Have you seen Red yet? No? Shame on you. If you’re still on the fence regarding whether or not to see the film, though, look no further. Today Matt and I go back and forth about the pros and cons of the film in a (more or less) spoiler-free review, and I relay a lovely story about my film-going experience. Follow the cut for more.
Walt: The most recent comic book-based movie to be released in theaters is Red, (very loosely) based off of the comic of the same name by Warren Ellis and Cully Hamner. I saw it in theaters with my folks while on break, and Matt got a fancy digital copy because he’s a somewhat respected comics journalist now. What was your first impression of the film, Matt?
Matt: Somewhat respected! Hooray!!
My first impression? Basically NOTHING like the book. Normally, this offends me. If I see a movie based on a book – graphic fiction or otherwise – I want it to be a faithful adaptation of the source material. There are obviously leniencies I will succumb to and allow, but to me the most egregious part is if people behind the film say it’ll be like whatever they’re adapting. This leads to me going into the movie expecting to see a specific version of the film and usually getting tossed aside, leaving to a grumpy Matt leaving an IMAX at 2something in the morning muttering about how much he dislikes Zack Snyder now…
Of course, with Red, Warren Ellis said from the beginning the movie would be different. And it was. But you know what? Still fun across the board, absolutely.
Walt: That’s how I felt too. Personally, I don’t feel as strongly about faithfulness to the source material. I’ve already read the story, so show me something different. The first ten or so minutes were relatively close to the original comic, but once Moses left his house it was a completely different story.
Matt: It’s different for me with movies. I mean, I would rather people making movies have original ideas versus doing adaptations or remakes, because then it comes off as, “Well, we’re clueless, but you did something cool so let’s go with that!” And it’s a little sad because some of my favorite scenes from Red didn’t make it to the movie. To obviously be the devil’s advocate/negative side of this battle review, I would like to point out that for a movie that certainly starred the character, Frank Moses was really not that big of a badass after the first scene. After that he just seemed like a darkly funny lovesick central focus rather than a top-grade uber-black ops assassin, you know? It was more about everyone else firing guns than it was Frank Moses busting in with excess weaponry and pushing arrows through people’s skulls (a la the comic).
Walt: I was also saddened that there was no arrow in the eye scene.
It’s true that Moses wasn’t quite as much of a cold-hearted killer, but I think that was the result of expanding the cast. Remember, the cast of the comic was four people (Moses, the two CIA guys and that one woman) and a bunch of faceless goons. For a big-budget Hollywood action movie, that won’t do. So now we have Moses’ old contacts thrown into the story, but that doesn’t quite work as well if he is the same character that he was in the comic.
Matt: True, but they completely removed that aspect of ultra violence. They allowed Helen Mirren and John Malkovich to go a bit nuts, but Bruce Willis – the known action star of the cast – only had … What, two real scenes of action? That just seems odd to me for a story about retired CIA black ops officers.
Walt: That’s fair enough. Now that we’ve brought him up, though, can we both agree that John Malkovich completely stole the show?
Matt: Hahaha, without a doubt! John Malkovich has been picking REALLY weird roles lately, but I thought this performance was akin on different levels to his asshole character in Burn After Reading, Osborne Cox (which I have a strong urge to put on, now). The similarities are there, with Osborne Cox no longer working at the CIA, but with Marvin Boggs we had a mix of some of the Men Who Stare At Goats as well, and the combination of the ideas made for an absolutely hilarious performance. I’m not sure at what point in his career to Malkovich decide to stop doing period pieces, dramas, and and stage plays in order to do Red, Jonah Hex, and the new Transformers film… but to be honest, I can’t complain one bit.
Continued belowWalt: Not at all. I fully believe that no one does crazy like John Malkovich.
The character that took me by surprise was the Russian agent Ivan Simanov, played by Brian Cox. Cox did a great job portraying this lovable but extremely dangerous old guy, but he got absolutely no screen time in the previews (if I remember correctly). Hell, I wish he had received more screen time in the actual movie.
Matt: I thought Cox was a cameo as well, just like James Remar (Dexter’s dad) was. Then we had a full role in the film, I was quite surprised.
I also think we HAVE to mention Richard Dreyfuss. I had no clue he would be in the movie, so when he showed up I had to turn to Jess and say, “…is that … is that Richard Dreyfuss?” Absolutely ridiculous.
Walt: I know, I had no idea that he was going to be in the film. And it wasn’t even just a minor character, because you find out that…
Well, I guess I shouldn’t spoil that. Point is, Dreyfuss is mad cool.
Matt: And how about Karl Urban? I think he had more bad ass moments than Bruce Willis did!
Walt: Karl Urban absolutely killed it. I was a bit surprised that Morgan Freeman didn’t get as much attention as the previews showed, but I think that worked out for the best (no disrespect to the great Mr. Freeman, of course).
Matt: Morgan was absolutely the most underused actor in that film. I don’t know if that was on purpose or not, but he was really barely there despite being one of the four main assassins. It was kind of sad.
So Walt – there was a lot that you DID like. Tell me what you didn’t.
Walt: Well, as you pointed out earlier, I was expecting more from Bruce Willis. He’s more or less THE action film actor, but in this he just didn’t seem to be that… action-y. Granted, it’s nice to see different actors doing different things, but when he’s the lead in an action film? Color me a tiny bit disappointed.
Matt: Yes, that definitely struck me as odd. Another thing I noticed is that, with the book all the violence was pretty ridiculous. You read this comic and just think, “Wow, there is no way something this insane should work in anyway.” So you go to see the movie, and you’re thinking, OK, this should kind of be like an over the top violent film… sort of like the Expendables or even the A Team, but more unusual. Yet there really wasn’t that much in the ways of creative and explosive action and violence except for the opening scene where Moses is attacked at home. You know, you look at another recent DC film adaptation like the Losers, and that film has plenty of ridiculous action sequences, especially at the end, which takes one of it’s finale scenes straight from the sixth issue of the comic. Red just seemed kind of … tame, in comparison. People shooting at each other from behind this or that, but nothing really outrageous beyond Helen Mirren manning (womanning?) a turret gun – if ONLY because she’s Dame Helen Mirren!
Walt: I would have to disagree with you there. Don’t forget about Willis coolly stepping out of a spinning car, Malkovich shooting a rocket directly on its tip, or Malkovich batting a grenade directly back at his attacker (probably my favorite part of the movie).
Matt: Well, to be fair, Malkovich shooting the rocket was in the trailer… so it’s not like that one was a big surprise or anything. I probably would have been more entertained by the sequence if I hadn’t seen it twenty times before. Though I do love that Malkovich kept repeating the line, “Can I kill him/her now?” throughout most of the film.
And still – that’s three things (four, including the previously mentioned opening scene) in an almost two hour movie.
Walt: You’ve got me there. Willis and Urban’s fight scene was intense and entertaining, but it was hardly over the top. I think the movie was incredibly fun, but making it fun also led to most of its flaws. I’ve read a few interviews with most of the actor’s involved, and I remember Mirren claiming that she had no idea it was meant to be humorous in any way when she signed on. While I think it was good as presented, I wonder what it would have been like if they had kept it serious.
Continued belowMatt: To be fair, the comic wasn’t that serious. It’s one of those books that isn’t supposed to be a funny read, but when you go through some of the sequences you get that sort of … dark comedy vibe. The movie definitely took that out for more of a straight up comedy feel to it. It still worked well, but imagine what the movie would be if they had sprung for the hard R?
Walt: I think a straight-up R might have resulted in a better movie, but the studio probably decided against it for monetary purposes. Action movies tend to rely on a younger audience for their revenue nowadays, and while Red relates more to older viewers, changing it to R still loses all those 16-and-under year-olds who just want to see cool explosions and violence.
Matt: Which is unfortunate, but not surprising. Sacrificing a potential better film for profit? I’ve never heard of that before! And you know that when it comes to DVD, there will be an “UNRATED SPECIAL EXTRA LONG VERSION” that is 112 minutes compared to the theatrical 111.
Walt: True, but that’s more of a problem with the film industry than the film itself.
Personally, I would have to say the worst part was when someone sitting two rows behind me in the theater crapped their pants. Then again, that could be a testament to how good the movie was. They really did not want to miss those last few minutes.
Matt: HA! At what point exactly did he or she shit their pants? And how exactly did that become a thing aware to the entire theater?
Walt: I would say it happened within the last ten minutes. People actually began leaving early because of it.
Red: So good you’ll shit yourself.
