LiveForTheLaunch said:
I didn't feel like Red Dragon ruined the trilogy (or foursome, whatever). Wasn't as exciting as Silence of the Lambs or Hannibal, but I still thought it was good.
I'm not saying it was bad at all Taylor, it's perfectly fine as a film. Bland doesn't always mean bad, just that it's... bland... You watch it, you don't hate it, you don't love it, you just watch it and... 'meh'...
Its film-making by numbers. The book is actually better than SOTL, as is the story, yet the film isn;t as good, even with more money pumped into it. It's just because it was lazily made, following the formulas. With enough money, you can easily make a film which ticks all the right boxes (I prefer a painting-by-numbers analogy). What you have is something which isn't displeasing, and is perfectly adequate in every way. It just doesn't stand out though, and most films these days are the same.
Directional techniques, camera use, the ability for CGI to make anything possible, it all leads to very lazy, bland film-making. The industry is no longer limited by anything at all. The last real development in films was 'bullet time' - superb the first time you see The Matrix, but by the time you've seen 20 films with it, it's dull and over-used. Nothing shocks or surprises your senses anymore in cinema (which is why I think I have a soft-spot for Sin City, it looks like nothing else, good or bad - it's distinct).
It's also why I loved Batman Begins - the directional techniques used where traditional, and stunt men and real life models and cars were used, rather than going down the CGI avenue. It's a shock to watch a film which works like real life does, because CGI, no matter how good, always looks like CGI. I came out of BB saying "what an excellent film", rather than most films now where I come out saying "the effects/CGI were great".
Slightly off the Red Dragon subject there, but the overall effect is the same. The film just slips by, because it's too perfect, yet not outstanding in anyway. Bland!
