Reds (1981)
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.
- Warren Beatty
- Carl Mesterton
- Enrique Gabriel
- Kuki López Rodero
- Lauri Törhönen
- Joseph J. Kontra
- Tom Seidman
- Alan Hopkins
- James Quinn
- Robert Birnbaum
- Robert E. Warren
- Karen Hale Wookey
- Craig R. Baxley
- Simon Relph
- Zelda Barron
- Michael Green
- Peter Waller
- Michael Zimbrich
- Warren Beatty
- Trevor Griffiths
Rating: 6.9/10 by 326 users
Alternative Title:
Reds - Ein Mann kämpft für Gerechtigkeit - DE
Reds: The John Reed Story - US
John Reed: The Ten Days That Shook the World - US
Comrades - US
Les rouges - CA
The John Reed and Louise Bryant Story - US
Rojos - ES
Country:
United States of America
Language:
English
suomi
Français
Deutsch
Italiano
Pусский
Runtime: 03 hour 15 minutes
Budget: $35,000,000
Revenue: $40,382,659
Plot Keyword: 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
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."
