This is the only movie I recall walking out of. My impression at the time was that I was looking at a bunch of Hollywood stars and I could not make the leap of faith needed in watching movies. Maybe I was having a bad day. Did anyone else not like this movie? I should see it again.
shareKeaton and Beatty were not believable in their characters for even 1 second. The movie was a huge deal when it came out and is still apparently greatly revered by many, judging from this board anyway. I was very young at the time, but I remember even then, thinking "over-rated" about it. It was the first film I ever remember thinking "These are actors, not characters, and they are not even very good actors." They were camping and clawing and mugging their way through it. Keaton is horrible in everything as is Beatty, so I think they brought down any chance of the film being good. Of course at the time they were both at their height career-wise so Hollywood kissed their butts and told them they were wonderful and then shoved them down the public's throat.
Couldn't agree with you more darogr. There were so many cringe-worthy moments in this film. I can't believe both leads were nominated for oscars.
shareI've noticed a rather disagreeable aspect of my personality is a compulsion to chide folks who have different taste -- in many things, but particularly movies. My support group only meets twice a month though, and I find it hard to keep myself in check.
And so.
It was the first film I ever remember thinking "These are actors, not characters, and they are not even very good actors."I can't imagine what other films you were watching at the time that you would single out these performances. Maybe a lack of engagement in the story caused you to fixate on something? Particularly considering that these characters do a hell of a lot of talking and arguing. Maybe the sound of their voices began to grate?
Keaton is horrible in everything as is Beatty, so I think they brought down any chance of the film being good.Say what? I mean, I reflexively had to ask myself at this point whether this is a troll post.
Of course at the time they were both at their height career-wise so Hollywood kissed their butts and told them they were wonderful and then shoved them down the public's throat.This "shoving" -- where and when did it take place? Yes, it won best director, which might seem overly generous today, but it's easy to overlook just how daring this film is. The decision to go over three hours, the inclusion of "the witnesses" in a non-documentary project, the huge scope of the material, the size of the budget, the overtly leftist point of view -- as opposed to the safe "centrist" BS that passes for the left in much of the studio output today.
If it makes you feel any better, I did not find your reply to be in the least bit curmudgeonly, but simply rational and correct in deflecting some of the tissue-thin gripes people sound out about Reds.
...I would've loved to see Lithgow in the role of Reed, though.
______________________________________
"Leave the gun. Take the cannoli."
Thank you for taking the time, balthazar, to break down some of the nonsense posted about this film. Particularly this: "Keaton is horrible in everything..." I mean, come on. Just iike you pointed out, this is quite obviously either trolling, or ignorance. There's no third option. Sure, she hasn't done anything so noteworthy for quite a while (understatement imo...). But, again, just as you mentioned, her films from the 70s w/ Allen alone solidify her wholly well-earned legendary status. The single performance of Annie Hall solidifies it for me. What she did in that one film has more craft and content than what many actors amass through their whole careers. This is evidenced by people consistently saying (as in this thread...) that Keaton merely repeated, or channeled, Annie Hall through Reds. While there may be some similarities between the two characters, seeing those two characters as the same, and seeing the performances as carbon copies of one another, shows a colossal lack of understanding on the part of the observer.
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."
I thought that Warren Beatty was good in it. Jack Nicholson was Jack Nicholson, so I see your point. I felt the same way about The Grand Budapest Hotel.
shareI think Diane Keaton was the best thing about this film. She did have some very difficult lines to deliver, and really emotionally dramatic scenes. I'm surprised she didn't win the Oscar. Stapleton was great in this, but she was only in it for a total of about 5 minutes, ten tops. I didn't care for Beatty... I would prefer he'd gone with his original idea of casting John Lithgow as Reed.
But overall I found this to be a boring, too-long movie. I almost didn't watch the second half. Basically I think that if you're not a history buff/an expert on the Bolshevik Revolution, then you're probably not going to enjoy this much. I was pretty clueless through most of it.
It wasn't good.
shareI have never liked either Keaton or Beatty but this movie came on one of my cable channels and I had nothing better to do so I sat down and watched it.
All I can say is I wish I had had a bottle of whisky. Maybe it would have passed more quickly. The pace was EXCRUCIATING, most of the acting (with the exception of Stapleton) mediocre at best (Nicholson should have been ashamed of the way he just walked through the picture; playing a complex and tortured man, he gave NOTHING), and it reminded me of David Lean's epic DOCTOR ZHIVAGO (1965) in two ways: lots of snow and long stretches of slow moving trains.
Thank God for Oscar winner Maureen Stapleton; her Emma Goldman was probably the only real, living and breathing character in the whole thing. She's also one of the few you really feel for; so sure of her beliefs in the beginning, so disillusioned with the reality at the end.
The talking heads were some of the best moments in the film; real people with real stories to tell. And then we went back to the actors and had to face the fact that the people we were watching were just not that interesting.
I think the fundamental problem with this picture is that neither John Reed nor Louise Bryant are terribly interesting characters; if they were in real life, Beatty and Co failed utterly to bring that to the screen. And when a wild man like Eugene O'Neill (Nicholson) comes off dull, you know something is wrong.
Despite all that, there are elements of a good film here; I kept getting the feeling that editor Dede Allen was not allowed to do her job without Beatty breathing down her neck; if left alone she might have brought out the pair of scissors the movie so desperately needed.
Never mess with a middle-aged, Bipolar queen with AIDS and an attitude problem!
roflol (><)
I agree with the above poster that the film is too often excruciatingly slow.
A film with this subject matter and scope is a very difficult prospect at best. That Beatty even tried deserves our praise.
However, the film just doesn't work, for a myriad of reasons not the least of which are the two leads. Not terrible just not "up to it."
This should have been a David Lean film.
I guess you're not Hotsky to Trotsky.
shareThis film has to go down as one of the worst movies ever made. It's long, unconnected plot could have been condensed to a half hour, 45 minutes at most. Then it still wouldn't have made sense.
shareI hated it! It was just a disgusting film in favor of commie socialists. The real guy was butt ugly, and the whole concept of drop-dead handsome Warren playing him as though he was some sort of matinee idol was ridiculous. The idea of having those commies who knew Reed talk to the audience was extremely annoying. In short, Reed was a worthless piece of garbage who didn't deserve a movie made about him.
share