|
"The World's
Fastest Cannibal" |
 |
Directed by Brett Ratner
- Written by Ted Tally
Starring Anthony
Hopkins, Edward Norton,
Ralph Fiennes
Distributed by Universal -
2002 - 124mins - Rated R |
| |
|
Meet Hannibal Lecter for the first time. |
| |
The
third film to feature Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter is not as good
as "The Silence of the Lambs" but it is still a better thriller than
most.
Although Hopkins has star billing, he is but a supporting role. The
real star is Edward Norton, delivering yet another great performance.
He's an FBI agent who is after a brutal serial killer (a freaky Ralph
Fiennes) and can only capture him with the help of Dr. Lecter.
Very exciting, but it's nothing compared to "Silence." It's nice to
see a return to suspense after the operatic goriness of "Hannibal,"
but Hopkins is not quite as engrossing the third time around. The
Lecter bag is running out of tricks it seems.
If you liked the first two, chances are that you will like this one.
But it's just the same-old thing. |
| |
|
© Written by Jacob Hall -
Email
Me! |
TC Candler's Comment
The one
glaring flaw, in this otherwise satisfactory
film, that makes it inferior to the first two
installments is the lack of a Clarice Starling
character.
That fragile yet tough FBI agent, played
magnificently by Jodie Foster and Julianne
Moore, was the reason we all loved the first two
films. Sure, Hannibal gets all of us talking
because of his delicious atrocities, but Clarice
was the reason we cared!!!
The first two films also had the lure of a
hinted romance between Hannibal and Clarice that
drew us in and gave the film added suspense and
depth. "Red Dragon" lacks these facets and comes
across as merely a police procedural. I concede
that it is a good one, but it misses out on
greatness because nothing is added to the
cannibalistic stew.
This stunningly talented cast delivers from each
spot in the line-up. However, Anthony Hopkins
seems as shackled as his character. In 'Silence'
he was powerful and original and terrifying. In
'Hannibal' he had the freedom of his new
surroundings. But this film re-confines him,
giving him neither originality nor freedom to
expand and evolve. We have seen this already and
are a little numb to the performance.
Richard Propes' Comment
n/a
|
