Review of Reds

Reds (1981)
2/10
Dishonest Performances, Lousy History
30 July 2020
People seem to think this is a left-wing movie, so if you hate it you must be some kind of right-wing maniac. I see myself as fairly progressive, yet I hated this movie. I hated the phony performances, the lousy history, and especially the empty speeches that go on and on and say nothing at all.

Warren Beatty is more interested in making John Reed pure and noble than in making him real. He's got this stupid smirk on his face in practically every scene like, "dig how superior I am to the greedy masses I want to save."

When you watch CASABLANCA or ON THE WATERFRONT, there's a lot of preaching and there's a message you have to listen to. But those movies are classics and there's a reason why. Rick in Casablanca and Terry in Waterfront are tough guys who look out for number one. They *are* the American working man. And when they learn the hard way you learn with them. You love the women they love and you want to fight the enemies they hate. By the time the movie is over, they're not alone anymore and neither are you.

REDS is precisely the opposite. The way Warren Beatty plays John Reed, he's not exactly like you. He's better than you. He gets the girl you can't have and he puts her on the shelf for half the movie! He lectures the American working man on greed, on selfishness, when he's the most selfish character in the film. He cries over little starving peasant boys in Russia while black Americans are being lynched all over the south. He sneers at America for fighting a war to make the world safe for democracy, but he doesn't care whether black Americans can vote or not. He's a phony even on his own terms, yet we're supposed to see him as half Victor Laszlo and half Joan of Arc. And the fact that the masses reject this man and his vision is only supposed to prove that he was too pure for them. Too pure for us!
27 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed