I'm not satisfied. "The silence of the lamb" and "Hannibal" are both better than this prequel. Why? First the story: is that new? I'm not referring to the fact that this is a remake of a movie (Manhunter) but that the story itself is quite dejà-vu. We have Hannibal again as a consultant, the hero that does not want to come back to work but finally he accept to exploit his great skills and courage. We have stupid ways to make the audience shocked (when the hero - Norton - checks the victims house he thinks of the murder and suddenly there are few shots with shouts and blood; when the hero interviews Hannibal when he is having a walk outside of the cell Hannibal tries to shock him - and the audience - with a simulation of a bite. Folks, here we are at the BOOO-level!!). The acting: Hannibal has no more the charme of the first Hannibal. I don't know, probably he says things I have already heard in the first two movies. Norton: I couldn't image him in the role of the good boy and maybe it is a bias I have. However his acting for the first time is not so exceptional. His character is not so... Norton, I mean it could be anyone, not Edward Norton, one of the best actor I have ever seen. Fiennes as the monster is very good, as good as Emily Watson, whose character is truly sweet and during the film we all prey God to not let her die. The final has nothing so special. It is only a link with "The silence of the lamb". I think "Silence" is the best of the trilogy, "Hannibal" the second best (at least is quite different from the first and there are a lot of incredibly gore deaths). This one unfortunately is not at that level. I haven't seen Manhunter yet, now I have the curiosity to see if there is a chance to do a good movie with this script.
Review of Red Dragon
