Review of Red

Red’s Dead Baby, Red’s Dead.

In case, like me, you are confused by the title of Trygve Allister Diesen’s new film “Red”, let me clarify a few things for you: * This is not a prequel to the Warren Beatty movie “Reds.” * This is not one third of a French art-house trilogy. * This is not Morgan Freeman’s spin-off project from The Shawshank Redemption. This is a film about a dog named Red. And one more thing: Red’s dead baby, Red’s dead. Or at least he becomes dead 10 minutes into the film. That’s right, this is a movie about a dead dog and the increasingly Hatfield v. McCoy-esque feud that ensues between Brian Cox (doing his best impression of Wilford Brimley) and Noel Fisher, the son from the TV show “The Riches” (doing his best impression of the son from “The Riches”). But the important point is you see a dog get capped in the beginning of the film. I only stress the point because if Cristina (my film companion du jour) had told me about the canine-icide any time other than 5 seconds before the film started, I would have never seen this movie. In a comment on the first draft of my post (that’s right, there are multiple drafts of these posts AND I get comments on them) our editor pointed out some well thought out questions: “It isn’t valid to dismiss a movie because the concept makes you uneasy. Movies need to be evaluated according to their own internal logic or how well they tell a story or what values they transmit. Isn’t this a film about justice and redemption? How did the film use the scenario of the merciless killing of an innocent animal to advance its notion of justice? Do you agree with its ethics? Aren’t we all supposed to feel disgust at the dog’s death? Isn’t that the point? It is, of course, completely valid to say that having to watch a dog murdered—simulated, though it was—was personally appalling to you.” Of course he is right. The filmmaker is trying to explore the senselessness of violence and the insanity of revenge. The scenario of the dog’s death could be seen to represent the injustice of life and Cox’s predicament as the dog’s owner as the choice every human faces on how to cope with an unbalanced universe. My dismissal of the film based solely on the concept isn’t fair. But as my grandpappy used to say, “Fair only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades”. I’m not down with killing dogs. Sorry. Maybe it flags me as some one who can’t handle challenging cinema or it signifies my isolation from humans (since I sure don’t mind seeing them murdered on the silver), but I find the act of killing a defenseless dog right up front before I am given the slightest reason to give two poos about a single character or an ounce of story to be a hostile decision from the filmmaker. At least they waited till the end to kill ol’ Yeller. Had the rest of the film delivered I am sure I would have changed my song and dance. Overcoming the opening was an impossible task, and the film did a meager job of even attempting it. Besides the dead-dog aspect, the movie is pretty bad. Harsh lighting and drab antique settings make watching the film feel like getting in trouble at your grandparents’ house. And even though the cast is populated with some of the best and brightest stars of the smaller screen (it is like a Where’s Waldo of 1 hour drama actors), the performances mostly come in flat, or in the case of Cox, just confused. Cox, who has always been one of my favorite actors (I watched “Manhunter” like 20 times as a kid) seems to be getting mixed direction throughout the movie. His progression from stoic old-timer to revenge crazed soldier of fortune feels more schizophrenic than organic. A confusing and depressing movie based off a horrible concept, Red needs someone to come along and put it out of its misery.

Posted on 07/18/08 by: TheDailyKirk 10:58 AM