Reds (Special 25th Aniversary Edition)

Locale Selector - Click for default
|

ttStore Home
Show Featured Items

Actor(s):

Warren Beatty, Diane Keaton, Jack Nicholson, Phil Brown, Noel Davis

Label: Paramount
Publisher(s):

Paramount

Studio: Paramount
Manufacturer: Paramount
Binding: DVD
Brand: Paramount
MPN: PARD013314D
Format(s): Color, Dolby, DVD-Video, Subtitled, Widescreen, NTSC
Rating: R (Restricted)
List Price: $19.99
Our Price: $14.99
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours

Editorial Reviews

Description

Reds is the story of the love affair of John Reed and Louise Bryant in a war-torn world and how the Russian Revolution shook their lives.

Amazon.com essential video

Warren Beatty's lengthy 1981 drama about American Communist John Reed and his relationships with both the Russian Revolution and a writer named Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton) is a compelling piece of little-known history told in a uniquely personal way. Beatty plays Reed as he did the title gangster in Bugsy and Senator in Bulworth, as a visionary likely to die before anyone fully recognizes the progressiveness of the vision, including those who are supposed to be on the same page. Jack Nicholson has an interesting part as fellow intellectual Eugene O'Neill, and the late author Jerzy Kosinski--himself a refugee from then-Soviet-controlled Poland--makes a strong impression as Reed's problematic Russian liaison. --Tom Keogh

Amazon.com

In some ways, Warren Beatty's 195-minute film about the radical movement at the beginning of the 20th century is the last Hollywood studio epic. A peerless reporter, John Reed, mixes with the intellectuals of the time who see socialism as the answer to end what would become the First World War. As with epics, we go on a journey--from Portland to New York to Europe and finally Russia--just in time to witness the revolution that would make Reed famous upon publishing "Ten Days That Shook the World." But Reed had more ambition, and Beatty's ambition is splendidly captured on the screen, matched by a tremendous cast and stunning visuals (shot by Oscar-winner Vittorio Storaro). Reds doesn't have the action or vistas as a David Lean epic, but travels on the road less taken--here, seeing the birth of communism. Beatty and Trevor Griffiths lace their talky script of ideas with plenty of humor and fashion a poignant love story. Reed's infatuation with the rebel without a cause, Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton), turns into a love triangle with playwright Eugene O'Neill (Jack Nicholson at his most sublime). As Brooks becomes more complex and stalwart, the love story becomes something more. Keaton is perfect in following the arc of Brooks, just another spot-on casting decision by Beatty. Also impressive is Oscar winner Maureen Stapleton as feisty activist Emma Goldman and author Jerzy Kolinsky (Being There) as a Russian diplomat. The boldest stroke is hearing from real "witnesses" talking about the times. They are funny, poetic, deft, provide musical accompaniment and, most importantly, expertly set up scenes. The uninitiated will learn about this time in remarkable fashion; the cineaste can marvel in the ground Beatty covers, never better then a montage ending first half as Reed and Brooks are literally swept up in the revolution.

Beatty states at the top of the DVD extras he's not a big fan of talking about a movie (and did no publicity for the film upon its release in 1981). So there is no commentary track, just an expertly produced 90-minute retrospective with interviews from most of the major players, minus Keaton. We find out why Beatty's best performances are the ones he doesn't direct, while Nicholson provides the reason why Beatty had to star. Beatty talks about the process to interview the witnesses, and when we see bits of unused footage, it whets the appetite for more. Certainly, an hour of witness outtakes would have been something special, and would allow Beatty not to speak about his masterpiece. --Doug Thomas

Customer Reviews

NEEDS REMASTERING. FILM: Wonderful. Transfer: Not so much...

The transfer of this film appears to be the same MPEG transfer as the one used for the DVD version. It DOES NOT appear to be a new 1080p 4k re-mastering of the film. This is not to say that it doesn't look much better in Blu-Ray than it does on DVD. But it is not, evidently, a brand new 1080p 4k transfer made expressly for Blu-Ray release. This can cause some problems, depending on your display system and settings. You may have to select a different input palette or profile on your display, or adjust your settings.

If your system is setup to show Blu-Ray films using the "Cinema" and "Movie" profile of your display, which assumes a low contrast, subdued display of a wide range source that takes full advantage of the display's capabilities, then this film may look washed out, have milky blacks and generally be displeasing. You may have to select a "Standard" profile, with a narrower contrast band, higher gamma and so forth, to bring the film back into the range for which it was originally transferred. Doing so with this film yields remarkable results, it suddenly "snaps to" and produces the sort of effect you were after with a Blu-Ray disc.

As happened in past generations of video standards, VHS to LaserDisc, LaserDisc to DVD, standard definition 480i to "high def" 1080i, and now 480p progressive scan DVD to 1080p Blu-Ray, the studios are cutting corners and, with some titles, re-issuing transfers that were "pretty good" for the prior standard on newer media without re-mastering them for the full potential of the newer media.

Many, if not most, of the Blu-Ray discs I have seen have been remastered at the highest levels with all the capability of Blu-Ray in mind. If you have a 1080p display, and have properly adjusted and configured it, then you are probably in video and film heaven.

Sadly, some major film titles are being "shoved out there" with just their old 1080 MPEG transfers, re-issued on the new Blu-Ray format. This appears to be one of them. If you adjust your display properly, for what's on the disc, you will get very good results. But don't expect it to look great with the settings you would use for a properly made, new 4k transfer for Blu-Ray.

Preachy yawn-fest with horrible period portrayal...

For the life of me I will NEVER understand the following for this movie... not even among hopeless and hapless lefties! If I were them, I would demand a much better film...

Warren Beatty runs around grinning with his 80's hair falling in his face... utterly unconvincing as a journalist, radical, or human being. Diane Keaton seems intent on portraying Louise Bryant as a sympathetic and idealistic dreamer; she comes off as unbelievably selfish and whiney [probably an inadventent accuracy, actually!]

The costuming is horrible. Honestly WHERE was the 30 million bux even spent?? The cut of the clothes is almost always off... hairstyles bear NO resemblance to those of the teen years and '20s... even the dialogue is full of unbearable modern colloquialisms.

And I could go on and ON... no kidding.

Seriously lefties... demand a better film. LOL

Smug communist propaganda and boring at that

"Reds" is an irritatingly self-satisfied film telling the story of two unbelievably selfish and naive American communists John Reed and Louise Bryant (played by a smug Warren Beatty and Diane Keaton).

Since the film was made in 1981 communism has fallen rendering the fledgling communist movement in the US - and this film - largely irrelevent and reinforcing how naive and misguided people like John Reed and his colleagues were - one can't help but be disgusted as one watches the film at how they were prepared to look the other way as the Bolsheviks tyrannised the Russian population.

The low budget look of the film, combined with its mediocre actors and gargantuan length (188 minutes) give "Reds" the feel of one of those 80s mini-series. Only Jack Nicholson as writer Eugene O'Neill gives it any spark. Smug communist propaganda and boring at that.

Magnificent achievement

While this is ostensibly about the Russian Revolution, it is really about unbounded youthful enthusiasm and the ultimate brick wall it hits when experience sets in. Ignorance, youth and over-confidence are a lethal combination. Made shortly after the similar youthful outburts of the 1960s, the movie could easily have used that backdrop for the same purpose.

The revolution began with high hopes and sank into an Orwellian slough, just as many of the 1960s visionaries became the conservative suburbanites of the following decades. The supposed father of the Russian Revolution was Karl Marx, but in short order all that remained of him was his poster picture--because his ideals, as John Reed and Louise Bryant would discover, were impossible, e.g., the abolition of all private property.

Reed died early, before the purges, before the advent of Stalin--who would probably have killed Reed. Bryant lived on, married a U.S. ambassador and lived in Paris, where her scandalous behavior was of a different sort. The movie doesn't go into all that, any more than "Hair" went into the rise of Ronald Reagan.

The acting in this movie is superb, flawless. The use of witnesses is especually effective, although I wish they had been labeled. I recognized some but not all of them.

This is a movie that has stayed with me since I first saw it more than 25 years ago. It felt just as fresh upon seeing it again yesterday.

yes

not much yu can say. reds was probably one of or the greatest films of all times.

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT SOME OF THE CONTENT THAT WE MAKE AVAILABLE TO YOU THROUGH THIS APPLICATION COMES FROM AMAZON WEB SERVICES. ALL SUCH CONTENT IS PROVIDED TO YOU "AS IS." THIS CONTENT AND YOUR USE OF IT ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REMOVAL AT ANY TIME.
Powered by PNAmazon © 2003-2007 ttgapers.com