User reviews

Even at its epic length of 195 minutes, Warren Beatty's quadruple hat trick as producer, director, co-screenwriter (with Trevor Griffiths) and star of this 1981 historical drama feels surprisingly intimate despite periodic efforts at David Lean-style grandiosity. Finally on DVD in a pristine print transfer, it's hard to believe it's been a quarter century since I've seen this movie, yet it still casts an intriguing spell probably because Beatty seems so enraptured by the turbulent story of John Reed, the American journalist-turned-Communist activist who provided a vital and controversial first-hand account of the Russian Revolution of 1917, "Ten Days That Shook the World".

The film itself covers the last five years of the young writer's life (he was only 32 when he died), and Beatty smartly uses talking heads by way of 31 surviving eyewitnesses of the period as a means to explain the context of the story being told. Covering the full political spectrum from left to right, none are identified outright, but a few are quite famous like writer Henry Miller, journalist Adela Rogers St. John and comedian George Jessel. This approach allows the core of the movie to be the love story between Reed and his wife Louise Bryant, a fellow writer who became his companion on his first trip to Russia. Theirs is a tempestuous relationship driven by their increasing politicization and complicated by adultery and conflicting priorities. They socialize in an elite circle, which includes socialist writer Max Eastman, political anarchist Emma Goldman and playwright Eugene O' Neill, with whom Bryant has a passionate affair.

Divided into two parts (and consequently separated into two discs for the DVD release), the first part focuses on Reed and Bryant's involvement with political and labor disputes stateside and their fits-and-starts courtship, climaxing with their trip to Russia during the revolution. The second half shows them inspired by their experiences in Russia with Reed trying to lead the Communist party back in the U.S. but getting bogged down by bureaucracy in both countries. It all ends in an extravagant series of Zhivago-like sequences that crank up the romance quotient of the entire venture. Except for the occasional lapses into Hollywood formula, this is intelligent film-making if rather dense, and the politics become especially cumbersome in the second half with the actors resorting to speechifying.

Beatty is as good as he's ever been as Reed, though his innately elliptical nature sometimes undermines the open idealism of the character he's portraying. With her self-effacing Annie Hall mannerisms held in check, Diane Keaton fulfills the comparatively more difficult role as the mercurial Bryant since she initially comes across as an embittered dilettante and then evolves in a somewhat disjointed manner to become the supportive wife. Both are so internally motivated as actors that they come across as a bit too contemporary and human-sized for such a romantic epic. Better is Jack Nicholson who threatens to steal the film as the cynically anguished O'Neill, especially in a hostile, painfully honest confrontation scene with Keaton. As Goldman, Maureen Stapleton transcends the dogma of her obsessive character with an undercurrent of humanity. Gene Hackman, Edward Herrmann, Paul Sorvino and writer Jerzy Kosinski are solid in smaller roles.

Not too surprisingly, the technical aspects are impressive from Vittorio Storaro's cinematography, which ranges from the sepia tones of the early scenes to the bold colors used during the revolution montage, to Stephen Sondheim's original music score, which matches well with the period music used, to Richard Sylbert's production design. The 2006 DVD comes with just two extras - a trailer made for the DVD on the first disc, and an enlightening documentary in seven parts on the second disc, "Witness to Reds" by Laurent Bouzereau, which runs over an hour. Despite his open reservations about providing commentary on the film, Beatty is interviewed extensively, and other surviving key cast and crew members are included as well, including a surprisingly open Nicholson. Keaton unfortunately chose not to participate. Regardless, it's essential viewing if you want a greater context for the film from political history to actual production.

Some spoilers ahead.

Warren Beatty scored big with this gem of a film. This movie is a great retelling of the life of American communist John Reed and his girlfriend, played respectively by Beatty and Diane Keaton. The love story between the two seems a little forced and uninteresting, and that is why I rated this movie a seven instead of an eight. It is also a very long movie, and probably will take most people two days to watch. For those with a passion for obscure history, especially that relating to American socialism, this movie is a must-see. Beatty plays Reed credibly, and he also wonderfully recreates the world of leftist bohemians during the late 1910s and early 1920s. Maureen Stapleton deservedly won that Oscar for her portrayal of anarchist Emma Goldman. Her dialogue with Reed about the failures of the new Soviet Union must be seen to be believed. This film is somewhat of a tragedy, in part because we see the dissolution of the socialist dream that Reed had hoped for. We also see the difficulties is maintaining a romantic relationship while also trying to work as a journalist touting the socialist cause. All in all, this is good stuff.

Another great feature of the movie are the brief interludes featuring testimony from real socialists from the era portrayed in the movie. These people were well into their eighties and nineties when they were filmed, but their minds were still full of vivid memories, and their commentary adds a real life human dimension to this movie.

As far as I know, this film was not shown in the former Socialist countries, including present Cuba. It is a partial biography of John Reed, the American who wrote `deciat dnei kotorie potriasali mir' (10 days which shaken the world). Good to see it and, perhaps, a story different to the one was told by Soviets, who always said that Reed was a good friend of the Soviets and that simply he died of tuberculosis, but never said anything regarding his debates inside the socialist movement in USA as well as his debates with Soviet leadership, including Mr Zinoviev, who in some years later will be completely deleted from Soviet hierarchy by his `excellency', Mr Joseph Dzhugashvili, alias Stalin. The main message of the film is that it shows a real devoted John Reed to Socialists ideas, able to sacrifice his life and family in favor of a just cause, the level of bureaucracy developed in few years in USSR, and the way their leaders think. It was good to see how easily Mr Zinoviev asked John Reed to stay in Russia and also to forget about his family. This is very cynical, family is the basis of any society, and who attempts against it, is simply a criminal. The Soviets degenerated and, at the end, wanted a religion and not a democratic system of all workers and farmers. Beatty acted well but much better Dianne Keaton, who was simply brilliant.

A radical American journalist (Warren Beatty) becomes involved with the Communist revolution in Russia and hopes to bring its spirit and idealism to the United States.

This film seems to be something like a docudrama, before there really was such a thing as a docudrama. We have actors portraying characters at this critical point in history with Bolsheviks, socialists and all that. But every so often we cut to real people, playing themselves, talking about the events. That is not too different than how things are done on the history programs today.

Perhaps not well known anymore, John Reed was a real journalist who really lived through the Russian Revolution. What you see in this film is more or less true. And that makes it all the more interesting, because the role of Americans in Russia at the time is typically ignored or downplayed.

The story of Jack Reed (Beatty) writer / journalist who reported on the Russian Bolshevik revolution and moved on to try and bring the messages of the movement to the workers of America with the support of the Russian communist party - both who were not exactly keen. This is all against a backdrop of a passionate love story between Reed and Louise Bryant (Keaton), another committed writer. The film includes real interviews with people who witnessed the events in the film.

A wonderful and moving historical epic counter balanced perfectly by the desperately loving relationship between the two leads. Beatty creates a truly intimate portrayal of a man who whilst dedicated and passionate is often naive and commits himself to the cause at the expense of his marriage. It is a long film which could probably have been slightly trimmed and keeping fully tuned in to the high speed dialogue around revolutionary strategy is a bit challenging at times. A great film though with great performances from both leads, particularly Keaton.

It's 1915 in provincial Portland. Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton) is a liberated married woman who is at odds with her husband. She goes to the Liberal Club to hear Jack Reed (Warren Beatty) who claims the war is for profits. She is drawn immediately to him and interviews him. She follows him to NYC but she struggles in Jack's shadow. She has an affair with Eugene O'Neill (Jack Nicholson) but marries Jack anyways. Jack and his colleagues rally against the declaration of war. The marriage is not going smoothly and Bryant goes to France to be a war correspondent. Despite his medical problems, Reed goes over to Europe and convinces her to join him in Russia. They become writing partners and witness the Bolshevik Revolution in October 1917. The second half has Reed struggle to bring Revolution to America but faces infighting with Louis Fraina (Paul Sorvino). He struggles even more in Russia as he fights with Bolshevik revolutionary Grigory Zinoviev with his declining health.

The movie is very long although I understand why it had to be so long. There is an epic both the small scale personal romance and in the geopolitical world. The acting is superb. Keaton and Beatty really pushes hard. I'm less certain about the inserts of the real people. Most of the people are not well known. It gives it flavor but it also disrupts the flow. The movie needs faster pacing.

Perhaps it's inevitable that "Reds" became a kind of Rorschach test when it first appeared. Liberals, meaning almost all of Hollywood, could still feel a twinge of nostalgia for those heady Bolshie days, while conservatives recoiled at any attempt to humanize Americans who even Woodrow Wilson considered traitors. But it's over 30 years later, and the Jack Reeds and Emma Goldmans seem almost quaint today. So too do the Warren Beattys and Diane Keatons, and the limousine liberalism they embody.

Viewed at this distance, "Reds" is neither a masterpiece nor a piece of agitprop, just a very long, very good but rather flawed movie. And in fact it's surprisingly frank about who Reed was, and what the Bolsheviks were. In a late scene between Reed and Goldman, the latter is utterly disgusted with what the Reds have become, complaining that they are just as fascistic as the crew they replaced, and the people are just as bad off because "nothing works!" Reed is not listening. Revolutions take time, and they need a little terror to keep those pesky counterrevolutionaries in line.

In the end, however, this is a love story. Does it work? That depends how hard you think about it. Louise is always chasing after Jack, hating herself for it, leaving him, going back to him, rinse repeat. It gets a bit repetitive. The final scene makes no sense to me at all, even though it's been telegraphed for the preceding 2 1/2 hours. Luckily the chemistry between Beatty and Keaton holds it together.

Thank god for the testimonials, a surprisingly effective device which served to dispense with a lot of exposition. Otherwise this would've been a 6-hour movie.

Interesting biopic of idealistic and Socialist writer John Reed, and his experiences, fulminating to his book, THE TEN DAYS THAT SHOOK THE WORLD. Reed is a fascinating and unlikely subject for a Hollywood movie, mostly because he is extremely complicated and doesn't say "gee whiz" a lot. Beatty (winning Best Director Oscar) really pulls out the stops to paint a serious portrait, in this movie.

Yes, to a certain extent, it is sympathetic towards Socialism. However, one can't deny that it was particularly gutsy to make a film of this nature in 1981. Also undeniable, was the utter human misery and suffering of 95% of the Russian people during this period under Czarist rule. The question probably wasn't so much when a revolution would occur, but a question of what took them so long?

Politics aside, REDS is a well made film, with much going for it. The script tends to run on in parts, yet tells a compelling story. The performances are simply super, with Maureen Stapleton a standout (with a well-deserved Oscar nod). Just be warned, REDS tends to run very long and gets a bit dry in patches. The viewer is rewarded though, with some knockout performances.

Recommended.

When experiencing or listening to a story, the most important thing to consider is the point of view of the teller. Reds starts off and interweaves interviews of those who had some contact with either or both Louise Bryant and Jack Reed and put their story into both big-picture context and social irrelevance. This is delightful. The film, outside of this tells us Jack Reeds impression of his experiences as a radical writer who finds himself turned into an idealistic politician with his self-engrossed sometimes wife trying to be important by his side. I found their relationship hard to watch as Beatty turned Louise Bryant into some unbalanced and immoral slut. This is not so delightful and failed as a love story that I would care about. What is the real glue of the experience are the interpersonal speeches laid out by Jack Nicholson as play write Eugene O'Neil and the political summaries presented by Jean Stapleton and Emma Goldberg that seem to cut to the core, almost the way science fiction movies need that smart speech of 2 minutes that moves everything along. The movie needed to move along further as the darkness of post-revolution Russia, cell-bound Norway and the political basements in America show us frustration and loneliness but tell us nothing of what the fight was all about.

This is like watching a documentary movie extras with the real people telling their story and give a true account of those troubled times in Russia. This was a turning point in Russia past which affected the whole of Europe. I would like to have watched the whole movie without the real peoples account but i don't think it exist. Whether you agree or not with this mans actions he did change history and its a interesting film and story.

I have seen a lot of movies, but I haven't seen any particular films from Hollywood that is about communists. So that is a surprise. It also surprised me that the DVD that I checked out from a local library is its 25th anniversary edition. So the movie company is probably still making money from this movie. It was made in 1981 which the Soviet Union was still in power, the cold war was still going. Paramount actually financed this film to tell a story about a passionate American communist?

Most people in the USA don't have a good impression about Soviet Union or the communists, so it is a surprise that it was nominated for 12 academy awards. Did people actually pay money to watch this long film in the USA? What is so fascinated about this person?

I doubt that if it was filmed in 2008, it would be 195 minutes long. Just like the "Deer hunter" that I watched before this film, this one is also too long, especially the first half. There were a few scenes about the couple dancing in different clothes, it could have been cut. Time flies, we know that. There is no need to repeat it several times. What is most interesting was about what happened after he went to Russia alone to see the Commitern. He probably was a happy man when he died, because he died for the passion that he believed in.

Diane Keaton should have won the title of Best Actress. For several scenes, she was able to act just with her eyes. She made the character believable.

It was emotional to hear the song "Internationale" played in the film. However, the director mixed a few love making scenes during it, that is like playing a sex scene with a gosple song. They don't match.

One scene is confusing to me, when the train was attacked by the counter revolutionaries, why did Reed run toward the other side while people were shooting at the train and him?