at the eleventh hour, and he notices the padlock, and everything starts coming together for him, well, that is one of my favourite scenes ever. Perhaps that is why he is so convincing as a forencics expert in CSI, because he portrays a real intelligence coupled with the wisdom of an experienced investigator. Yes, even though I feel that Manhunter is somewhat inferior to Silence, I still think it is a great film. If I have any complaints about Manhunter, one would be that the editing is a bit choppy in places. And I would also like to have learned a bit more about Dolarhyde, although I have the same complaint about Jame Gumb in Silence, but I guess there is only so much you can fit into a two hour movie.

Now that I have said all of that, I can honestly say I am looking forward to Red Dragon. I don't know why, because I felt that they got it pretty much right with Manhunter, but I guess I have always wondered how it would have worked with Hopkins in the Lecter role. I would almost be inclined to say the same thing about redoing Hannibal with Jodie Foster as Starling, if it weren't for the fact that the movie was so ridiculous. I mean, come on, no way Lecter would have allowed himself to be captured so easily. Hannibal is the only Thomas Harris novel I haven't yet read, and I am hoping the book is better than the movie. And so, we get back to casting. I really don't need to say any more about who I think should play Hannibal.

As for the other choices, I love Edward Norton's work, but I'm a bit skeptical, as I don't think he is old enough or can portray the experience necessary to play Will Graham as well as Peterson did. Ralph Fiennes is another great actor, but not that imposing physically. Harvey Kietel plays a great crooked cop or gangster, but I thought Scott Glenn should have been brought back as Crawford. I have no opinion yet regarding the rest of the cast, although I hope Graham's wife plays more of a role in this film.

As a final note, I'd like to say that if Thomas Harris ever writes another novel, he should consider a prequel to Manhunter. I'd love to see Will Graham tracking down and capturing Lecter, and to see more of Lecter's pre-encarceration activites. They alluded to it in Hannibal, but I didn't get a good sense of just how dangerous he was in those scenes. I'm guessing, however, that the next installment, if there is one, will continue the story where Hannibal left off. Perhaps we'll see in another 7 or 8 years ... "

03 | 08 | 2002 The Kaoz Mind, from Mexico City in Mexico writes ...

" I think that the only reason of the remake of the RED DRAGON is because just a few people know Manhunter, it is almost an independent movie film. I'm glad for the remake, I already have the 3 films in DVD and I guess my trilogy it's complete, but to see the same Dr. Lecter in the 3 films it's going to be great, and about the other characters I just expect the same personality strength from the original ... "

Further Information and links ...

• Fan comments main menu
• Comprehensive list of external links - click here

• Top of this page
• Red Dragon home
• Manhunter home