ريد

source: Red

I can't believe no one has mentioned the formulaic ending this has, with the bad guys getting shot, just like every other revenge or 'out for justice' movie. Completely destroyed any credibility the movie had up until that point. People might say that its a case of the innocent parties (Harold) suffering as a result being somehow original, but once again, very predictable, just like the torching of the store right after the scene where Av drives by it. It's a shame too, because the movie was brilliant in setting up the characters, and built the tension beautifully. I don't believe the problem lies with the movie, but by the novel, assuming it's ending is similar. After seeing this and The Girl Next Door, it seems to me that Jack Ketchum's writing is somehow put on a pedestal by so many people, I'm definitely missing something here. I didn't realise it was based on his novel until the opening credits, should've known it would fall apart again. Just another 'out for justice' movie with some excellent performances.

I have seen Brian Cox in over a dozen films, including the Bourne Trilogy, but I doubt if I have ever seen as fine a performance as he gave in this film. he just wanted the truth, and damn those who try to hide it. You have to have had a dog and lost a dog to know the depths of feeling that was in Avery Ludlow (Cox). You have to have loved and lost to know what is important. You have to have sacrificed for others to hold the truth as high as Avery did. All his feelings and experiences made for a powerful story, and Cox delivered like I have never seen him do before. There were many other very good performances in this film as it built to an explosive climax, and a sweet ending.

I was going along with this movie fine enough for awhile but when it gets to the point that old Avery gives this insane back story about his 2 sons... it completely fell apart. For one thing, why would someone tell the reporter he has two sons, not he HAD two sons who luridly left this planet? Second, why would this guy idiotically keep pushing, involving the innocent brother of the psychopathic kid (and father) with his own experience to show him how little it might take to endanger that boy's life? It makes no sense at all unless he's as sick as the bad guys! And then the fact that it winds up with him learning his lesson, "Two boys are dead. I couldn't let it go!" Yeah and you knew full well before just as you do now that this is what probably could happen!!! Blah... This story was just bull... At least Angela Bettis wasn't involved, but she's in the next one... Sad to see someone so righteous and talented having to take this kind of work!!! :(

Sure, its about a dog ..but who says a goldfish is not just as loving ..(the way they stare at you thru the glass, etc). I really think they could of easily pulled this movie off the same way it was felt here, only, using a goldfish or even somebody's lovable pet rock (O: - Excellent movie by the way. Have fun!!!! bye. Now with that out the way Amaz0n and this IMDb suck really bad .. I cannot stand AMAZ0N anymore cause I know you really agree with me ... stupid IMDb runs like crap cause AMAZ0N is so ugly and outdated and they don't even pay me money ..after 15 yrs ... no money from you retards - laugh out loud now.

I was really excited when I saw the trailer for this film, especially since there seems to be so little encouragement to go to theaters lately. Brian Cox is an easy draw for me. ( I even sat through Troy…. well Pitt was OK too) But while Mr. Cox did a fine job, and I enjoyed watching the film, I think it suffers from a sort of identity crisis. I have no real criticism on the particulars of the film's execution. It was directed well enough as far as a layman like myself could tell. It was well acted and well scripted, and the story moves a reasonable pace. I just am not sure what it is really about… or I thought it would be about more. I think the fault is in the theme of the film. IMHO, the story should have been more than a bad seed story… or bad seeds in this case, played by Tom Sizemore and Noel Fisher. I think that good v evil morality tale approach was a fallacy especially in these times when the zeitgeist seems a conflicted, self-reflective creature. Cox is captivating in his role, his screen presence is not lacking in any sense. But he is painted as naive, unbelievably trusting in the elemental goodness in man. OK, maybe I am jaded, but Avery Ludlow does not seem real to me, not as a man who lives in and does business in the real world. And Sizemore and Fisher, by contrast, come off as too archetypically sociopathic. Granted the film does not embrace stereotypes and moves toward the violent conclusion in a believable fashion, but I was hoping for a more nuanced subtext.

I recently caught the film on HDnet which I guess lets you see movies before they hit the theaters. Having read the book which I loved I was very interested in seeing how the movie would turn out. It was a strange mix of poetry and monotone. Which means that the movie had these wonderful moments sandwiched by extremely flat, boring bits. For instance, the subplot between Brian Cox and the female reporter. I didn't buy for one second that she would interested in him. As their scenes played out I felt myself grow restless. But then you had scenes that crackled with energy. Like when he was following the kids around. Watching them play baseball and the bad kid starting hitting the fence with his bat. I think the feel of dread that started to build in my for Cox's character transitions into wondering why the hell didn't we have this throughout the WHOLE FILM?! With its dynamite climax there should have been SO MUCH MORE that came before it. Plus, in the story, we follow Avery's journey into some really dark places...which he just talks about while sitting down?!! Couldn't they afford to film this stuff? I mean, how the hell can we see the light at the end of the tunnel without going through the darkness first? I was severely disappointed! At the end of the book I actually cried when the reporter gave him the puppy. Here just came off as sappy. Having looked over the credits and reading a bit of articles I noticed there were two different directors. I don't know either of them, but I have a feeling my statement of poetry and monotone could be attributed to that. Or not. Who knows. Either way Red is just another example of a great book turned into a so-so movie.

This is literally Death Wish for dogs!!! Wtf? I thought I would enjoy the movie because of Cox and Sizemore but its just ridiculous. Somehow this actually diminishes Death Wish by trivialising revenge justice, not for rape and assault, but for a dog. What were they thinking? I guess the sequel will be "I want my stuffed toy back"! or perhaps a crossover with Taken or Man on Fire?

While fishing in Miller's Band with his dog Red, the lonely widower and owner of a small general store Avery Ludlow (Brian Cox) is surrounded by three teenage thieves seeking money and without any reason, one of them shoots Red on the head. Avery investigates the empty cartridge and finds the owner of the shotgun Danny McCormack (Noel Fisher), his brother Harold (Kyle Gallner) and their friend Pete Doust (Shiloh Fernandez). Avery seeks out Danny's father Michael McCormack (Tom Sizemore) that is a corrupt businessman expecting excuses and punishment for the boys, but he finds an arrogant man that does not pay attention to his complaints about the cruelty of Danny to his dog. He decides to sue Danny using his friend and lawyer Sam Berry (Richard Riehle), but Mr. McCormack uses his political influence to obstruct justice. The reporter Carrie Donnel (Kim Dickens) makes a program for TV showing the cruelty of the offender and how justice does not work, but again Mr. McCormack affects her work. However, Avery does not give up of his quest for justice. Yesterday I saw the trailer of "Red" and I liked what I saw, so I decided to watch this movie expecting to see a sort of "Death Wish". However the story is a powerful drama with a complex lead character performed by the veteran Brian Cox. In this regard, it is great to see the quest for justice of an old man against the corrupt system ruled by money and influence. The cast is superb, with Noel Fisher perfect in the role of the mean Danny, and Tom Sizemore in an awesome performance in the role of the patriarch of a dysfunctional family. Unfortunately the conclusion is not well resolved and quite pointless. The Brazilian title misleads the viewer, giving a wrong idea of the plot. My vote is seven. Title (Brazil): "Rastros de Vingança" ("Tracks of Revenge")

This movie disappoints in several areas. First off is Noel Fisher's ham-handed performance in the opening scene. It gets a tiiiiny less awful as the film goes on, but the tone is set. He is the evil opposite of Brian Cox in the script as well as in performance. Cox, Plummer and Englund all turn in good performances. It's a pity they should be stuck with such an awful script. Which leads to Disappointment Number Two: Believability. Lemme get this straight--we're in a rural Oregon town that looks like it could have been used for the summer scenes of Northern Exposure, and Cox manages to tail these teenage thugs without them noticing until he gets out of his car (parked directly behind them) and he gets out and calls after them? These guys are sociopaths, not idiots. Then, there is the action itself. Right on the back of the DVD I was suckered into renting It says: "...seeks justice and redemption"..."must avenge himself by any means necessary". Three punks try to rob Cox at gunpoint and when they find he has nothing to steal, they kill his dog out of pure meanness. And laugh. I'll get right to the point--there is no justice, no redemption and mostly there is no vengeance. I absolutely cannot believe that this guy is going to go to the parents and only ask for that the boy be made to apologize. I can't believe it would go down like that for ANY dog, and certainly not a dog who is his only remaining connection to his late wife. OK, it's a small town--you can't just go 'round kneecapping little punks for "only a dog". Still, I'd expect him to be more than just quietly, passively sad when the little punks throw a brick through the window of his home and then burn his store to the ground. At that point it's clear that they are going to hurt HIM in very short order. The director scores the hat trick of disappointment with the "climax" and ending. If I had a climax like this at the Mustang Ranch I'd demand my money back. The cruel unrepentance of the dog killers' families escalates to the point of attempted (human) murder, once, twice, THREE times and still Cox's character is sticking with this stoic "All I want is for you people to do the right thing" nonsense. JUSTICE would be something JUST like Death Wish or The Brave One, and PRUDENCE dictates a preemptive strike. Simply put, once somebody tries to rob you, kills your dog, throws a brick through your window when you complain about the first two, tries to beat your brains out, burns down your store, shoots you in the head, runs you off the road, clubs you and leaves you for dead, it's time to start killing stuff. Cox doesn't. And I. JUST. CAN'T. BELIEVE. IT. We watch movies like this for one reason, and one reason only: good ol' fashioned catharsis. You watch Death Wish or The Brave One and you can almost be OK with calling 911 instead of grabbing a gun and cutting out the middle men in the jury box. This film is a total let down there. Cox's character tearfully says"...two boys DIED.." Waaaah. OK, at this point, I'm already annoyed that I've lost an hour and a half of my life to this wussy tease of a revenge movie, but then comes the awful saccharin "After School Special" ending? Makes you envy the dog--HE was able to get out during the first 10 minutes of this steaming pile of Why-Did-I-Sit-All-The-Way-Through-That. If you get a chance to see this, go watch Torch Song Trilogy instead--at least THAT guy had the (fill in your choice of small spherical objects here) to take any guff when attacked.