>I’m not into gratuitious gore movies of any kind (I still haven’t watched Saving Private Ryan)
Well, Saving Private Ryan doesn’t fit into that category, because the gore isn’t gratuitous.
uhm, good point I guess
Red Dragon has very little gore; most of it is implied and offscreen. Hell, Silence Of The Lambs shows more gore than Red Dragon.
So your saying no one puts the skin peeled from another person’s face on top of their own? Crap!
No face peeling. In fact I can’t think of anything really bad in the gore dept. Actually with a cpl of small cuts in scenes this could have been close to a PG-13 movie.
Go see it, dude. There are only a few really quick shots of anything even remotely grotesque. Generally they are bits like photographs taken by investigators at the crime scene or quick memory-like flashes of insight into what happened during the crime. The worst one (for comparison sake) was two photographs of the heads of murder victims with empty eye sockets (the killer takes out their eyes). That’s really it for gore.
Thanks guys!!! Gonna go see it this weekend
I would have prefered not seeing Ralph Fiennes’ nads, that’s the only other grotesque spectacle.
— Alan
But it’s not his unit! They digitally altered it. So you haven’t seen Ralph’s nads, just an artist’s conception of his nads!
–Dave
It’s not really even the nads. It’s Digital Dangle.
My new favorite choice for a band name.
My new favorite choice for a band name.[/quote]
In best Beavis voice: “The angle of the dangle is directly proportional to the heat of the meat.”
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
I don’t think they said which scene they digitally altered it, because you get a glimpse in more than one (there’s two specific scenes where he’s naked if I recall correctly, one really long and one not-so long).
The one scene where he runs up the stairs at an angle w/sunlight seemed totally weird and something looked like it was digitized (badly). It was hard to tell, maybe it was my eyes or something, but something in that scene seemed distinctly odd. OH well, will wait for the DVD I guess…
— Alan
About Hannibal, the book was worse than the movie. The book’s ending –
– spoiler –
Had Lecter and Stark pair up and become a couple. That’s how it ended, with them spotted years later at an opera by Barney, the male nurse who attended to Lecter while he was in the asylum. It wend so against character. Obviously Thomas Harris fell in love with Lecter and wanted to redeem him. Throughout the book the people chasing Lecter were shown to be worse than Lecter, or at least quite shady themselves, and worthy of the eventual death Lecter would visit upon them. Except Clarice, or course. It was just dumb.
The funniest tidbit about that is that Thomas has said, numerous times in interviews, that he refuses to watch the movies because he’s afraid it might influence his writing.
Mark, with all due respect,
–spoiler–
in the book Lecter hypnotized her and kept her drugged. Basically brainwashed her into becoming his buddy/plaything. There was no redemption for Lecter whatsoever. But you’re right, the book was stupid. I’d argue that the movie was even worse but had a better ending at the very least.
The movie didn’t spend three pages or so describing the meal that Lecter brought on the airplane. Man alive, talk about a pretentious passage.
That can’t be true, since he bitched like hell over Mann’s changes to Red Dragon for Manhunter. All improvements, in my opinion.
That can’t be true, since he bitched like hell over Mann’s changes to Red Dragon for Manhunter. All improvements, in my opinion.[/quote]
He said this around the time Silence came out. Not sure if he ever saw Hannibal, Red Dragon, or Manhunter, but I’m sure he didn’t see Silence.
Any more cuts and Ralph would look like Jaime Gumb in the makeup scene in Silence!