Red Desert (1964)
3/10
WHATS THE POINT
28 November 2023
Made in an age where cinema didn't really have to do much and most of it acted as filler for the empty cinemas. Don't get me wrong, there are some true masterpieces that don't make any sense, but this isn't one of them. The story is simple and dragged out way too long. Nearly two hours. Loads of wide shots of factories. Harris walking about. Steam. Machinery. All way too long. But those were the days of cinema like this. My main question is why cast Harris in an Italian speaking movie? He's no Clint Eastwood. The 'story' as it is could have cast anyone in his role. Harris's strength are in powerful English delivery. Not this kind of arty farty film. There are many an old soul here (bless them) tgat hanker for and eat up this kind of film, but don't let them deceive you. This is film making and story telling that deserves to be left in the past. Modern audiences will be yawning after the first bragged out 20 mins. Hoping fir something to happen. It gets a 3 because it's in focus and the camera is directed well for the day. But if this movie was lost in a fire no one would miss it. Don't waste your time. Films that are no fun at all should be left just fir pretentious old film critics to nostalgia after.

UPDATE: I JUST READ TGST THE ACTRESS WROTE IN HER MEMORIES TGAT AT THE PREMIER SHE FELL ASLEEP HALF WAY THROUGH AND RICHAR HARRIS WALKED IFF TGE FILM BEFORE ITVWAS FINISHED - TGAT SAYS ALL YOU BEED TO KNOW. DONT LISTEN TO TGE PRETENTIOUS REVIEWS HERE. BY TODAYS STANDARDS THERES NOT EVEN MUCH CINEMATOGRAPHY TO GET EXCITED ABOUT. THESE REVIEWS ARE JUST OLD PEOPLE REMINISCING ABOUT THE 'GOOD OLD SLOOOOOOOW DAYS'. FOR THE REST OF US IT IS A BOREFEST. THE STARS WERE RIGHT!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed