Ever since The Silence of the Lambs was first released in 1991, the U.S. has been infatuated with the character of Hannibal Lecter. He is a gentleman in a savage''s world, the only serial killer you'd want to introduce to your family (though perhaps you wouldn't let him stay for dinner). It was Hannibal's charisma that made Silence such an enormous success, and the opportunity to see him in action again is the only reason I can think of for why anyone paid money to see Hannibal last year.

Well, Hannibal the Cannibal is back for round three in Red Dragon, which opened last Friday and is probably playing at every theater on earth by now. On the Hannibal Lecter timeline, the events in Red Dragon precede the events in The Silence of the Lambs, which in turn preceded the events in Hannibal.

At the beginning of Red Dragon, we are introduced to FBI agent Will Graham (Edward Norton). Graham gained notoriety for catching the famed "cannibal killer", Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins). Now, a new killer known as the Tooth Fairy (Ralph Fiennes) is on the loose, and Graham is yanked out of retirement to try to track him down. Of course, in order to do so, he must consult with Hannibal. Emily Watson and Phillip Seymour Hoffman later appear as the Tooth Fairy's blind love interest and a sleazy journalist respectively.

No one in this bunch really stands out as a memorable character. Edward Norton is sufficiently nervous as an FBI agent who sometimes gets too close to the killers he investigates. Ralph Fiennes acts sufficiently conflicted as a murderer who wants to stop before it's too late. Anthony Hopkins hams it up as Lecter, just as he did last year in Hannibal.

But if you want to eat ham, this is some of the finest around. There aren't any great performances here, but there aren't any bad ones, either. Considering that this movie boasts one of the best casts assembled in years, that lack of a standout performance remains something of a disappointment.

The plot, as you may have noticed, isn't exactly the most original thing to ever be put on film, but that's because it can't be. Red Dragon is adapted from the Thomas Harris novel of the same name. As source material goes, Thomas Harris' books make pretty poor inspiration for great movies. It takes a good director to turn predictable pulp fiction into high cinema.

That's why the film community uttered a collective "wuh?" when Brett Ratner, whose only previous directorial credits are The Family Man and the Rush Hour films, was chosen to direct this film. I guess most people were unable to make the logical leap from Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker fighting ninjas in their bathrobes to a dark, haunting film about serial killers.

To his credit, Ratner does a decent job with Red Dragon. At the very least, we can see that he's learned from the previous directors in this series. From Jonathan Demme, who directed Silence, he's learned how a film like this should look: He noticeably copies some of Demme's now-canonized shots. For instance, when Will Graham first approaches Lecter's prison cell, the camera moves slowly down the corridor exactly as it did when Clarice Starling made her first visit in Silence.

From Ridley Scott, who made the unpalatable Hannibal, Ratner has learned that gruesome violence is better alluded to than shown. Thankfully, most of the violence in this picture (of which there is a fair amount) is shown post-mortem, through pictures and brief flashbacks. Ratner realizes that suspense and creepiness are more effective than flat-out violence in a movie such as this, and he uses this knowledge to its full effect.

It's the general air of suspense which makes Red Dragon a pretty good movie. It scares us at the correct times and then gives us time to calm down before scaring us again. As formulaic thrillers go, it's well-made.

Let's not kid ourselves, though. The main reason that people want to see this movie is Anthony Hopkins, reprising his role of Hannibal Lecter. And, in a sense, that's the main problem with the movie. The specter of Hannibal looms over the entire film, and even when he's not on screen, we wait in anticipation for him to be shown again. At heart, the movie is structured around a supporting character; the main characters, as a result, aren't as well developed as they could have been.

Still, as major studio fare goes, it's definitely worth a gander, if only for the opportunity to meet an old friend for dinner.