Review of Red Dragon (1965) by Ben F — 29 Jul 2011

If you take a look, historically, to contemporary film, you'll find that, generally speaking, prequels don't really do well in the suspense/thriller/horror genre. Usually, prequels or sequels are considered for less superior than the originals, because usually, thrills cannot be achieved twice, in regards to a particular story. And if it's not about being able to attain a thrill, than it's about a failed marketing and economic campaign by distribution companies, who slap the name of the franchise on a particular movie, even though it's atrocious, just to make some money. "The Silence of the Lambs" was one of the most brilliant movies of our generation, but it's sequel "Hannibal" without a doubt, fell a little short. But this film was different. It takes place before both of the films, and has different characters. And for some strange reason, it works! The movie was actually good.

In "Red Dragon", the film follows a detective played by Edward Norton, who was the reason that Hannibal Lector was put behind bars. But just like in the original movie, he needs his help to track down a killer, played by Ralph Fiennes. The content is actually awesome, and the execution is awesome as well.

The acting is fairly good by everyone. I was a particular fan of Fiennes and Philip Seymour Hoffman in this production. They were both absolutely fantastic. But really, everyone was good. The acting was solid, and you can't ask for more than that.

I really was on the edge of my seat for most of the film. It was disturbing, but at the same time, it had such a well developed plot! It was so awesome!

There isn't much more to say except that this movie surprised me, and definitely in a good way. This was a very good prequel. It can't even touch the original, but it's definitely acceptable. The plot was good, the acting was great, and the intensity was spot on. I recommend this film.