PodBill Just what I expected

Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Bergorks If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

evanston_dad "Reds" was Warren Beatty's ambitious passion project of 1981, the film that was supposed to clean up at the Oscars that year. The Academy ended up being fairly cool toward it, giving it only three awards out of 12 nominations, but it did finally recognize Beatty for his balls if nothing else by giving him the Best Director Oscar.It's a good film that holds up well, even if it can be a bit dry at times. Beatty (Oscar nominated) is compelling as Communist revolutionary John Reed, who worked tirelessly to bring a Socialist revolution to America, but he's outshone in the acting department by Diane Keaton (also Oscar nominated), who gets a chance to shed her Woody Allen persona and prove what a good dramatic actress she could be. I could have done with less of the domestic squabbling that drags down the middle part of the film, and found the parts detailing the couple's experiences in Russia to be the most engrossing. The movie has a whopper of a running time (3 and a half hours) but even at the slower parts I never felt especially impatient with its length.Maureen Stapleton won an Oscar for her fiery performance as Emma Goldman, and Vittorio Storaro won his second Oscar for cinematography (bookended by his work on "Apocalypse Now" and "The Last Emperor"). The film's other nomination were for Best Picture, Best Actor (Beatty), Best Supporting Actor (Jack Nicholson, never especially convincing as playwright Eugene O'Neill), Best Original Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing, and Best Sound. Alas, no nomination for Stephen Sondheim who provided the original score.Incidentally, "Reds" became the 13th and last film to win Oscar nominations in all four acting categories until David O. Russell added back to back films number 14 and 15 with "Silver Linings Playbook" and "American Hustle." He's the only director to achieve that feat two years in a row.Grade: A

jadavix "Reds" is hopelessly overlong, but still a decent movie. The first half - all one hour and forty five minutes of it - is mostly just there to set up an unbelievable and uninteresting love story. Keaton is dowdy and unappealing and we get no sense of why Beatty's John Reed would have fallen for her.Nicholson as Eugene O'Neill, perhaps, because he's also played as no great catch. He doesn't add much to the movie though, apart from the thrill of saying "there's Jack Nicholson!" while you're waiting for the first half of the movie to end. Gene Hackman is also in there, not adding a whole lot either.The movie really gets going in the second half, which saved it for me. Perhaps it was the fact that the love story is moved aside for political intrigue in Russia, and we get a sense of John Reed as a man swept up in the current of history, used for purposes aside from his intent and not really understanding his role. This is where the movie becomes gripping.Throughout the movie there are interjections from real people who presumably knew the real John Reed. These are generally more interesting than the movie itself and suggest a documentary approach would have been more fulfilling. At times the cuts from these scenes back to the action is jarring, which seems to detract from the dignity of the speaker, as though Beatty had to use all the footage of these speakers he had available to him, and had to stick it in somewhere, even if it didn't fit.Overall, the love story is too stagy for the weight of the material and should have been excised. It leaves you with a lot to wade through if you want to get to the interesting parts.

Emil Bakkum A film with the title Reds must be a propaganda film, and it actually is (joke: propaganda is a gentlemanly goose). From a political point of view it just hawks about the familiar worn-out stereotypes. If you like to deepen your political insights, this is not the film for you. However, the film also contains the delightful love story between Louise Bryant and John Reed - in the fantasy of the script writers. It is definitely worth while to watch this struggle between two very independent minds, who increasingly become to value their mutual relationship and company. It is not a cohabitation for the sake of the cats. Nevertheless, since politics is my real thing, I shall confine my comments to the historical scenes. At the start of the twentieth century politics was a mess. The democracy was anything but accepted as the best political system, not even in Europe. As a consequence of the failing liberal system (robber barons etcetera), there was a large support for unsound ideas like revolutionary socialism (Leninism), anarchism and fascism. This relative chaos had an enormous pull on intellectual adventurers, who believed that they could supply the right left-wing answers. Often they advocated a system of workers councils (which obviously does not work). To be fair, I know nothing about John Reed. But his case is very similar to Karl Radek (present in the film), and Dutch revolutionaries like Anton Pannekoek and Herman Gorter (should have been present). The normal system had failed so miserably, that their weird visions could gain some acceptance. Unlike the opportunist Lenin they were individualists, dogmatists and fanatics. This explains why Reed radicalizes: he starts as a supporter of president Wilson and the AFL, joins the IWW, forms his own socialist sect, and ends his life in Soviet Russia. He just can not settle. Abandon the search for truth, settle for a good fantasy. The script shows how Reed exclaims to Radek (or was it Zinoviev?): "Individualism is the true source of rebellion!" This libertarian stance is hard to reconcile with his socialist sympathies. Sure, you are unique, just like anyone else. In addition the film suggests that in his last days Reed distances himself from the revolution. He even tries to stop a charge of Red soldiers. This is stupendous, for in his actual final articles he still glorifies the Red Army. In such moments Reds does not stand to reason and seems to work on liberal propaganda. Having said that, the general picture remains credible. The interludes with real old acquaintances of Bryant and Reed repair some of the flaws in the script. They display how the common Russian people were misled in order to satisfy the lust for power of a ruthless party. This may be old news, but should not be forgotten. Man who leap off cliff jump to conclusion.

GeoPierpont Anyone who has actually read the book knows that this film addresses perhaps .01% of what transpired and captured in great detail of the Russian revolution. Decidedly the POV represents a NYC based Harvard educated journalist and requires bouquets of lilies and Steven banging ivories ragtime style...Agonizing three hours with too much time spent on Keatons 1981 frizz hairstyle, eye lined gazes and inconsequential interactions.... Why would Warren tackle such a propitious project culminating in weak story lines and limited perspectives... almost as if he lost confidence in this project, resorting to mainstream maneuvers to keep an audience entertained, complete failure, almost...Appreciate the attempt to cover such a grand momentous event, however the interviews of witnesses were not value added with no names, party affiliation, or title, they could be anyone and seemed such...Greatly admire Warren and Diane as actors, Maureen and Jack stole every scene and were underutilized... This film was a great disappointment, tried to watch a third time to verify these sentiments but could not get past another 10mins... sigh, had a lot of potential!