Red Dragon
Scale: 7 out of a possible 11 (for you Spinal Tap fans)
Should you see it? YES
How's the writing? VERY GOOD
Any gaping holes in the plot? NO
What stands out? Tightly played screenplay, good development without being overly predictable, grabs you from the start
I knew that anything would be better than Manhunter.
I knew that it had to be better than Hannibal.
I wasn't going to ask it to blow me away as much as the original, because that's unfair of any sequel. You go in knowing too much to be blown away.
But I was pleasantly surprised. Red Dragon was much than I had expected, and was well worth the time and money spent.
I was particularly pleased with the writing. Too often the plot in some movies is just an excuse for what happens, and the writing is bad.
Ralph Fiennes is well cast in the "bad guy role" and carries off the understated depth of the character.
Anthony Hopkins is his expected self in the character that made him famous to a large chunk of the population. He does well in the role, although he does not match his performance in Silence of the Lambs.
Ed Norton, who burst onto the scene in Primal Fear (an excellent renter if you haven't seen it) is also very good. I have this nagging feeling that it would have been better cast with someone else in particular, but I can't put my finger on it.
At the end of the day I was very pleased and would recommend it to others who were thinking about going.
The violence was, for the most part, very subdued and largely off-screen - - with a few exceptions of course, but nothing to rival the sheer attempt at pure gross-out of Hannibal.
A friend who went with me said that it was very faithful to the book. Not to sound like an illiterate dullard, but this wasn't a movie where I was particularly concerned about it being faithful to the book. However, for people who might care, there is one vote in its favor.
See also: Red Dragon at IMDB