Rastros de Vingança

I don't know why it happens, possibly I'm not a good citizen, but movies in which animals die sadden me more than when humans do. And possibly on that thought, and because I'm also a pet owner, I couldn't help but intensely root for the owner who goes after the kids who killed red. And that leads me to the marvelous performance by Brian Cox, an actor whom I never gave much attention to, even though many people love him. Tom Sizemore gives, like usual, another great spectacle. Actually all actors deserve praises. The directing by Trygve Allister Diesen is also quite remarkable. I have to admit I have a weakness for this movies about this rural small towns in the USA, in particular those who delve into the drudgery of those living there, which, to me, is the center of this film.

Avery Ludlow is retired and has little left in his life but for his dog, his store and his health. He finds simple pleasures in the peace of his life and all the companionship he needs from his dog, Red. Out fishing one day he a trio of teenagers come across him and politely start to trouble him and essentially intimidate money out of him. The leader of the three has a rifle and, for his own reasons, he leaves Avery with a parting gift of shooting Red dead. Avery is grief-stricken and tracks down the teenagers, going direct to the main boy's father to let him deal with it in a manner that will satisfy Avery. However this fails so Avery tries other legal means to get justice for this wrong, however his persistence in this matter makes it a bigger deal for the well-connected family of the man boy.

On the face of it this is a revenge thriller where a man seeks justice and continues to do so even as events escalate – in fact, not only on the face of it but indeed that is the narrative arch we are looking at here, no point is pretending to be surprised by it, we all know where we are going with this from when we got on board. However it walks a very impressive line while doing this that prevents it being about the revenge but instead the justice sought, or rather the undefined "action" that Avery seeks someone to hand him that will in some way make up for his loss. This is very well presented because it is clear throughout that ultimately nothing can fill that gap – which is part of the reason things continue to build. I very much liked how it did this as it never fell into violence at the expense of the emotional part of the story and it thus keeps it much more engaging than if it had simply because a violent revenge thriller.

Some have said that this is a film for dog lovers as they will appreciate the loss most but I do not think that is true. Although Red is the subject of the loss, it is about more than the dog but also what the dog represents to Avery – and as this comes out the scale of his pain and his loss is more engaging and moving. This general feeling of something emotionally valuable being taken unfairly by another is a raw emotion in the film and it was very well done. True it helps to understand the loyal companionship a dog gives a man but even if you don't, the emotion is real and convincing enough to hook you. Praise to Cox for making this work because he is the heart of the film and is the reason we care as much as we do. You can see what attracted him as an actor because the script gives him plenty to work with, including a strong ending that is another part of the film being about the main character's feelings rather than the act of revenge/justice. He acts all others off the screen and the only downside is that everyone else feels weaker than they actually are by comparison.

I thought Fisher and Gallner were both good even if there was room for them to find more of their character and bring it out in ways that were not in the script. Gallner probably does this best as so much of his mannerisms and body language tell you about his place in that family and how he feels his father views him. Sizemore isn't asked to do much but does it fairly well and is a good presence. Riedle, Englund, Plummer, The Wire's Williams and others all give solid accounts of themselves but everyone knows that, while they have lines, Cox has the real character of the piece and mostly they deliver the goods in support without ever shining for more. Considering the budget the film looks great with impressive cinematography and selection/use of locations. You can see where things are implied rather than shown due to money constraints but these do not matter at all and are well done.

Red is not a cheerful film, not is it one that has a "big" ending or impacting telling. Rather it is a patient and slower film that engages thanks to the convincing core of emotion that drives all the action; without this it could have been a simple and emotionally distant revenge thriller. Cox does excellent work to bring this out and produces the goods from the start right to the final scene, while all the others turn in performances that are solidly good. An engaging and emotional film that is much better than the "taking law into own hands" genre that the plot suggests it belongs in.

Ten 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.

The combination of Brian Cox and Tom Sizemore in a film based upon a Jack Ketchum novel (bizarrely spelled Jack Ketchmum in the trailer) and the direction of cult-courting Lucky McKee certainly peaked my interest and therefore I awarded this film some of my time. The premise was something that also appealed to me - a kind of "Falling Down" but with a more mediative, Western styling.

The story is a simple but, on the surface, a powerful one. Brian Cox is Avery Ludlow, a veteran who hides his tortuous family history behind his love for his faithful dog, Red. One day while fishing, he is approached by three delinquents who try to rob him. Realising that he lacks anything of worth, the cocky leader of the pack, Danny, shoots dead his dog, laughs about it with his brother and friend, and then walks off. Ludlow is determined to get justice, but finds hurdles at every stage, from the boy's arrogant father, to a reluctant town sheriff.

The acting in this film was excellent. Brian Cox is superb as the graceful recluse seeking justice. He plays his role in a remarkably understated manner that compliments his experience and wisdom. Whether he is brutally taking on the perpetrators or solemnly reminiscing about the tragic circumstances that led to his wife and son's death, Cox is brilliant at making us feel a warm empathy with him, and makes us want to join him on his quest for justice. Kudos must also be given to Tom Sizemore, who is wonderfully repugnant as Michael McCormack, the arrogant, millionaire father of Danny the delinquent. He really does shine and show what a great actor he can be when he is not in trouble for one reason or another. It would be fair to say that he is much better at eliciting disgust than Cox is at eliciting empathy (although this is a much easier task) and his evolution from his first meeting with Cox, to the final showdown is a joy to watch and anticipate.

The other actors play their parts competently. I was a bit apprehensive about Noel Fisher as Danny at first, as he was guilty of slight overacting in his first scene. However, upon finishing the film, the acting style perfectly complimented his role as a narcissistic youth with no empathy, and overall he was very good in the film. Kyle Gallner, who plays his shy brother, and Shiloh Fernandez as his equally minded friend are also good, with Gallner excelling in the film's climax. The other major part is that of reporter Carrie Donnel, played by Kim Dickens. She is not bad in her role but it is entirely unnecessary, which brings me on to the film's flaw - it's script.

The film really does shine when there are scenes of direct confrontation. Anything between Cox and Fisher after their first meeting, or anything with Sizemore. The film really does suffer when the action is diverted to scenes of a more meditative nature. Donnel's role is far too over played, and her emergence as some sort of bizarre is she/isn't she love interest at the end severely harms the movie. The only things that ties the two together is Cox's consistently brilliant acting. His monologue on how his family fell apart is beautiful and haunting, with the camera lingering on his wise yet hurt face. Likewise, he is respectably sinister in his pursuit of justice, and the film really picks up pace in the final third, building to an excellent climax involving Cox, Sizemore, and his family. Indeed, after a slow, slightly turgid middle, this comes as a great relief. What a shame then that it is spoilt by a horribly put together ending that literally screams "TV MOVIE!" It is far too contrite, and does not favours to Cox or the film. I understand that McKee was replaced by a more happy-friendly director during filming, and his influence is clearly felt here (one wonders how McKee would have done the ending). Other than that though, the film maintains a consistent indie-Western style, and any notions of two directors are not realised.

It is this paltry ending that forces me to award this 7 out of 10. The film has many memorable moments, but is ruined by its final scene. I suggest watching this, if just for the confrontation scenes, and the film does certainly keep you guessing as to how it will end, but if it had just been more adventurous at various points then this could have been a very good film.

I initially thought this film might be OK, but would probably turn out a let-down, as so many do. I was totally wrong. The film was unexpectedly very good. If you are an animal lover and a family man, you should be able to relate to this film and thus should definitely enjoy it.

I found the story very interesting and the acting was excellent. I watched the film whilst having a bottle of wine and this may have made it even better, but I actually found it very touching and even a little emotional. I am not normally the kind of person, who gets emotional watching a film, but this one struck a cord with me and in a way it saddened me, but at the same time, as I could relate to the main actor, he gave me great strength.

Brian Cox played the part tremendously and managed to portray the past tragedies in his life extremely well and with utter conviction. I scored the film 7, but it would be a high 7 and close to an 8. I prefer action type films and slower paced ones like this normally bore me. This one however was far from boring and in actual fact was thoroughly entertaining.