Sunday, November 1, 2009

Red, 2008

Although packaged as such, taking full advantage of the screenwriter's previous work in schlock, Red is not a horror film. It's a study of one man's desire for answers, for a reason why his dog was killed in cold blood by a teenage boy. There are elements of horror within the story, but there's no gore here, and very little blood. This is solid storytelling, with a heartbreaking lead performance by Brian Cox that I can't help feeling would have been recognised come awards season were this not such a hideaway, low budget release.

Then again, it went to Sundance, so you never know. But the fact that it looks so "TV" -- think Masters of Horror -- will work against it, no doubt.

So, Brian Cox. How incredible is this man? His portrayal of the broken yet stoic man-on-mission in this film is breathtaking. I cried just looking at his face. He inhabits this character so well. His slow build from mild-mannered fisherman to a ball of broken rage is amazing to watch. Right up to the final shot of him, as his life begins again, he is the reason to watch this film.

The story was good and well-told up to a point. I do think it turned an unnecessary corner towards the end, and I blame the writer for that, and possibly the desire to maybe horror-up the piece. The incident in the forrest just went that bit too far, taking the film from a Pete Dexter-y look at the lowly man and his worth, to a very modern Grudge-like thriller. Didn't need that to happen, but it doesn't ruin the film. Cox is too good for that to happen.

So, yeah -- a real surprise this one. I expected schlocky horrror and ended up with a drama that left me bawling like I'd just lost my puppy.

No comments:

Post a Comment