Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #6718 in DVD
• Released on: 2007-04-09
• Rating: Suitable for 15 years and over
• Format: PAL
• Original language: English
• Number of discs: 2
• Running time: 187 minutes

Synopsis
The story of a young couple's love affair in a war-torn world and how the Russian Revolution shook their lives.

Customer Reviews

Beatty's brilliant biopic of John Reed on DVD at last...
Reds is the brilliant biopic of journalist/radical John Reed that Warren Beatty directed in 1981. This was a labour of love for Beatty, who had built up power in Hollywood to make this suitably epic film on such films as Shampoo and Heaven Can Wait.

The film is very long, which could put off many- though it shouldn't as the material is of immense interest. This highly ambitious film opens with Reed living among bohemians/radicals in New York & Provincetown and charts his love affair with both Louise Bryant and communism. The first part of the film is more successful, where Bryant/Reed's affair goes up & down and Jack Nicholson comes between them in a brilliant portrayal of playwright Eugene O'Neill. This section is wonderfully photographed by Vittorio Storaro, the photographer of such brilliant films as The Conformist and Apocalypse Now Redux. Then as the relationship develops into marriage, various spectres rise: the conflict between love & principles, World War I and the complex world of socialism in America at that time (the so-called Red Decade).

The latter half of the film, which sees Reed and Bryant go to Russia, where the revolution occurred and Reed wrote his classic account of it Ten Days That Shook the World. Again, Moscow looks stunning- though the film descends into a more conventional form- we get a sub-Zhivago reunion , Keaton's proto-feminist character is neutueured by devotion and we even get an action sequence (though this does end with the symbolic Reed chasing after a cart- the same shot as we saw from the opening shot of Reed in Mexico). The final scenes, where Reed is TB afflicted and Bryant sees a young child (the obligatory one they never had) is extremely conventional and melodramatic.

The best feature of the film is the use of the 'witnesses'- people from the contemporary life of Bryant & Reed who offer opinions and perceptions on them. These are wonderful as they contradict each other and can be seen as Beatty stating that the sections where he & Keaton play Reed & Bryant it is fiction and the definitive notion of truth & realism in the biopic is impossible. Though Robert Rosenstone in Visions of the Past questions this technique- which could just be a result of being 'used' by Beatty for research purposes. The film was even satirised by Keaton's ex-lover Woody Allen with 1983's Zelig.

Reds is one of the great films of American cinema, that would influence later directors such as Oliver Stone- the only criticism is that it tries to be too many things. Still, when was the last time you saw a high-budget film that tackled communism,sexual equality ,feminism, revolution and socialism? At this price it would be offensive not to watch this film- though to read behind the film, it might be pertinent to read the books Romantic Revolutionary & Ten Days that Shook the World. Having said that, the latter (Reed's masterpiece) fictionalised actual events- which puts into question the historian's frequent criticism of this film and the biopic in general. I suppose the equivalent film to Reds in the 1990's was Titanic, which demonstrates how far American cinema has sunk regarding ambition. Reds is one of Beatty's finest works also and a labour of love that was well worth making - even if it caused Beatty to vanish from cinema for several years following. A true classic...

Reds is a film that won a few Oscars, but seems somewhat forgotten. It was an anomalie, an end product of New Hollywood like Kagemusha, Heaven's Gate, One from the Heart and Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters. They probably don't make them like this anymore. Beatty didn't make another film for years. But in a time such as these, this film has many pertinent messages in and falls in not only with the recent likes of Good Night & Good Luck, but American souls like Abraham Lincoln, John Dos Passos, John Steinbeck and folk like Reed, Goldman & Bryant. Reds is proof that liberal isn't a dirty word and is a brilliant epic worthy of David Lean with plenty of political detail, a forgotten film that finally is on DVD...

Life of Red, or A Finely Flawed Film of Epic Proportions
I love epics. The longer the film, the symphony, the novel, the greater the opportunity to immerse oneself in the work and the greater the sense of achievement, of catharsis at the end. "Reds" is an epic, but it is difficult for me to love it, to embrace it. It seems to me to be the work of some immense ego, no matter how fine or important the rest of the characters, no matter how strenuous the efforts made in recreating the times and places in which the film is set.

For this is not so much a film about American socialists and communists at the time of the First World War and the Russian Revolution, but rather, in essence, Warren Beatty's epic focuses on the last few years of the life of his character John/Jack Reed. Everything else impinges on this premise, even the smallest of details of Reed's affair with Louise Bryant (played by Diane Keaton), which makes up the bulk of the movie. There is scarcely a shot without Beatty in the frame, and since the film lasts over three hours, this can become trying. Many of the scenes are superfluous to the central story and one can only speculate that the film is less to do with Jack Reed and more to do with Warren Beatty.

Indeed, others have already commentated upon the personal links between Reed and Beatty, not only in their personal circumstances but also in their political and philosophical outlooks. Reed was a writer; Beatty is a film-maker. At what point does the artist - the writer, the film-maker - become a polemicist? I am not unsympathetic to Reed's/Beatty's political views, and the story of how Reed, an American left-wing journalist ended up in Russia to report on the revolution, is one of immense interest, especially as he not only has to wrestle with contrary opinions and facts of everyday life but also has to wrestle with his own beliefs and conscience. But over three hours?

What helps me forgive Beatty his apparent self-indulgence are the witnesses. At the very start and throughout the following 188 minutes, the film interweaves the testimonies of those who lived through these years and knew Jack Reed personally. They speak direct to the camera in front of a plan black background, telling their fascinating stories and anecdotes. They are not a Greek chorus, but rather witnesses to the story's own veracity. They are touching, brutal, funny and charming. They break up the unwieldy canvas into manageable pieces, allowing the viewer space to breathe and reflect. Without them, the movie would lose much of its fascination.

Finally, for those wondering whether the extras on the 25th anniversary edition are worth the investment, well yes, they are! They comprise a series of interlocking films. Many of the stars and of the production team are interviewed and can give their considered opinions of their work after a quarter century's reflection. Naturally, Warren Beatty dominates proceedings, but it was his project after all: actor, screenwriter, director and producer. And it's welcome to experience his self-deprecating manner. These films are, in order: "The Rising" (how the film came about); "Comrades" (the cast); "Testimonials" (the witnesses); "The march" (locations and cinematography); "Revolution" (filming the big scenes); and "Propaganda" (music and other postproduction).

All in all, then, a finely flawed film of epic proportions.