30 | 09 | 2002 Bob Eyres writes ...

" The comments on your website about "Red Dragon" are stirring my interest in the film. Although I was initially surprised that Edward Norton was chosen for the part of Will Graham, he is such a talented actor that my hopes are high that he'll do a great job. Even though William Peterson is Will Graham in my "minds eye".

Another interesting choice is Ralph Fiennes for Francis Dolarhyde. This choice seems unusual considering his roles in recent years. But, Fiennes is a talented actor who's portrayal of the concentration camp commander Amon Gothe in "Schindler's List" was the personification of "The banality of evil". In my opinion, the finest villain in modern film.

I just picked up my original copy of the book to read it for the first time in years. I can't wait until the film opens on Friday ..."

18 | 09 | 2002 John Shea from Florida, USA writes ...

" There's been a lot of discussion about the casting of Ralph Fiennes as Francis Dolarhyde - in particular, regarding whether he has the physical stature required by the role. I don't know if Fiennes buffed up for the part, the way Robert DeNiro did for the role of Max Candy in the remake of "Cape Fear." One thing he can't change is his height. But I recently made what was, for me at least, an amazing discovery. I had a very clear image of Dolarhyde as a towering figure, which is the way he was portrayed in "Manhunter." But upon re-examing the novel recently, I found that this is not the way he is described by Thomas Harris. Of course, I might have missed something - I didn't re-read the whole novel from start to finish - so please let me know if you're aware of any place in the book where Harris specifies Dolarhyde's height.

Here is what I could find: In an early chapter, Graham interviews a neighbor of one of the murdered families, who saw Dolarhyde casing the house shortly before the crime, posing as a meter reader. The neighbor, whose name is Parsons, doesn't volunteer any information about the suspect's height, but Graham asks him if he was eye level with the meter or had to look up at it. Parsons says he was eye level. To me, that sounds like Dolarhyde is roughly average height. If he were a giant, he'd be looking down at the meter. Also, if Dolarhyde were exceptionally tall, wouldn't that be one of the features Parsons would mention? (Granted, he is un-cooperative at first, but he does wind up giving them as good a description as he can manage - e.g., that the suspect had blonde hair.)

Harris later states that Dolarhyde is about the same height and weight as the gas station attendant he abducts for his fake death, but he doesn't say there's anything unusual about that height. In fact, if Dolarhyde were a giant, it would make it highly implausible that he would find such a perfect stand-in, especially one with false teeth !

In "Manhunter," they tell us (during the scene on the plane as Graham and Crawford fly to St. Louis) that Dolarhyde is 6 foot 7 and weighs 217 pounds. But I'm sure the script was adjusted to fit the actor playing the part, Tom Noonan. Earlier, they tell us that Dolarhyde wears a size 12 shoe, as evidenced by his footprint at the scene of the crime. Again, this was probably adjusted to suit Noonan. (In the book, he's size 11, which is large but doesn't necessitate NBA-type stature.)

I guess that, even though I read the novel before seeing "Manhunter," Tom Noonen made such a strong impression on me that I melded his image into my conception of the Dolarhyde character as written by Harris. If I'm correct in now thinking that Harris never pictured Dolarhyde as exceptionally tall, this makes me feel a lot better about the casting of Feinnes. If he's honed his physique for the role, I believe he'll capture the character perfectly. Even if he hasn't quite gotten to the point where he could compete successfully in a regional body building competition (as Harris says Dolarhyde had), Feinnes' acting talent should help bridge the gap. I'd rather see Feinnes play the part than, say, Vin Diesel, who is a lot closer to the Dolarhyde body. (But wouldn't it have been intriguing if they had cast Russell Crowe, who has both the highly developed physique AND world-class acting talent?)

P.S. A friend of mine, who teaches Humanities at a community college, has suggested that Harris chose the name "Dolarhyde" as an allusion to "Doctor Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde." Of course, Francis would be Jeckyll and the Great Red Dragon would be Hyde. Interesting conjecture, isn't it ?

16 | 09 | 2002 Justin Anderson writes ...

" I saw a trailer on Comedy Central for Red Dragon the other night. Personally .................... umm, can't really say I was totally impressed. I'm not sure if I'd be knocking Edward Norton's talents by saying this, but I thought the whole "god" line came off as corny. I know I can't base the characetrization off just this one line, but his Graham doesn't strike me as the same guy. Not the 'mind messed up' type.

I may try to view a few more trailers before the film comes out, at the very least. I'd hate to say the movie sucks before I've even seen it. But the TV trailer really didn't get my hopes up any. It's doubtful I'd see it in theaters anyway, since I generally don't like going much anyway (between the tiny seats and people who don't turn off their cell phones, how fun can it be?) So, I'd probably wait for rentals, if the film turns out to be any good.

I'd at least hope the movie to be a little more than another Hannibal Lecter moneymaker, but it seems like they expect him to be the main draw anyway ..."

Updated : 23 | 09 | 2002 The Second Trailer

"I caught another trailer last night. Newer footage. Okay, it look slike they're going for "slow, retarded" for Dolarhyde. Umm ... just great. A killer who talks like a 5 year old. Hoo boy. I know he had some problems growing up (in the book), but I think they're overdoing it. I finally got to see some of Lecter's stuff. He screams at them like he's scolding a child. I mean, to the point of overacting. Not to mention the restraints are overboard. He's in a cell, strapped down and with his mask on ... I know he can be dangerous, but are they holding Hannibal Lecter, or Khan?

Will this movie do well? Possibly. Then again, it's not going up against any major films. It's up against a Tom Green flick and an action movie based on a video game. I'd imagine if it had come out in May, it would have done poorly (I think the studio knew this, too. Probably why it was pushed back so late in the year. Spider-Man and Star Wars would have buried it) ..."

15 | 09 | 2002 Tracey MacDougall, from California in the USA writes ...

" I must admit I was very anti "the new Red Dragon" film. But after perusing through your web site, I see I was being a bit hasty and judgemental. In my egotistical personal opinion, I felt it must be a mistake to do another version of the book "Red Dragon". I know much more about the whole thing now and I think I will go see it. I loved the book, I loved "Manhunter" and I was getting tired of trying to convince all of my friends there really was a movie before "Silence of the Lambs"!!! Maybe now they'll believe me with all the publicity it is getting. I just wish I could find it at a movie rental store.

Anyway, I am a fan of Ralph Feinnes and several of the actors in this remake and I think the film has a lot of potential. Let me just say that I am optimistic. After reading people's thoughts about Edward Norton I guess I can see what they mean. He has a lot to live up to. The first guy (William L Petersen from CSI) was excellent - right on the money. I am happy for Thomas Harris and all of his success. He is a captivating author and I guess there's hope for me. Although I could not even finish "Hannibal" but that was because it sounded like a book that he was pressured to write and I was sadly dissapointed with the book and the movie version. Last, but not least, I cannot wait to see Ralph Feinnes with his shirt off ... !"

15 | 09 | 2002 Tierza Langston writes ...

" I'm not sure if what follows deserves any stars next to it. [ webmaster: feeling generous today, so don't worry! ]

So on that note: It seems strange to me that Red Dragon is so vehemently labeled a "remake" of Manhunter, when they're both just different interpretations of the same source material. I realize what a pretentious analogy this is, but the movie version of Hamlet with Ethan Hawke and Robert DeNiro has never really been considered a "remake" of the Hamlet with Glenn Close and Mel Gibson. Or has it ?

The reason that this bothers me is that as I read the novel after seeing Manhunter, I was impressed that for all of Manhunter's overly stylistic Hoo-Haa and the tacked-on, meaningless, ludicrous ending, Mann did (underneath the 80's glitz) capture the cold, dreamy atmosphere the novel created. However, there were so many elements throughout the novel that I felt would be astounding to see realized on film (i.e. "Francis Goes to the Museum," and "Francis and Mr. Graham Have A Fight"). All in all, I consider Red Dragon to be a refreshing and much-needed retelling of the story (if, of course, it's successful), rather than just some simple, Hollywood rehash of a cult classic.

By the way, it's an interesting thought, casting Spacey as the younger Lecter; they even look vaguely alike. And though I agree that Norton is a fantastic actor and could pull it off in his sleep, wouldn't Ed Harris have been better for Graham? For some reason, I could just picture Harris' haggered leathery ol' self staggering down the asylum hallway in some rumpled old suit, or up in a tree mumbling to himself, or glaring hatefully at Chilton, or actually having a believable relationship with Harvey Keitel ... Ed Harris has the intensity of a guy with a genius intellect trapped in a machinist's body, and could concievably use an aftershave with a ship on the bottle. If Red Dragon is the land-lubbers version of Jaws, Will Graham is Quint, so he should look accordingly.

Thanks for giving me a shoulder to cry on ..."

05 | 09 | 2002 Stephanie Dwyer from the USA writes ...

" I have several responses concerning the discussion about the filming of Red Dragon. First a little history, Dino De Laurentiis is an independent filmmaker who distributes his films through studios such as MGM and Universal, so the accusations that he is a Hollywood moneygrabber is erroneous. Take a look at his filmography and you'll see he's had a very distinguished career as a producer of art films. He now has, through his more commercial ventures, established a thriving production company that works only with the studio system to insure that his films get a worldwide distribution.

He made no money on Manhunter, as it was a commercial failure. And as for SOTL, he donated (that's right, donated, as in: gave away for no compensation) the rights to the story to Orion Studios (an independent studio) because they were in danger of going belly up and he wanted to help out another independent production house. Even the success of SOTL could not save Orion, and none of the 127 million dollars went to Dino. The only film in this series that made money for Dino is Hannibal

Why film a new version of Red Dragon? Because despite Michael Mann's style, despite William Peterson's superb rendering of Will Graham, despite Dante Spinotti's cinematography, Manhunter has one of the worst cop out endings ever put on film. The complicated, disturbing and tragic ending of Red Dragon was thrown out for the happy ending of Manhunter. The ironic twist to Harris' book was destroyed and the repetitive solution to all of the trilogies endings was thrown out of whack. Each book ends the same way. A woman kills a killer and the situation has been set up by Lecter. Intentionally. Will failed in the book. He squanders the opportunity that Lecter has given him to control his demons and the task of survival fell to someone else.

The first twenty minutes of this film will be relevatory to a lot of viewers. Despite the harangues against the film version of Hannibal it was in fact the only one of the three films that dealt extensively with the subtext that Harris diligently set up in the books. Harris sat down with Scott and Zailiian and laid it out for them. Harris also sat down with Tally and Ratner and requested the restructuring of the first section of Red Dragon because he wanted to clear up so much of the confusion and clarify his intentions. I do not expect that the film will spoon feed the subtext to the audience, but it will be there for the more astute viewers. (Harris, like Lecter, communicates his intentions obliquely.) So when Ratner says that this film will deal with Harris intentions far better than Manhunter ever did, he is correct. Because Harris has actually spelled it out for him and Tally.

I'm looking forward to this film. The cast is exceptional, and while I still have reservations about Norton, (Peterson was dead on) I am quite happy with the other choices. I was one of a handful of viewers who understood the film version of Hannibal. Probably because I read these books in order (and when they were originally published) and I am more than familiar with the original source materials for these books. Harris spent twenty years crafting a reworking of a great piece of literature and an amalgam of the life and works of the greatest writer of the second millenium. It's a shame that the general public has Dante being explained to them by a wonderful writer but most people only see a few horror / police procedural novels or films ..."

05 | 09 | 2002 Peter Burbank from the USA writes ...

" I think that Red Dragon deserves to be remade because Manhunter did not live up to the potential. I also think that it will do great at the box office, giving Thomas Harris time to come up with more ideas for Hannibal for Shades Of Decay ..."

05 | 09 | 2002 Melissa Saradpon writes ...

" Recently I went to see "Minority Report". As I sat in the theatre patiently waiting, the [Red Dragon] trailer began. I was literally glued to my seat watching the preview unfold. Immediately I went out, bought the book and read it in less than a day. I am enormously pleased that Hopkins decided to reprise the role of Hannibal; he is the only actor who will bring the character to life. Edward Norton was a different choice for Graham, though he is a wonderful actor and it will be interesting to see how he will interpret the part. The supporting cast seems very capable.

One recent fan comment caught my attention and prompted me to comment myself. Lester from Washington (USA) wrote that it would be excellent to see Hannibal portrayed at a young age and played by Kevin Spacey. His suggestion seems totally ON and I completely agree. No one else could represent Hannibal in his cool, calm, elegant demeanor as Spacey ... didn't anyone see Seven or The Usual Suspects ??!! Please give Spacey a chance to bring his talents to the Harris trilogy !!! "

04 | 09 | 2002 Samuel Benson writes ...

" The fact that Dino DeLaurentis has decided to return to another Lecter movie (ostensibly for the purpose of correcting Manhunter's errors) makes me a little uneasy at the outset. I saw Manhunter when I was pretty young, before The Silence of the Lambs was released. Yes, it did deviate excessively from the book, but it was an all-around excellent movie that wasn't nearly bad enough to merit a remake.

While I'm pretty psyched to see the Hannibal Trilogy completed, I'm a little hesitant after the last disaster. Nearly two-thirds of the book dealt with Hannibal directly, but he only appeared in about 25% of the actual movie. I won't even go into what Ridley Scott did to the ending. Do it right, or don't do it at all. The next major problem I see with Red Dragon is casting. Ed Norton has no business playing Will Graham. I hope he did his homework by watching William Petersen's performance, because that is exactly how Graham comes accross in the book. Because he is an extraordinarily versatile young actor, I'll give Norton the benefit of the doubt until I see the film.

Another problem with casting is overkill in Red Dragon. I'm surprised Tom Hanks and Nicholas Cage didn't show up somewhere in this film. There is way too much "star-power" in this movie for audiences to handle. Even minor characters (Crawford, Lounds, and Molly) are played by major stars. It's great to have competent actors, but this many egos in one movie is going to leave audiences distracted. The bottom line is that the movie going public is attracted to these films for one reason only -- Hannibal Lecter. You just can't get enough of him.

A better idea would be to scrap the remake of Red Dragon, and do a film which centers on Lecter's early exploits and subsequent capture. There is more than enough background material in the tree books (especially so in the case of Hannibal) to put together a well written script. Having read all three books several times each, I don't think Red Dragon was a particularly good story anyhow. Fan's of Harris's novels will be pleased overall, if the story stays with the novel as it seems to be. "Ready when you are, Seniore Delaurentis ..."

Further Information and links ...

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

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