MovieChat Forums > Reds (1981) Discussion > Reds (1981) had 12 Oscar nominations, ye...

Reds (1981) had 12 Oscar nominations, yet it rarely gets mentioned anymore


Reds (1981) was Warren Beatty’s masterpiece, also starring Diane Keaton and Jack Nicholson. It was nominated for 12 Academy Awards in 1982 and won 3, including best director for Beatty.

And yet, it is rarely discussed anymore. Do you think it’s just not very good and was overshadowed by other New Hollywood movies? Or do you think the movie’s length (too long?) played a part? All of the above?

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/t0r1pn/reds_1981_had_12_oscar_nominations_yet_it_rarely/

reply

I remember it as very big and a bit worthy and earnest. It was good but not enjoyable in a way that meant I'd want to re-watch it.
Though I've just noticed Best Cinematography: Vittorio Storaro, which might get me to watch it if it ever turns up.

reply

I've never seen it and rarely see it talked about. For me personally I have no interest in watching it because of it's length coupled with the subject matter. Sounds like a real bore.

I've no doubt it's a decent film but I imagine it's not entertaining in the slightest. A good example of this would be The Pianist (2002), a well made film for sure but a bore and not something I'd ever bother to rewatch. Reds (1981) gives me that vibe.

reply

The Pianist boring? It's a thriller next to Schindler's List !

reply

It is a interesting movie, and all true movie fans should watch it at least once.

But it's length and heavy intellectual theme makes rewatching it like retaking college course which you already passed.





reply

I think it's a very good film, but like many I have no interest in rewatching it other than the parts involving Jack Nicholson (his acting is superb). It has a number of flaws: (1) Beatty is a terrible actor for this kind of supposedly serious film. His character portrayals always have a golly-gee dumb cluck component to them, which works for Shampoo and Heaven Can Wait, but fails here. He's also noticeably overshadowed in the company of Diane Keaton, Jack Nicholson, and Gene Hackman. (2) The present-day interviews were spliced in far too often and were distracting, constantly taking me out of the mental space of the movie. I like to immerse myself in the time period while watching, something impossible to do consistently when you're always confronted with octogenarians telling anecdotes. (3) It doesn't justify it's 3 hour+ running time. If you cut out all the interviews and repetitive protest scenes, it could've been a much improved film at 2 hours. Of these 3 items, Beatty's acting was the biggest problem. He's obviously an intelligent guy, so I wonder if he plays a cluck on purpose as a cheap appeal to women. Films like The Parallax View would also have been improved with a more credible actor who can communicate the seriousness of his situation more convincingly.

reply

The world is a very different place than it was in 1981. True classics transcend the time they were made.

reply