Edward Norton To Star In Red Dragon

By Jack August 16, 2001 1:52 AM

(Variety) - Actor Edward Norton has agreed to star in the upcoming remake of the 1981 Thomas Harris prequel to "The Silence of the Lambs", "Red Dragon".

"Red Dragon" is to be directed by Brett Ratner (director of the Rush Hour movies). Anthony Hopkins is currently finalizing talks to reprise his role as Hannibal Lecter.

The source material for "Red Dragon" is the same used for "Manhunter," the thriller directed by Michael Mann in 1986. That film, which starred William Petersen, marked the first screen appearance of Lecter, in the form of actor Brian Cox.

Dr. Lector has been a star since, grossing more than $350 million worldwide, it's no wonder this film is underway.

Norton will play FBI agent Will Graham, who solves crimes by immersing himself so far into the psyche of the serial killer that he risks losing his own identity. His most famous catch was Lecter. In "Red Dragon," Graham is forced out of retirement, and reacquaints himself with an incarcerated Lecter in hopes of figuring out the motive and identity of the Tooth Fairy before the killer strikes again.

We will keep you updated.

| comments: 36

Reader Discussions:

Post YOUR opinion too!

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by alator (boognish@whoever.com) on August 16, 2001 4:52 AM

The money a movie makes doesn't determine how good the movie is. Hannibal Lector bringing in over 350 million dollars doesn't make up for how bad "Hannibal" was. Edward Norton could be a good thing for the movie, maybe a step in correcting all their mistakes from the last film. Of course I'll still see it. I'm a shmuck, not a shemp, a shmuck.

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by FredHater (fred_hater@hotmail.com) on August 16, 2001 6:28 AM

The book that the movie was based on was not very good and the movie is always worse than the book.

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 16, 2001 7:20 AM

the book forced a lot of intellectual visualization(whew), so possibly,the movie will help the story a little,
but that is about a 1 in 5,000,000 chance knowing hollywood

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by Gunther (No Email) on August 16, 2001 8:18 AM

Norton could pull this off, although I still think Peterson nailed the Will Graham character in "Manhunter". The guys gotta be a total burnout and headcase to make the role fly. I agree "Red Dragon" was weak, but I loved Manhunter. 80% of these films' appeal are in their portrayal of the mechanics behind catching maniacs. That's why Hannibal sucked while both Lambs and Manhunter rocked. There wasn't enough method being used to trap the madman... not enough science employed as a foil against the lunacy.

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by FredHater (fred_hater@hotmail.com) on August 16, 2001 8:35 AM

Sorry, I was talking about Hannibal, Red Dragon was actually a decent book when it came out. It has since lost its edge because people have become jaded when it comes to serial killers. Which is totally sick.

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by power-trip (powertripz@hotmail.com) on August 16, 2001 8:40 AM

Well stated.  Great observation, Gunther.  I think Norton is a gift to American cinema and a great actor.  However, it is going to be very tough for me not to see Peterson in the role of Will Graham.  Peterson is one of those underated actors that never quite found his niche in movies.

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by power-trip (powertripz@hotmail.com) on August 16, 2001 8:58 AM

It's a twisted culture we live in that embraces the serial killer.  I abhor the day they catch one and he says, " I thought it would be cool to be a serial killer."

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by Cheswick (Cheswick@canIhavemycigarettes.com) on August 16, 2001 10:19 AM

Why even remake a cult classic? Manhunter has established itself as a classic. Just because Anthony Hopkins is more familiar with the Hannibal fans doesnt mean the movie will be better than the original. STOP MILKING MOVIES FOR MAINSTREAM SUCCESS!

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by evilDoll (evildoll@theimpaler.com) on August 16, 2001 11:50 AM

I think maybe part of the reason people have become enamoured of (and jaded by) the notion of serial killers is that often, they are outside our experience, yet close enough to be tintillating and a bit scary.  I think it's rather like outer space or unexplored jungles have been in other times...in this day or far-reaching psychoanalysis, the human mind is our Outer Space.  Serial killers are intriguing and interesting, and it's not surprising that people are into them, there is so little that intrigues or interests us anymore.

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by FredHater (fred_hater@hotmail.com) on August 16, 2001 12:02 PM

already been done...columbine

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by Jack (jack@dtheatre.com) on August 16, 2001 12:28 PM

I agree, I thought that ManHunter was the best in the series. I can only hope that they do a good job.

I'm getting tired of bad remakes.

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by Gunther (No Email) on August 16, 2001 1:19 PM

Nice to see him (Peterson) making his mark in TV, though I agree he went pretty much wasted in the 90's. To Live and Die in LA is another one of those 80's flicks that he made exactly the right acting choices. Unfortunately, I think he was too intense of an actor for a broader appeal (Young Guns pretty much marked the end of his film success).

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by limeygit (indiemonkey@excite.com) on August 18, 2001 5:27 PM

So how is Anthony Hopkins going to play himself , what 15 years younger, hell maybe even 20....

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by Little Old Lady English (oldhousemom@razorback.com) on August 19, 2001 5:50 PM

Uh, "tintillating"?  I think you mean either "scintillating," as in "brilliantly lively, stimulating, or witty," or possibly "titillating," as in "pleasantly stimulating or exciting," and neither word describes my reaction to serial killers.  Buy a dictionary Evil Doll, and don't being trying to put no hex on me because I possess a cache of white magic and positive karma that only years of public service for low pay can bring.  And besides, I otherwise agree with your comment on our fascination with the landscape of the human mind.

But seriously folks, any of you old enough to remember seeing "Manhunter" in the theatre?  Remember that final scene in which Jack is so immersed in the Tooth Fairy's character that he shows up at the Next Victim's door in the rainstorm at night?  Why is that scene cut from the video?  That scene is supposed to be more disturbing than the other psychological horrors in the show?  I've noticed that weird "editing" for video in several other movies, like "Witness" and "Sweet November" which had the beginning scene of Nelson banging Angelica very industriously doggy-style edited down to some "lite" groans while we look at the alarm clock.  I was very disappointed.  The only reason I rented that movie was to see ole Keanu banging away like a trooper.

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 19, 2001 8:03 PM

I'm getting pretty sick and tired of all these re-makes. POTA sucked. The original was far superior - why even bother doing it again? King Kong, Dracula any classic that has been re-made never lives up to either the original or people's expectations. The re-make of "The Time Machine" won't be as good as the original, neither will "The War of the Worlds". I wonder if some day they will attempt to re-make Star Wars or Forrest Gump - it would make as much sense as any other re-make. No-one ever re-writes a book. Here's an idea: let's try and come up with an "original" idea for a movie.

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by power-trip (powertripz@hotmail.com) on August 20, 2001 10:17 AM

Peterson's Pat Garret was the only good thing about Young Guns 2.  (Kiefer wasn't as bad in this one but it's because ---SPOILER---his character dies.)

By the way, Is "To Live and Die in LA" on DVD yet?

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 20, 2001 10:22 AM

welcome to the club,
admittion price is @ eight $ and up to three hours of your time

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by evilDoll (evildoll@theimpaler.com) on August 20, 2001 10:27 AM

hehe, ok, made-up word, it means both.  I do have the vocab, I just kant spel.  As for Doll, it's just a name.  Evil (like serial killers, actually) intrigues me, that's all.  I'm all into no-pay service work, kudos to you, fello do-gooder.  
I agree about the trend of strange editing choices, though.  Sometimes they seem to misunderstand what would actually bother the publis..
I've seen movies take out the mildest sex and leave in the in-your-face decapitations...as if seeing people enjoy themselves could possible scar people anymore than seeing people disembodied...

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by power-trip (powertripz@hotmail.com) on August 20, 2001 10:44 AM

Theatre patrons please feel free to correct me if I am wrong., but "Manhunter" came out in '86 and the re-make will be out next summer--most likely.

Isn't this a gap that is to narrow for a re-make anyway.  I can't remember any studio that has done the same story twice from the same source material in that short of time.  

Hell, we're (most of us anyway) still in the same target demographic---oh wait---now I get it....  

PS  Ever see Robert Altman's "The Player?"  It has many a great scene about how Hollywood operates and perpetuates itself.  It has gotten so homogenized now that I feel the studios believe there is nothing new to be said so let's soak the suckers for all they are worth.  

What is beginning to bother me besides the sequel-itis is that even independant movies are gettting redundant for there so called edginess and originality.  Someone, anyone, tell me I'm wrong.  I'm itchin' to see a good movie.

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by 100% AMERICAN (hellskitchen_@hotmail.com) on August 20, 2001 12:45 PM

That's a good point about the ever narrower gaps between originals and remakes. Judging Hollywood by its ratio of original movies and remakes, why not just have the inevitable next remake be "Phantom Menace".

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 21, 2001 5:05 AM

Sometimes a remake can offer a different interpretation or even a different experience to an individual watching it.  As far as timelines go, a similar timeframe (17 years) exists between the James Bond classic
'Thunderball' and its 1983 remake 'Never say Never Again'..  Done by different studios, but even had the same star reprise the same role.  It wasnt as good as 'Thunderball', but it wasnt a bad film either, everyone was just glad to see Sean Connery play James Bond again.  As long as Hopkins is willing, let him.  No one is better at it.  So why not remake a good film?  If youve got good actors (Hopkins, Norton) in the roles, a decent screenwriter, it can be done.  I mean come on, its not like they are getting someone like Keanu Reeves to stink up and ruin the film.  Maybe they can even get Scott Glen to reprise the Jack Crawford character from 'Lambs'.  He was missed from the adaptation of Hannibal.

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 21, 2001 8:12 AM

It's a shame they wouldn't ask Brian Cox to reprise his role as Lecter. Hopkins is all well and good, but Cox made Lecter seem more human and therefore, to me anyway, a far more unsettling character.

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 21, 2001 10:02 AM

you should see Memento...

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by power-trip (powertripz@hotmail.com) on August 21, 2001 2:05 PM

Memento IS the only one I'm itchin' to see.  Thanks though.

RE: Edward Norton To Star In Red Dragon   reply

Posted by tiny (anti_tiny@hotmail.com) on August 21, 2001 4:42 PM

Edward Norton kicks ass...!!!!

RE: Edward Norton To Star In Red Dragon   reply

Posted by MisterMarty (fmcharon@home.com) on August 21, 2001 8:08 PM

I think remaking "Red Dragon" is a slap in the face of everyone involved in the 1986 original, which was a truly excellent film.

It's so unnecessary!  r Please remake crappy movies the way they should have been made the first time or make movies decades after they were originally made, because they can be presented better.  

Anthony Hopkins has been one of my favorite actors since "Magic" and "The Bunker" but that is how old he should be to play Lecter in a sequel.  He's too advanced in years.  Get someone new and let them sink their teeth into it.  In fact, I would hope the "Red Dragon" movie would be a prequel to the movie, "Manhunter", since I always wondered what happened as Lecter was tracked and caught before his appearance by Brian Cox.

I like Harrison Ford a lot.  But, I never liked him in the role of Jack Ryan because I thought Alec Baldwin was perfect in that role.  "Hunt For Red October" is my favorite of that series, while the rest just seemed like Harrison Ford vehicles.  I almost can't stand to watch them because Harrison Ford seems like Alec Baldwin's understudy.  If they make anymore Jack Ryan movies, they should lure back Baldwin.

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 21, 2001 8:37 PM

Being a big William Petersen guy, Manhunter was by far the best of the series.  Additionally I think that Hopkins' Lector doesn't hold a candle to Brian Cox's interpretation.  The only reason I'd see this is for Ed Norton who I think is a very fine actor.

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by metumbo (3rdlegchubby) on August 22, 2001 11:08 AM

I agree with Fred about the book and movie ratio.....although, it's a shame that Hollywood now only goes for the financial figures of a film, instead of the over all art and craft of story telling from ones p.o.v. I believe that a great storyline and film shot through the eyes of a story teller is 'AMERICAN BEAUTY'. From the screenwriter to the directing to the actors vision, it was truly a story woven of what Hollywood is SUPPOSED to be about, story telling, originality. Today, they want to make a quick buck as fast as possible, it's truly a shame for most. Now, on the other hand, we look at Edward Norton, a strong character actor, who truly enjoys acting, totally immersing himself into the roles. I believe he can and will deliver a strong performance, no matter how old or week the story line may be. Maybe we should start making our own concepts, write treatments and make films, after all, everyone in here seems to know all about filmmaking and story telling. If you feel you have the talent and truly love film, just go ahead and do it! Hollywood needs to get out of its own selfish image and look for other creative talent. Good luck Ed Norton, I'm looking forward to the film.

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by os2shay (os2shay@home.com) on August 22, 2001 11:04 PM

I couldn't agree more. I have come to the conclusion that the movie industry is overrun with unimaginative, visionless dolts that seem more bent on getting out a quantity of films and have no regard for the quality. I was utterly disgusted by POTA even though I am a huge fan of a few of Burtons' other movies. I saw no point in that particular remake other than perhaps he wanted to demonstrate how much more talented a writer Serling was. Some "classics" do warrent a remake; I think the only reason the original House On Haunted Hill is considered a classic is because it's old and it starred Vincent Price. Although the remake ultimately dropped the ball with the story it did possess some very scary scenes that the original lacked. I wish that the Hollywood set would just be a little more discriminating when they decide to do a remake and have more motive than just 'Hey! It's time to pump out another movie!'

RE: Edward Norton To Star In Red Dragon   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 23, 2001 1:56 PM

memento kicks serious ass!!!

RE: Edward Norton To Star In Red Dragon   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 23, 2001 6:47 PM

People, they are NOT re-making "ManHunter."  They are adapting the novel itself.  Though it was adapted before by Micheal Mann with "Manhunter," it doesn't make it a re-make.  Its a totally different film, so the "will it measure up to 'Manhunter?'" type questions will only spoil the film for you, as you will go in expecting a re-make of a film it is not re-making.

RE: Edward Norton To Star In Red Dragon   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 24, 2001 8:54 AM

Just rented the 'director's cut" of Manhunter  now released on video with new box art and  wide screen format  AND the scene at the end with Peterson visiting the next victims.....very unsettling.

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by Cheswick (Cheswick@canIhavemycigarettes.com) on August 24, 2001 10:00 AM

Don't bother. They should call it "EXCREMENTO". Any movie who claims the story has potholes to "make the viewer think" is pretty weak. I'm not saying it's terrible (it has it's moments-0's) it just lags a bit. A rental for sure, and only if it's part of a buy one get one free rental coupon deal.

RE: Edward Norton To Star In Red Dragon   reply

Posted by Cheswick (Cheswick@canIhavemycigarettes.com) on August 24, 2001 10:02 AM

yeah...DTHEATRE FOOTBALL RULES!!!

RE: Edward Norton To Star In Red Dragon   reply

Posted by Jarvis4 (No Email) on November 3, 2001 1:40 AM

Thank you!! Someone had to say that. I happen to love Red Dragon, and think that it was the best of all the "Lecter" books. It saddened me to see that Michael Mann couldn't even get Lector's name spelled right. They screwed up several plot points in the conversion and managed to tell virtually no backstory on Dolarhyde at all. No motive, no reason, just murder. The book is a major character study in many ways of both Graham and Dolarhyde and the tension was immensely left out of the movie. The Red Dragon aspect of Dolarhyde was left out completely. The movie was basically a watered down version of the book which was clearly made by Mann to be too much of a cop-drama. The movie is 80% Graham and 20% Tooth Fairy. The book is about 50-50. This excellent novel is just begging to be done right, and Edward Norton is a very good start.

RE: Edward Norton To Star In   reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on October 4, 2002 1:25 AM

There was nothing wrong with "Hannibal". It was a perfect sequel acted and directed brilliantly. Don't try telling anyone a lie with all the bad stuff. Hannibal was GREAT!!!!