When I was 10 years old, I saw "The Silence of the Lambs" and loved it. I've seen it countless times since, gaining new insights into the film as I've grown older. It holds a perfect balance between Clarice's psychological issues (Jodie Foster's character) and the main plotline of the serial killer abducting women. Anthony Hopkins, as Hannibal Lecter, was given just the right amount of screen time to convey to the audience his crucial role in both the manhunt and Clarice's personal journey towards self-awareness. This great formula was spoiled by the popularity of Hopkins' character, resulting in its sequel, "Hannibal." This movie was awful - a gross disappointment for those expecting anything approaching its predecessor.And now there is "Red Dragon." For those unaware, it is a prequel, a fact that accounts for some of the movie's problems. The story concerns Will Graham, (Edward Norton of "Fight Club") the profiler that caught Hannibal and survived. The opening scene is very successful in showing Hannibal and Graham's history. It has the subtle he's-so-good-at-being-bad that made Lecter interesting in the first place, but this aspect of the series cannot be duplicated here. Why? Because it is a prequel.

The problem with trying to have serious, tension-filled scenes between Hannibal and the alimey psychiatrist warden of the mental hospital is that we know he's going to escape and kill him at the end of "Silence of the Lambs." The dramatic irony throughout is so thick and distracting that I resolved that the frequent laughter by the audience was more appropriate than I had initially thought. It is funny to see Hannibal have privileges threatened and taken away, as if he were an eternally helpless dependent locked away in a cage, precisely because we know him not to be so. Unfortunately, the writer fills the screenplay with too many such scenes, serving as comedic relief rather than tension-builders. And, this is just the beginning.

You might ask, what about this great cast? Well, there's good things and bad things to say about it. First problem - too many notable names. I love Phillip Seymour-Hoffman ("State and Main") but he didn't need to be in this, just as Harvey Keitel's ("Cop Land") talent was wasted on a one-dimensional cop character. Edward Norton, Anthony Hopkins, Ralph Fiennes ("The End of the Affair"), and Emily Watson ("Gosford Park") are great actors and great choices for their respective roles, particularly Fiennes, who has been lost in films of pretension ever since "The English Patient" (yes, I am aware of "The Avengers" but that was just crap).

This is a role that could have been great in the same ways that Hannibal once was great. The mistakes made were not Fiennes' but those of the producers/directors/writers. What made "Silence" work was the fact that there were only three principal characters and the audience was afforded the time and energy to get to know all of them pretty well. The audience learned so much from Buffalo Bill so quickly, partly because the story centered around the discovery of his personality. "Red Dragon" could have followed suit, but there were too many distractions. Somehow, we learn virtually nothing about Graham and only scrape the surface of Fiennes' character. The story, in many ways, is richer than "Silence," and I understand that the book makes better use of it than this movie does.

Finally, there are many unrealistic moments in the film. There are character inconsistenies, particularly with Hannibal, who has been consistently shown to be a predator with a polite side. Here, he is ruthless and diabolical, leading one to question how the FBI ever allowed Clarice to sit down with him in "Silence." "Red Dragon" suffers from lack of cohesion and fluidity in the story, leaving the audience wondering too much about too many things. If it weren't too Hollywood and had the roster slimmed down, "Red Dragon" could have been better. If it paid closer attention to what worked in "Silence," it would have been better. But, oh well. At least it wasn't another "Hannibal.