Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

A personal triumph for co-writer-producer-director-star Warren Beatty, who won the Oscar for his direction and gives a cautious, interesting performance as early-1900s American journalist John Reed, who shared a tumultuous courtship and marriage to Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton), a socialite and self-described writer. Reed, a radical political activist, became intrigued with the Communist teachings of Russia and, with Bryant, defended the Bolsheviks and opposed American intervention. Their acquaintances, a community of activists and artists, included anarchist Emma Goldman (masterfully played by Oscar-winner Maureen Stapleton) and playwright Eugene O'Neill (Jack Nicholson), who also had a passionate affair with Bryant (one "guest witness" speculates the Reed-Bryant marriage was actually a menage a trois that included O'Neill). Beatty's film is too long at 195 minutes--and is far better in its early stages, so momentum tends to decrease as the story progresses--however, its an actors' paradise and everyone brings something special to the fore. Keaton's chattering sometimes feels anachronistic ("yeah, yeah...uh-huh, uh-huh"), but she works the camera mercilessly with her big, enchanting smile (to knock us dead) and sad, questioning stare. Keaton manages to translate her innermost thoughts into expressions, and her penetrating scenes with Nicholson are quietly-charged and fascinating, although her romance with Beatty's Reed feels somewhat muffled. Beatty, content to let his co-stars shine, has chosen to remain reserved; some may applaud the performance as successfully subtle, yet he might have shown us a bit more of his own personality (it would help in a three-hour-plus movie such as this). The epic-sized "Reds" is a strange melodrama, at times, and an overachiever, but with surprising humor in the mix and the fire of determination at its core. **1/2 from ****

I had heard about this film many times before, specifically because it is one of only a few films to be nominated all four Academy Award acting nominations, I knew I had to see it at some point, from Oscar and Golden Globe winning director Warren Beatty (Dick Tracy). Basically the film tells the true story of radical American journalist John Reed (Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe nominated Warren Beatty), during the First World War and the Russian Revolution, interspersed throughout with surviving witnesses from the time periods who knew Reed, the many of the people he encountered and giving their views on his exploits. Reed met married socialite Louise Bryant (Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe nominated Diane Keaton) in 1915 at a lecture in Portland, Oregon, she is intrigued by his idealism, and over the course of an interview on international politics, which goes into the night, she realises writing is her only escape from the high society lifestyle. Bryant eventually leaves her husband to join Reed Greenwich Village, New York City, along with the local community of activists and artists, including anarchist and author Emma Goldman (Oscar and BAFTA winning, and Golden Globe nominated Maureen Stapleton) and the playwright Eugene O'Neill (BAFTA winning, and Oscar and Golden Globe nominated Jack Nicholson), they later move to Provincetown, Massachusetts to concentrate on their writing, and become involved in the local theatre scene. Bryant becomes a feminist and radical in her own right through her writing, while Reed becomes involved in the labor strikes of the "Reds" of the Communist Labor Party of America, he becomes obsessed with changing the world, and in 1916 grows restless and moves to St. Louis to cover the Democratic Convention, during his absence Bryant has a complicated affair with O'Neill, Reed discovers this on his return, and realises he still loves her. Reed and Bryant secretly marry and make a home in Croton-on-Hudson, north of New York City, but desires for others are still conflicting them, Reed admits to his infidelity, and Bryant leaves on a ship to Europe to be a war correspondent, while Reed has a kidney disorder and is warned not to travel excessively and cause himself stress, but ignores this to join her, they reunite as professionals and rekindle their passion, while swept into Russia's Czarist regime ans the events of the 1917 Russian Revolution. The second half of the film is set ten days after the publication of Reed's book Ten Days that Shook the World, Reed is filled with idealism and tries to bring the spirit of Communism to the United States, because he is disillusioned by the imposed policies of Grigory Zinoviev (Jerzy Kosinski) and the Bolsheviks from Communist Russia, he is imprisoned and interrogated in Finland at one point trying to leave Europe, he is eventually reunited with Bryant in Moscow, Russia at a train station, his kidney disorder however has weakened him, Bryant nurses him until his death. Also starring Edward Herrmann as Max Eastman, Gene Hackman as Pete Van Wherry, Paul Sorvino as Louis Fraina, Nicolas Coaster as Paul Trullinger, M. Emmet Walsh as Speaker at Liberal Club, Ian Wolfe as Mr. Partlow, Bessie Love as Mrs. Partlow, Ramon Bieri as Police Chief, Jack O'Leary as Pinkerton Guard, William Daniels as Julius Gerber, Dave King as Allan Benson, Joseph Buloff as Joe Volski, Shane Rimmer as MacAlpine, Miriam Margolyes as Woman Writing in Notebook and John Ratzenberger as Communist Leader. This chronicle of the man who wrote Ten Days that Shook the World works well because of the great cast and crew, including the great music by Stephen Sondheim, and the terrific attention to detail, I admit there was more chat than action, and I found it hard to follow in small places, but overall it was an interesting epic biographical drama. It won the Oscar for Best Cinematography, and it was nominated for Best Picture, Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Costume Design, Best Sound and Best Film Editing, it was nominated the BAFTAs for Best Cinematography and Best Costume Design, and it was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Drama and Best Screenplay. Very good!

Warren Beatty's 'Reds' is a sweeping and epic which mixes drama and actual interview testimonies from major social radicals of the period which are an amazing technique to fill in for exposition. Set against the backdrop of the tumultuous start of the twentieth century, Keaton/Beatty are the two journalists whose equally tumultuous relationships is punctuated by the outbreak of WWI and the Bolshevik Revolution.the pair find each other swept up in the Revolution. Beatty becomes disillusioned with Communism when he sees his words and intentions controlled by the growing Soviet propaganda machine. Shot by Cinematographer Vittorio Storaro reds is stunning, it's a 3 Hour & 12 minute epic which just sweeps byjoining them are supporting cast are Gene Hackman making a brief appearance Jack Nicholson as Eugene O'Neil, it's far better and whole some affair than David Lean's 'Dr.Zhivago

You got to hand it to Warren Beatty: making a three-hour epic about the birth of America's left conscience between 1915 and 1920 is quite an accomplishment. And to think that the budget of "Reds" was funded by a major movie studio (emblematic of the very forms of capitalism the film's protagonists denounced) makes the achievement delightfully impressive. But what exactly makes the Communists in general (and John Reed in particular) so controversial that most reviewers asked themselves: "how could they make a movie about reds?" paraphrasing the tag line of Stanley Kubrick's "Lolita". After all, the Soviet Revolution was one of the most pivotal events of the last century and John Reed, who covered it through his masterpiece "Ten Days that Shook the World", was the only American to be buried in the Kremlin walls. So maybe viewers are approaching the film with the wrong mindset, the question should not be "why making a film about American communists" but "why not?" The ideals, the dreams they stood for, maybe Utopian (were they?), still deserved recognition.And recognition doesn't mean tribute, or beatification. Warren Beatty plays the journalist as a politically engaged but not flawed character, capable to display the most idealistic romanticism and then the most cynical pragmatism in the same flow of ideas. While Beatty, the actor, delivers political slogans with conviction, Beatty, the director, confronts them to their limits, to reality whether it's set in Russia or America, or to the simple fact that ideas depend on people. And the strength of "Reds" is to care about people more than ideas (which even Communism failed to consider), to portray the men and the women who believed that Communism was the closest ideology to justice and humanity, with the fairest view on the world, while America's democracy was poisoned by liberalism and money. Which leads me to my favorite line from the film, one I even used it for my own purpose: "what is WWI all about?" "Profits". I admired Reed's accurate answer but then after a second viewing, I realized that countries also fought for intangible elements such as ideals and prestige. And I'm not sure that Communists were all reason and practicality. When Reed confronts Louis Fraina (Paul Sorvino) to determine which of their parties deserves to represent the Komintern, their debate is less a conflict of ideas than a battle of egos, as we're not even supposed to grasp the little subtleties that separate them. And that's the intelligence of "Reds": provided it's a historical drama, it doesn't teach history but shows people making it and being made by it. On that level, John Reed is the first ventricle of "Reds"' heart, the second being Louise Bryant, his wife, played by Diane Keaton."Reds" poster is eloquent enough: it doesn't feature the Revolution in March, or other symbols like the red flags, the Kremlin, the hammer and the faucet, it only shows the climactic reunion of John and Louise in the famous train station sequence. Like "Gone With the Wind", "Reds" is a magnificent love story interfering with the history with the perfect balance, never does one distract from the other, but they're never separated either. Reed is torn between the pragmatism of the political activist and the romanticism of the artist, Bryant is the strong-willed intellectual, she's an artist too, but more than anything, she's a woman, exercising her free will, whether it's to embrace her husband's cause or to take him from it, for his own good. Beatty is perfect to unveil a poignant vulnerability behind his dashing looks and Keaton to hide an inspirational courage behind her quirkiness. The romance is essential to the story because it's obviously doomed, just as doomed as the red dream in America. The film is served by a wonderful gallery of supporting characters from the hard-headed Emma Goldberg (Maureen Stapleton, who'd win her Best Supporting Oscar) to the gloomy and sensually indelicate Eugene O'Neil, played by Jack Nicholson, "Reds" is a period film that create contemporary characters, appealing to us without feeling anachronistic. In fact, the tone of the film makes it fresh and modern, and I guess it's partly due to the remarkable idea of inserting testimonies from people who knew Reed and Bryant. These interviews allow the viewer to detach himself from history, to quit this sort of emphasizing posture. These names that filled historical books were people like you and I, they had their egos, their flaws, their impulses etc. They all speak with a black neutral background, and their names don't appear so we don't fall in the documentary genre, but just start seeing these "Reds" as people, not symbols. Even if "Reds" is not a documentary, it has an undeniable educational value, but it's still a big epic in the great Hollywood tradition; a film is not a book, and Beatty understood that viewers would probably lose track on the political aspect. Cinematically speaking, it features the obligatory grandiose sequences of a big-budget epic like the unforgettable Internationale singing, and the train attack yet it has its share of anticlimactic moments like John Reed's sober finale or a score that cancels off the whole 'David Lean' feel. Now, to those who still wonder why they made a film about the "Reds" :America has never been communist, but many political decisions were driven by the Red Scare (which some parts of the film deals with), the Keynesian theories of the welfare state were an alternative to Communism, the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe was strategically guided by the Cold War, not to mention McCarthyism or the Vietnam War. That Communism was doomed didn't make it any less significant in the history of America, as it was and still is the best antidote against liberalism's own excesses, those that are destroying our world today. Call it Utopian, but still, the red dream hasn't lost all its relevance.