Red

After reading lots of positive reviews on RED, I kind of knew it was going to be good..And it was.

It's kind of like the defender who plays well all season but does'nt get the player of the year award!

A brilliant film, but because it has'nt got special effects or a mega star cast it will not get the push it needs to hit the cinemas, but let me tell you. RED hits the spot.

It' about an oldish guy (played splendidly by Brian Cox) whose only buddy is his 14 year old dog called RED. One day out fishing with Red, three young guys turn up and harass him and eventually shoot Red dead.

So now Brian Cox' character wants justice, but two of the guys whose killed Reds' dad is the towns main man, Cox wants revenge!

Basically thats the plot, so simple, but so effective!

No blood and guts, No special effects...Just a brilliant film, no matter what genre you like. You just can't not like this film.

I don't know why it happens, possibly I'm not a good citizen, but movies in which animals die sadden me more than when humans do. And possibly on that thought, and because I'm also a pet owner, I couldn't help but intensely root for the owner who goes after the kids who killed red. And that leads me to the marvelous performance by Brian Cox, an actor whom I never gave much attention to, even though many people love him. Tom Sizemore gives, like usual, another great spectacle. Actually all actors deserve praises. The directing by Trygve Allister Diesen is also quite remarkable. I have to admit I have a weakness for this movies about this rural small towns in the USA, in particular those who delve into the drudgery of those living there, which, to me, is the center of this film.

Brian Cox is ranked among the best character actors in the business. Yet, for all his talent, he's seldom chosen as a leading man, instead being called upon to fill supporting roles as far ranging as the original Hannibal Lecter (Manhunter) to William Wallace's dad in Bravehart and William Stryker in X2, the X-Men sequel, among only a few of his 134 roles thus far. So it comes as a bit of a surprise to see him handed the lead in Red, a mini-masterpiece of one man's quest for justice which screened at the 2008 edition of Montreal's Fantasia film festival.

Directed by Trygve Allister Diesen and Lucky McKee (May, The Woods), and based on a story by Jack Ketchum, Red tells the story of aging war vet Avery Ludlow (Cox), whose only remaining companion after a life of tragedy, a dog named Red, is brutally killed by a group of teens. Built upon a remarkably rich, layered and textured script by Stephen Susco (The Grudge), the story doesn't play out as your simple paint-by-numbers revenge thriller. Instead, it unfolds slowly and all too realistically as Ludlow seeks redress, not revenge, from the wealthy father of two of the boys (Tom Sizemore in full sleaze mode), only to be rebuffed by parents and legal channels alike. Even when these attempts fail, Ludlow, ever the civil citizen, tells his story to the local TV news, and launches a lawsuit against the killers.

Drawing parallels between teen dog killer Danny McCormack (Noel Fisher) and Ludlow's chilling account of how his own son single handedly destroyed his family, we're presented with a man whose motivation for justice is driven in large part by a belated attempt to right the wrongs of his past. So much so, in fact, that in the absence of his companion dog, the quest for justice virtually becomes Ludlow's reason for living, to the point where it practically consumes him.

Cox's performance here is nothing short of breathtaking. He carries this movie on his back and is in every scene, mesmerizing you with his nuanced portrayal of a lonely man to whom tragedy has bequeathed a host of inner demons to torment him in his twilight years.

Don't mistake Red for lesser fare such as Death Wish or The Brave One. While it is constructed around a fairly simple premise that on the surface appears primed to appeal to the base human desire for revenge, the story here is so much more than that, and to give it short shrift and dismiss it as mere manipulative movie making would be to miss out on a story and performance that is a true must see.

Jack Ketchum's brilliant novel tells the story of an elderly man Avery Ludlow,who has a dog named Red he loves more than life.A simple lonely man he has few good things in his life after losing family members tragically years before.On the day he takes his dog fishing with him,three young boys come along,rob him and shoot his dog for no reason. After this cold-blooded murder he tries to seek justice,but two of the boys are coming from a rich and powerful family.Each thing he tries is thwarted until he takes matters into his own hand.The climatic outburst of violence is inevitable..."Red" is a slow-moving and meditative drama punctuated with sudden explosions of violence.The acting by Brian Cox is phenomenal,the supporting cast is also splendid.Overall,"Red" is a sad and beautiful story about a man and his dead dog.Thank You very much Lucky McKee and Trygwe Aliester Disen for such powerful piece of work.I have seen "The Girl Next Door" and "The Lost",but "Red" is the best adaptation of Ketchum to date.I'm glad that I saw it in the cinema during 2008 Warsaw Film Festival.

The combination of Brian Cox and Tom Sizemore in a film based upon a Jack Ketchum novel (bizarrely spelled Jack Ketchmum in the trailer) and the direction of cult-courting Lucky McKee certainly peaked my interest and therefore I awarded this film some of my time. The premise was something that also appealed to me - a kind of "Falling Down" but with a more mediative, Western styling.

The story is a simple but, on the surface, a powerful one. Brian Cox is Avery Ludlow, a veteran who hides his tortuous family history behind his love for his faithful dog, Red. One day while fishing, he is approached by three delinquents who try to rob him. Realising that he lacks anything of worth, the cocky leader of the pack, Danny, shoots dead his dog, laughs about it with his brother and friend, and then walks off. Ludlow is determined to get justice, but finds hurdles at every stage, from the boy's arrogant father, to a reluctant town sheriff.

The acting in this film was excellent. Brian Cox is superb as the graceful recluse seeking justice. He plays his role in a remarkably understated manner that compliments his experience and wisdom. Whether he is brutally taking on the perpetrators or solemnly reminiscing about the tragic circumstances that led to his wife and son's death, Cox is brilliant at making us feel a warm empathy with him, and makes us want to join him on his quest for justice. Kudos must also be given to Tom Sizemore, who is wonderfully repugnant as Michael McCormack, the arrogant, millionaire father of Danny the delinquent. He really does shine and show what a great actor he can be when he is not in trouble for one reason or another. It would be fair to say that he is much better at eliciting disgust than Cox is at eliciting empathy (although this is a much easier task) and his evolution from his first meeting with Cox, to the final showdown is a joy to watch and anticipate.

The other actors play their parts competently. I was a bit apprehensive about Noel Fisher as Danny at first, as he was guilty of slight overacting in his first scene. However, upon finishing the film, the acting style perfectly complimented his role as a narcissistic youth with no empathy, and overall he was very good in the film. Kyle Gallner, who plays his shy brother, and Shiloh Fernandez as his equally minded friend are also good, with Gallner excelling in the film's climax. The other major part is that of reporter Carrie Donnel, played by Kim Dickens. She is not bad in her role but it is entirely unnecessary, which brings me on to the film's flaw - it's script.

The film really does shine when there are scenes of direct confrontation. Anything between Cox and Fisher after their first meeting, or anything with Sizemore. The film really does suffer when the action is diverted to scenes of a more meditative nature. Donnel's role is far too over played, and her emergence as some sort of bizarre is she/isn't she love interest at the end severely harms the movie. The only things that ties the two together is Cox's consistently brilliant acting. His monologue on how his family fell apart is beautiful and haunting, with the camera lingering on his wise yet hurt face. Likewise, he is respectably sinister in his pursuit of justice, and the film really picks up pace in the final third, building to an excellent climax involving Cox, Sizemore, and his family. Indeed, after a slow, slightly turgid middle, this comes as a great relief. What a shame then that it is spoilt by a horribly put together ending that literally screams "TV MOVIE!" It is far too contrite, and does not favours to Cox or the film. I understand that McKee was replaced by a more happy-friendly director during filming, and his influence is clearly felt here (one wonders how McKee would have done the ending). Other than that though, the film maintains a consistent indie-Western style, and any notions of two directors are not realised.

It is this paltry ending that forces me to award this 7 out of 10. The film has many memorable moments, but is ruined by its final scene. I suggest watching this, if just for the confrontation scenes, and the film does certainly keep you guessing as to how it will end, but if it had just been more adventurous at various points then this could have been a very good film.