Reds

12/25/19813h 15m

Theatrical Release (US)

~ Not since Gone with the Wind has there been a great romantic epic like it! ~

Overview:

An account of the revolutionary years of the legendary American journalist John Reed, who shared his adventurous professional life with his radical commitment to the socialist revolution in Russia, his dream of spreading its principles among the members of the American working class, and his troubled romantic relationship with the writer Louise Bryant.

Director:

Warren Beatty

Status:

Released

Language:

English

Buget:

$35,000,000.00

Revenue:

$40,382,659.00

Key words:

husband wife relationship
world war i
war correspondent
biography
based on true story
co-workers relationship
docudrama
russian revolution (1917)
russian history
greenwich village
russian civil war (1918-21)
1920s
1910s
political repression
government witch hunt
bolshevism
soviet union history
american journalist

Cast

Warren Beatty

~ as ~

John Reed

Diane Keaton

~ as ~

Louise Bryant

Edward Herrmann

~ as ~

Max Eastman

Jerzy Kosiński

~ as ~

Grigory Zinoviev

Jack Nicholson

~ as ~

Eugene O'Neill

Paul Sorvino

~ as ~

Louis Fraina

Maureen Stapleton

~ as ~

Emma Goldman

Nicolas Coster

~ as ~

Paul Trullinger

M. Emmet Walsh

~ as ~

Speaker at Liberal Club

Ian Wolfe

~ as ~

Mr. Partlow

View full cast & crew

Reviews (1)

GenerationofSwine
Written 2 year(s) ago
1
this is about John Reed, right? The guy that road with Poncho Villa and wrote "Insurgent Mexico" as he covered that Civil War from the front line?

That is an interesting man. That is a daring man. Agree with his politics or not, that is someone that a movie SHOULD be made about.

But this isn't about "Insurgent Mexico" it's about his other book, "10 Days that Shook the World," the book where he wrote about something that he didn't really understand completely and was denied witness to, well, horrific mass killings.

But, you know the Russian Revolution is EXTREMELY interesting isn't it? Even if he was spoon-fed what he wrote, just being there to cover that would make for one interesting film too wouldn't it?

Only... it's not really about that either is it?

It's kind of about John Reed not doing anything too exciting, like the took the parts of his life that you would WANT to see a movie about, and decided NOT to make the movie about those parts.

And the result is that, well, honestly, it's boring.

And you are left wondering "How could someone make a boring movie about John Reed?"

And unfortunately you walk away from it having found out the answer to that question: "By making a movie about ONLY the boring parts of his life."