MovieChat Forums > Reds (1981) Discussion > This sure is a snoozefest isn't it? And ...

This sure is a snoozefest isn't it? And Beatty's acting?

posted 8 years ago by sfrmiw
8 replies | jump to latest

And don't get me wrong: I love Dr. Zhivago, Lawrence of Arabia, etc so I am not at all worried about long movies or epics. This one was just boring and ineffective emotionally.

Plus, Warren Beatty really is a mediocre actor, sorry. This film proves that.

Beatty was really good in Shampoo and McCabe and Mrs. Miller. He was OK in Bonnie and Clyde, Dick Tracy and Ishtar. Basically everything else has been really mediocre or bad. In Reds I found his acting somewhere between bad and mediocre.

[–] RobbieCalifornia 8 years ago

Everyone has their opinion. I happen to love it, but I have to be in a certain mood to see it because it's quite long. Very well done, Beatty deserved that Best Director Oscar.

It tells an interesting story, about real people. I enjoyed the "witnesses" anecdotes very much, except for the obnoxious George Jessel.

[–] tmanqz 8 years ago

When they got Russia it got interesting...until then it was a snoozefest.

[–] Wuchak (8837) 4 years ago

I thought the same thing.

[–] cdjunkee-1 8 years ago

83 minutes of Rallys and Speeches could've been trimmed and nothing would've been lost. The older version of characters randomly being interviewed just really took me out of the movie. Could've made a tight montage toward the end to wrap it up.

~Keep on Trucking!~

[–] bastasch8647 8 years ago

I think that Beatty was distractingly bad with that vacuous half-smile on his face for most of the film. His "there" definitely wasn't "there".

[–] rudeboymurray (3289) 5 years ago

I actually think Beatty is very good in this - after McCabe and Mrs Miller, I would say this is his best performance and he portrays Reed's initial boyish enthusiasm and later growing cynicism very well indeed.

The film is not perfect - it's much better as a fascinating recreation of history than as a romance - but Beatty, Keaton and the supporting cast make it rather special for all that. I'd rather sit through it again than Doctor Zhivago any day...

[–] CoSMiGoNoN (77) 4 years ago

Agreed. I love those long epics from the 60's, but this was atrocious, could only take 1 hour of it.

[–] Roguemail (1619) 4 years ago

I have to agree. I finally caught up with it about 2 years ago, and was massively disappointed.

It seemed like something of a pet project and a labour of love for Beatty, but ultimately over indulgent.