Red Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
An older, reclusive man's best friend and inspiration for living is his 14-year-old dog named "Red". When three troublesome teens kill the dog for no good reason, the grieving man sets out for justice and redemption by whatever means available to him.
| Brian Cox | Avery Ludlow |
| Noel Fisher | Danny |
| Tom Sizemore | Michael McCormack |
| Kyle Gallner | Harold |
| Shiloh Fernandez | Pete Doust |
| Keith Buterbaugh | Dean |
| Robert Englund | Willie Doust |
| John-Luke Montias | Cop |
| Richard Riehle | Sam Berry |
| Greg Stuhr | Fire Marshall |
| Delaney Williams | Clarence |
| Marcia Bennett | Emma Siddons |
| Lauren Birkell | Molly Flick |
| Kacee DeMasi | Girlfriend |
| Kim Dickens | Carrie Donnel |
| Trygve Allister Diesen |
7.30 out of 10 (1049 votes)
Visitor Reviews
The Trouble With Red (lite spoilers)
posted on 14 Aug 2009I was really excited when I saw the trailer for this film, especially since there seems to be so little encouragement to go to theaters lately. Brian Cox is an easy draw for me. ( I even sat through Troy…. well Pitt was OK too) But while Mr. Cox did a fine job, and I enjoyed watching the film, I think it suffers from a sort of identity crisis.I have no real criticism on the particulars of the film's execution. It was directed well enough as far as a layman like myself could tell. It was well acted and well scripted, and the story moves a reasonable pace. I just am not sure what it is really about… or I thought it would be about more. I think the fault is in the theme of the film. IMHO, the story should have been more than a bad seed story… or bad seeds in this case, played by Tom Sizemore and Noel Fisher. I think that good v evil morality tale approach was a fallacy especially in these times when the zeitgeist seems a conflicted, self-reflective creature.Cox is captivating in his role, his screen presence is not lacking in any sense. But he is painted as naive, unbelievably trusting in the elemental goodness in man. OK, maybe I am jaded, but Avery Ludlow does not seem real to me, not as a man who lives in and does business in the real world. And Sizemore and Fisher, by contrast, come off as too archetypically sociopathic. Granted the film does not embrace stereotypes and moves toward the violent conclusion in a believable fashion, but I was hoping for a more nuanced subtext.
In search of justice
posted on 31 Jul 2009**SPOILERS** 64 year-old widower Avery "Ave" Ludlow, Brian Cox, was totally unprepared for what was to happen to him and his beloved dog and life-long companion-of 14 years-Red when he went down fishing at the nearby lake by his home. Confronted by this trio of local teenagers lead by the snot nosed and spoiled rotten Danny McComrack, Noel Fisher,they at first threaten to mug Ave and steal his pick-up truck. As Ave was trying to talk some sense into their heads that, almost as an after-thought, Danny pointed his 12 gage shotgun at Red and shot him to death! Left alone Ave who got Red as a fiftieth birthday present,from his late wife, now felt that the only thing he can do for Red is to bring his killer-Danny-to justice. The justice that Ave sought was for Danny and his friends his brother Harold, Kyle Gallner, and Pete, Shiloh Frenandez, who just stood by and did nothing to Stop Danny from shooting Red to apologize for what they did. Getting nowhere and even being threatened by Danny's dad Mr. McCormack, Tom Sizemore, with a lawsuit for unnecessary harassment Ave went to local TV News reporter Carrie Donnal, Kim Dickens, to get his story out to the public. This lead to both Ave and Carrie being targeted by Mr. McCormack & Son Danny with both psychical violence, with Ave's hardware store being torched, and lawsuits in Carrie's story destroying his, and Danny's, reputations as upright and honest citizens.Not backing off for a minute in his seeking justice for Red, all Ave wanted was an apology and nothing else, lead to Danny trying to take matters into his own hand by, from behind no less, attacking Ave with a baseball bat. This "macho" act on Danny's part, him 17 attacking a man old enough to be his grandfather, backfired badly on him with Danny ending up with the wind being knocked, with his own baseball bat, out of him by Ave. ***SPOILERS***It's when Danny's dad the self-righteous and nobody tells me or my boy what to do Mr. McCormack tried to finish the job that his son started that things really got out of hand. So much out of hand that it lead to a bloodbath that practically wiped out the entire McCormack clan! Whch included Harold-Danny's younger brother-who at least had the common sense to apologize to Ave for what his spoiled and crazy brother Danny did!Trying to just get a simple apology from Danny wasn't asking too much on Ave's part in what he did by cold-bloody blowing away his dog Red. It was when Danny and his dad started to escalated the already explosive situation way out of proportions that Ave finally lost it. As peaceful and non-violent as Ave was he just couldn't turn his back on what both Danny and his father, in trying to run him out of town, were trying to do to him. In the end both Danny and his pop, as well as the innocent Harold, ended up paying a lot more for what they did to Ave, after Danny killed his dog Red, then they could have ever dreamed of!
A strange mix of poetry and monotone...
posted on 23 Jul 2009I recently caught the film on HDnet which I guess lets you see movies before they hit the theaters. Having read the book which I loved I was very interested in seeing how the movie would turn out.It was a strange mix of poetry and monotone. Which means that the movie had these wonderful moments sandwiched by extremely flat, boring bits. For instance, the subplot between Brian Cox and the female reporter. I didn't buy for one second that she would interested in him. As their scenes played out I felt myself grow restless.But then you had scenes that crackled with energy. Like when he was following the kids around. Watching them play baseball and the bad kid starting hitting the fence with his bat. I think the feel of dread that started to build in my for Cox's character transitions into wondering why the hell didn't we have this throughout the WHOLE FILM?! With its dynamite climax there should have been SO MUCH MORE that came before it.Plus, in the story, we follow Avery's journey into some really dark places...which he just talks about while sitting down?!! Couldn't they afford to film this stuff? I mean, how the hell can we see the light at the end of the tunnel without going through the darkness first? I was severely disappointed! At the end of the book I actually cried when the reporter gave him the puppy. Here just came off as sappy.Having looked over the credits and reading a bit of articles I noticed there were two different directors. I don't know either of them, but I have a feeling my statement of poetry and monotone could be attributed to that. Or not. Who knows.Either way Red is just another example of a great book turned into a so-so movie.
The best adaptation of Jack Ketchum's novel so far.
posted on 05 Jul 2009Jack Ketchum's brilliant novel tells the story of an elderly man Avery Ludlow,who has a dog named Red he loves more than life.A simple lonely man he has few good things in his life after losing family members tragically years before.On the day he takes his dog fishing with him,three young boys come along,rob him and shoot his dog for no reason. After this cold-blooded murder he tries to seek justice,but two of the boys are coming from a rich and powerful family.Each thing he tries is thwarted until he takes matters into his own hand.The climatic outburst of violence is inevitable..."Red" is a slow-moving and meditative drama punctuated with sudden explosions of violence.The acting by Brian Cox is phenomenal,the supporting cast is also splendid.Overall,"Red" is a sad and beautiful story about a man and his dead dog.Thank You very much Lucky McKee and Trygwe Aliester Disen for such powerful piece of work.I have seen "The Girl Next Door" and "The Lost",but "Red" is the best adaptation of Ketchum to date.I'm glad that I saw it in the cinema during 2008 Warsaw Film Festival.
A sensitive examination of why revenge doesn't work...
posted on 03 Jul 2009A very thoughtful, well-acted and well-written film. I didn't expect to like this movie but it immediately drew me in. Brian Cox is brilliant in his under-played rage and grief. It was very real to me because that's how most people, especially men, grieve--privately. But his gentleness and his willingness to forgive intrigued me and drew me into his character. I had not read the book, so I was further pulled into the movie when the plot starts twisting around his attempts at going about things 'the right way'...and how much insanity he encounters with THAT approach. But not nearly as much insanity as he runs into just trying to get an apology...And, I loved the ending. For a seemingly low-budget film, this one overcomes all the glitz that money can buy with something fairly rare these days--SUBSTANCE.
Still thinking about it several days later
posted on 21 Jun 2009I liked the morally ambiguous story, where you are not sure how to feel. Should he be seeking revenge? And is it worth it? Why is he seeking revenge? And so on.Despite not being a fan of the actor Tom Sizemore, I still liked the film as a whole.The film does have some flaws, as some reviewers have pointed out. For instance the friendship between the dog and his owner is not really explored, which could have been more detailed.It makes you think how you might have reacted in the same situation. I agree with another reviewer, who says Brian Cox's main performance makes us feel empathy for him, and makes us want to join him on his quest for justice.I suggest skipping the trailer, as it in my opinion gives away too much.
Its not just another Dog lover show
posted on 16 May 2009The Title is the Dogs name - I thought it was going to be another Dog Lover show - but its not! I don't like dog-lover shows, not that i don't like dogs, i love animals, but that's another story.I was presently surprised when they shot the dog. What a twist! It saved the movie! My eye lids were getting heavier with every Dog Man bonding scene, but now that the dog is killed - On with the show!From that point on, all i wanted to see was that dumb kid(Danny) getting pounded in the face with a sledge hammer. Kudos to the one who played Danny.Overall, its a pretty good show, Its nice to see kids like Danny get what they deserved and a lone man trying to deliver it.
Brian Cox is Reason Enough to See Red
posted on 08 May 2009If you're going to make a movie about a man and his dog and kill off the dog a few minutes in, you'd better hope the other half of the equation can carry what's to come. Luckily for Red, Emmy award-winner Brian Cox is up to the task; he's well equipped as Avery Ludlow, the half-demented driving force of this troubled production, and although the behind-the-scenes difficulties sully some of the film's most potent moments, Red, in the end, is a quiet triumph that speaks to the talents of all involved.Avery is a decorated veteran of the Korean war whiling away a quiet life in rural America with that most constant of companions: his dog, the eponymous Red. One morning, the old friends drive down to a beautiful lake for a spot of fishing. Avery sets his rig down and casts his bait; Red settles in contentedly beside him. It's just another easy-going day for the pair until three teenagers looking for trouble happen upon them. With the cold barrel of a hunting rifle to his temple, Avery bites his tongue, acquiesces with their demands; he offers up his beat-up old truck and what little money he has, but it's not enough to satisfy their sneering arrogance. Danny McCormack, leader of the pack and elder brother to the hesitant Harold, turns the gun on Red and gut-shots the poor dog before stalking off to spend his hard day's earnings on a sit-down dinner, leaving a stricken Avery to pick up the bloody pieces.What begins as a contemplative countryside portrait becomes a more pointedly emotional character study of an apparently powerless old man trying to cope with the callous barbarities of contemporary society, but it's not long before co-directors Lucky McKee and Trygve Diesen demonstrate their preparedness to undermine the audience's expectations a second time: Avery, you see, buries his dog with a grunt and a frown, putting his grief aside to deal more directly with the murderous youths. Red becomes something akin to a revenge thriller; one old man with a heartfelt vendetta versus three little pigs and the institutions that shelter them. Initially, all Avery wants is for them to take responsibility for their actions, but this very reasonable recompense is met with nothing more substantial than polite indifference. Robert Englund and Tom Sizemore as the teenagers' fathers shrug off his accusations, and the DA doesn't think Avery's case is worth the trouble it would take to prosecute. Things seem to be looking up when a friend brings in a local TV journalist to cover the story but even her human-interest pieces aren't enough to bring out the truth. In the end, Avery feels he has no choice except to take the task upon himself.The story gets going quickly and wraps up with a satisfying bang, but Red's pacing suffers some as Avery mashes his head against the wall trying to do the right thing without succumbing to the violence of vengeance. There's some uneven work through the second act, too, particularly from Kim Dickens as the intrepid reporter, whose three-year deployment in the Deadwood desert as an abused prostitute come lesbian brothel-operator seems more natural in comparison; Stephen Susco's script doesn't give her much to work with, but she can't convince even on the sole count of her one-note role. More damningly, there's no chemistry between her and Cox despite the screen-time they share, the end result of which being that the pivotal secrets Avery reveals to her character ring hollow. Sizemore is similarly one-dimensional as the ultimate villain of the piece, but he gives his shallow character arc the usual poor man's Michael Madsen, which is to say he frowns quite well. Cox, too, stumbles on a few of his lines, most notably outside the courthouse when he snaps at the Santa-shaped sheriff.The cast are otherwise well equipped – Noel Fisher of The Riches is just shy of scene-stealing as anarchic dog-slaughterer Danny – but it's lucky, in the end, that so much of Red relies on Cox, whose efforts ably support the meandering narrative. Although his performance is too underplayed to be a powerhouse, Cox gives everything away while overtly betraying nothing; his finest moment, in Red at the least, is when Danny's father throws a chance at redemption back at Avery. A revelatory shot captures the eventual bubbling-over of his embitterment: as the old man makes to leave, Sizemore's character stops him in his tracks and the frame splits an extreme close-up of Avery in half, the better to see the patience in his age-worn face positively twisting into an astringent grimace. The mise-en-scene casts Avery as every bit the Two Face the audience has been waiting to see, and when he finally lets loose, the horrific results are suitably gratifying.The cult horror-movie calibre of the two directors works well enough for Red on the rare occasion the script calls for such expertise, but Lucky McKee and Trygve Diesen are smart enough to stay out of the way and let Cox carry the narrative. While the climactic showdown lacks in vital physicality and there are some missing continuity shots that recall the film's troubled production, their work is assured enough that their decidedly seedy filmographies are sure to improve.Red suffers from a script from The Grudge screenwriter Stephen Susco, whose dialogue here tends towards monologue and whose grasp on pacing seems strangely saggy, but the human tale of the novel that inspired his work is authentic enough to shine through. Avery's tragic history, however, is misguided in either iteration of Ketchum's story – a blunt instrument that undermines much of the subtlety of his hurt and the anger it encourages. Nonetheless, six months in development hell, two directors and a flat script hardly matter in the wake of Brian Cox's compelling performance. He, alone, is reason enough to see Red.
I have never been so moved since 'Where The Red Fern Grows'
posted on 28 Apr 2009If you are an animal lover you are bound to find this movie tug at your heart strings. A movie portraying a widowed man who's only companion is his faithful dog Red, given to him by his wife. The movie begins with the dog lying on the bed beside his master Avery Ludlow, they venture out to do a spot of fishing only to be embarked upon by 3 boys, Danny, Pete and Harold who at first appear to be OK. However the leader of them Danny brandishes a shotgun, which is used on Red in order to prove his manhood to the others, these cowards then mock the fact the dog is now dead. Avery tries hard to remain level headed and even attempts to speak to the boys father, who is well to do, is adamant the boys didn't do such a thing. Danny even tries to deny he ever saw Avery. The movie then deepens to the point where there is no other justice than taking matters into his own hands, which Avery does. The ending will have you grabbing for the tissues..Thoroughly enjoyed this movie, finally, a movie with a great storyline and actors who can! Also a credit to the Director and filming crew, the action shots weren't overdone, the location shots and steady camera made all the more for a great movie! Well done!
Red delivers in Spades
posted on 14 Apr 2009After reading lots of positive reviews on RED, I kind of knew it was going to be good..And it was.It's kind of like the defender who plays well all season but does'nt get the player of the year award!A brilliant film, but because it has'nt got special effects or a mega star cast it will not get the push it needs to hit the cinemas, but let me tell you. RED hits the spot.It' about an oldish guy (played splendidly by Brian Cox) whose only buddy is his 14 year old dog called RED. One day out fishing with Red, three young guys turn up and harass him and eventually shoot Red dead.So now Brian Cox' character wants justice, but two of the guys whose killed Reds' dad is the towns main man, Cox wants revenge!Basically thats the plot, so simple, but so effective!No blood and guts, No special effects...Just a brilliant film, no matter what genre you like. You just can't not like this film.
What if it was a goldfish? ..... who cares !!!!
posted on 03 Mar 2009Sure, its about a dog ..but who says a goldfish is not just as loving ..(the way they stare at you thru the glass, etc). I really think they could of easily pulled this movie off the same way it was felt here, only, using a goldfish or even somebody's lovable pet rock (O: - Excellent movie by the way. Have fun!!!! bye.Now with that out the way Amaz0n and this IMDb suck really bad .. I cannot stand AMAZ0N anymore cause I know you really agree with me ... stupid IMDb runs like crap cause AMAZ0N is so ugly and outdated and they don't even pay me money ..after 15 yrs ... no money from you retards - laugh out loud now.
Despite a few tweaks here and there, this was very faithful to the source novel and is definitely worth your time.
posted on 03 Mar 2009After seeing the trailer for this a few weeks ago, I decided to read the source novel before going to the movie. Jack Ketchum's novel is a pretty taught thriller that stays very realistic in telling its tale of an old man's increasingly frustrating attempts to get justice for his senselessly murdered pooch, but the book does feature a gratuitous romantic entanglement and a final chapter that could have been completely excised with no loss of the story's narrative power; the final chapter goes on after the real climax to the story and is in fact more of an epilogue than a proper ending, but it unnecessarily gives the reader an all-too-tidy three-way happy ending with an incongruous bit of tragedy thrown in for good (?) measure. Thankfully the novel's problems were carefully considered and left out of the film, even to the point of losing or consolidating some of the minor characters with no harm done to the overall story.This is a textbook example of exactly how to handle a novel-to-screen adaptation, and I'd wager that author Jack Ketchum is more than pleased with the translation. Brian Cox — always a consummate actor — turns in one of his best performances, and the whole cast is equally game, especially two of the boys involved in the attempted robbery and pet-slaying. And for those expecting a seventies-style vengeance flick filled with wall-to-wall guns-a-blazin', I'd advise you to check your expectations at the door. The pursuit of justice follows very legal steps until it's apparent that such an approach won't amount to anything, but even when it gets rough the story stays completely believable. One of the year's best films, and that's no lie.
Brooding
posted on 24 Jan 2009There are a lot of reasons to like this movie and Brian Cox and the trio of young male actors are definitely four of them.Following the opening titles we move straight into the action (both Cox through the title scenes and the young actors managing to develop their characters fully in this first scene - which is beautifully shot and maintains its tension and brooding throughout). Although the rest of the film trails off only marginally the supporting cast is also excellent and some nice tributes are made to the horror genre - although they have managed to adapt the book into a much more taught thriller.It's the interplay of all the characters be they "right" or "wrong" that makes this film such a joy.It is also of note that given the two directors on the movie the transition is seamless and there is no way to know who directed what (although seeing this at the Edinburgh Film Festival) Trygve Allister Diesen and Stephen Susco definitely gave good clues after the film.Susco has also upped his game since the reworking of the Grudge films and that's good to see and hopefully the film will give him an opportunity to move on to better projects.Tom Sizemore is as you would expect but ably cast as the father of the boys creating a level of menace and music and camera work are well above average. The monologue where Cox reveals his characters family history is fabulously handled.The film is very well handled and I would happily see it again.
How much is that doggy in the window?
posted on 22 Jan 2009I haven't read anything from author Jack Ketchum's novella repertoire yet and this is only the first movie adaptation of his work that I watched, but nevertheless I had high expectations because he has a wide and loyal fan base, which includes several people whose opinions I value enormously. The basic plot description makes "Red" sound like a raw and primitive vigilante/revenge thriller – the type of film that "Death Wish" spawned a truckload of in the 1970's – but the truth is that this is much more of a compelling drama and detailed character study rather than a gratuitously violent thriller. Thanks to the, hands down, brilliant tour-de-force acting performance of Brian Cox and the recognizable defaults in our modern day society (like abuse of power and derailed youth), "Red" is a saddening and diligent fable about one man's consistent quest for justice where others would have given up long time ago already. Avery Ludlow is a small town's store owner who enjoys nothing more than to go fishing in his fixed and idyllic little spot, accompanied by his old but faithful dog Red. Red is Avery's dearest impedimenta, as it was a present from his deceased wife. When a trio of adolescent thugs, on the lookout for money and kicks, cruelly and cold-heartedly kill Red with a headshot, Avery obviously seeks retaliation. He confronts the boys' father with indisputable facts and asks for an appropriate punishment, but since Mr. McCormack is an obnoxious and wealthy local businessman, the accusations are simply laughed away. Moreover, when Avery seeks help and support around town, McCormack uses his political influence to obstruct him. Especially the first half of "Red" is extremely powerful and fascinating. The dramatic event at the fishing lake, Avery's first acquaintance with the arrogant Michael McCormack (fitting role for Tom Sizemore) and his first attempts to acquire justice are all masterfully accomplished sequences that literally ooze with suspense and craftsmanship. I watched this movie at the annual Fantastic Film Festival in my country, amidst a whole gathering of usually outrageous and bloodthirsty horror freaks, but I assure the audience was dead quiet and staring at the screen with eyes and mouth wide open during these intense sequences. The second half is unfortunately a lot less impressive, on the very of disappointing even, due to a handful of far-fetched twists and illogical sequences. The escalation of the vendetta between Avery and the McCormack family are simply too implausible to take seriously and the climax is too violent to fit in with the overall tone of the film. Nonetheless this is a remarkable and long-haunting film with a lot of heart & passion. The major stars receive excellent support from familiar B-movie faces, like Robert Englund, Amanda Plummer and Ashley Laurence. Particularly that last one was a refreshment to see again, as she hasn't appeared in a half-decent movie since she depicted the lovable Kirsty Cotton in "Hellraiser".
Fresh take on an old theme
posted on 27 Dec 2008Ten reasons why I like this movie: 1. IMDb lists 14 movies named "Red" in the past 30 years and this is the only one I've seen.2. Productionwas bifurcated—shot by two different directors. But you could never tell, a credit more to the final director, Trygve Allister Diesen, than initial director Lucky McKee.3. The Carmen Sandiego Factor: The movie is set in rural Oregon, and filmed in Maryland by a Norwegian director. Who would have guessed this could possibly turn out well? 4. Young TV actor Noel Fisher sneers with conviction as he plays Danny--the spoiled, insecure and mean-spirited rich bully--realistically enough to make you hate him.5. Tom Sizemore plays Danny's dad, an even bigger jerk, and has a natural sneer, which might be drug-induced since the movie was shot before his 2007 prison sentence for another drug conviction.6. Brian Cox (Bourne Supremacy) is really terrific as Avery Ludlow, the aged protagonist. He's old, fat, bald and has a flawed past. And he's the main man. He's like Mr. Miyagi for the 21st century, except he doesn't know karate.7. Thankfully, Ludlow does not engage in gratuitous sex with anyone in the movie. While this certainly put the Sundance submission at risk, it was an act of good taste and gracious compassion to the audience.8. Dogs and puppies make every movie better.9. The story has all the earmarks of a Greek tragedy, but with a modern American twist. It definitely had a classical feel, including hubris as a fatal flaw, yet still managed to keep viewers fully engaged from beginning to end.10. Snooty film critics might complain that the wrap-up was trite and contrived, but nevertheless, the ending satisfied the audience, which sure beats the alternative.
wonderful movie!
posted on 09 Dec 2008I saw Red at the 2008 Fantasia Film festival in Montreal, Canada first off I'd like to say that i went to see this movie because Lucky Mckee was attached to it and Brian cox . I was extremely disappointed to hear what happened to Lucky half way through the films production where he was replaced by someone else. The final product however one very good nonetheless Brian Cox was just amazing in this film. Without any spoilers this films was very touching. Great music, surprisingly had some action scenes and a great feel to it. I recommend it to anyone who wants to see something real, touching , and well made.i give it a 10/10 i had no problems what so ever with this film, left satisfied as well as everyone else who cheered and clapped when the credits rolled
Low budget movies can be amazing...
posted on 07 Dec 2008I was expecting something great, and great it was. How simple and yet amazing is the idea behind this movie? Unless you don't like animals you'll be touched by this movie and if you're an animal lover then this is definitely for you. Avery Ludlow (Brian Cox) is a lonely 64 year old man living a peaceful life in the country. He has gone trough some bad things in the past and now he's just taking it one day at a time.He and his best friend, Red, a 14 year old dog that makes him company and which he loves. One day three teenage boys (one of them carrying a rifle) approach Ave and try to steal money from him; since Ave hasn't any, they tease him and then they shoot Red. Afterwords they laugh showing no remorse. From this point on the movie focus on Ave seeking justice. All the actors did a great job but Brian Cox was superb and you could really see the emotion in his voice and facial expression. This is a fantastic movie and if you're tired of the Hollywood formula you should really give it a try.7/10
Interesting, slowly burning thriller that keeps you hooked
posted on 23 Nov 2008STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning Youths are increasingly painted as monsters in the media at the moment, here in the UK where responsibility seems to be being bandied around from group to group and person to person without anyone dealing out any firm hands or looking for answers to the problem. So this small town set thriller will be relevant in this respect, with lawless teens as the protagonists of the piece. In the plot summary, it is described how they 'senselessly' kill the lead character's dog and that perfectly sums up a lot of the 'reasons' why gangs of youths tend to kill today, from someone refusing one of them a cigarette to asking them to keep their noise down. It isn't a deep social thriller that tries to explore the motivations behind what makes them think and behave like this, but it does make it easier to relate to as a film. Something about the story keeps you engaged to the end, as the tale burns slowly like a piece of paper and keeps you holding on, eager to see how it develops and any possible twists and turns it might make. Brian Cox's lead performance is another huge driving factor, with his husky, low pitched voice and natural, burning presence giving the film an added layer of depth. Playing a reclusive, retiring character, as the story unfolds we learn about the events leading to his seclusiveness that add power to the story. We see a man who sees the futility of hate and vengeance and simply wants the boys to face responsibility for what they've done, totally at odds in the modern world of irresponsibility and instant gratification.There seems to be a subliminal fetish for 80s horror films going on, with Hellraiser's Ashley Lawrence and Freddy Kruegger himself Robert Englund among the supporting cast. But all eyes are on Cox, and as a thriller and comment on the 'senseless' brutality of modern youth, Red gets it just right. ****
Red is Gold (figuratively speaking, of course)
posted on 11 Nov 2008The movie is called Red, and it's currently in limited release in theaters, which means it's nowhere near theaters in my beloved Charlotte, NC. Red was available locally though to order via pay-per-view for a slightly higher than normal price, but I figured, what the heck, it's cheaper than driving to the theater and buying a ticket.Red stars the great actor Brian Cox (The Bourne Supremacy) as Av Ludlow, a sullen widower and veteran who takes the afternoon off from his country store in an unidentified mountain town and goes fishing with old dog named Red. The peaceful fishing trip turns sour when Ludlow is visited by three teens out hunting, and their proxy leader, Danny (Noel Fisher) decides to rob the old man. Ludlow does not resist, but when he has nothing of value, Danny shoots Red out of sheer spite.Ludlow buries Red, and goes about finding the boys who killed his beloved dog. When Ludlow finds who Danny is, he goes to the boy's father, a rich man named McCormack (Tom Sizemore), who believes his son's denials rather than the old man's claims. Ludlow wants justice and an apology, but when he doesn't get it he goes to the local sheriff, an old friend (Richard Riehle – the guy who invented the "jump to conclusions mat" in Office Space), who can't convince anyone to prosecute the powerful McCormack kid.Things escalate when the sheriff recommends that Ludlow tell his story to a local TV reporter (Kim Dickens) to put public pressure on the D.A. to press charges. Ludlow agrees, and after the piece airs a series of escalating retaliations begin as Ludlow and the McCormacks come closer to impending tragedy. A rock is thrown through Ludlow's window, Ludlow begins to follow the teenagers, and that's the tip of the iceberg.The story unfolds on a small scale, at an unhurried pace. Nothing feels staged or inauthentic, even the ultimate showdown.There are a lot of elements at play in Red, and it's not just about cruelty to animals, though that message is part of it. The TV reporter who does a feature on Ludlow states in the piece: "It has been said that the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be measured by the way it treats its animals." While Ludlow certainly is defending the rights of his dog who couldn't defend himself, there is no implication that the dog's life is more valuable than the life of the perpetrators, which I have to appreciate. Not that killing a dog isn't a despicable thing worthy of punishment, it's just that during the recent Michael Vick dog-fighting scandal I was dismayed by how many people seemed to regard the crime as worse than murder or rape. It's not.Ludlow's affection to his dog is in part due to the fact that Red was a gift from his late wife. The scene where Ludlow tells the reporter what happened to his wife and two sons is genuinely heartbreaking. It's a lengthy speech delivered by Cox in a low-key, melancholy fashion that is utterly riveting, shown without visual flashback gimmicks that may have been tempting to the dual directors (Lucky McKee and Trygve Allister Diesen).Ludlow's dogged (if you pardon the expression) stand is motivated primarily by wanting justice rather than revenge. When the sheriff suggests he can file a civil suit against the McCormacks, Ludlow is dismayed because that would only win him money. Danny has committed a crime, and if he won't admit it and ask forgiveness Ludlow will accept nothing less than justice.I loved Red, though I don't expect everyone will embrace it. If you liked the pointless though flashy Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, you'll probably hate Red. Red is a drama without a major star; the action occurs in sudden, bursts of violence; and there aren't any particularly happy characters. This isn't fun escapism, it's a serious, tense, meditative drama.Brian Cox is terrific in the lead. Cox has been a marvelous actor for a long time, the man who actually portrayed Hannibal Lecter before Anthony Hopkins in the 1986 Michael Mann film Manhunter. If you don't know Cox's name, you will recognize his face when you see it – he's provided strong supporting roles in such films as Red Eye (no relation to Red), X-Men 2, 25th Hour, Long Kiss Goodnight, and countless others. Given a rare opportunity to be the star, Cox delivers a performance worthy Academy Award consideration for Best Actor.This is a great movie, easily the best I've seen since the Dark Knight.–Daniel J. Roos (film.ispwn.com)
- 1
- 2
wheres Charles Bronson?
posted on 26 Aug 2009An older, reclusive man's best friend and inspiration for living is his 14-year-old dog named "Red".When three troublesome teens kill the dog for no good reason, the grieving man sets out for justice and redemption by whatever means available to him.this is the canine death wish, plain and simple. there is a lot more to this film than a man on a quest to get revenge on the kids that killed red though, as during the film we learn why the dog meant so much to him.it's great while Cox is trying to get justice the legal way, but then it goes a little bit too far when buildings start burning down and Tom Sizemore dyes his hair.But the performance from Cox is stunning, all mean and broody from the upstart, sizemore is just a pointless inclusion to the film, and the ending lets it down a little.but it's still worth watching for Cox alone.