RED

Summit Entertainment | Release Date: October 15, 2010

6.9	USER SCORE Generally favorable reviews based on 380 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

grandpajoe6191Sep 30, 2011

"RED" is a occasionally-funny action movie with old guys like Bruce Willis comes out and shoots guns. I know, its monotonous and boring, but at least it's better than "The Expendables".

5 of 5 users found this helpful50

All this user's reviews

KarthXLRFeb 1, 2011

Painfully average. The story is your average conspiracy movie shtick, the acting is middle of the line, the humor is hit and miss. How many more ways do I have to say this movie is just average?

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

nutterjrNov 14, 2010

Action film with humour seems to be the latest Hollywood trend: Knight and Day, Killers, etc... The production is solid, and indeed there are a few funny moments and quite a bit of action it did not quite entertain me. The cast is veryAction film with humour seems to be the latest Hollywood trend: Knight and Day, Killers, etc... The production is solid, and indeed there are a few funny moments and quite a bit of action it did not quite entertain me. The cast is very charismatic and they have their moments, however the vehicle they are given is not suited for their talents.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

fantasyOct 25, 2010

Cute movie but totally predictable. Never any suspense throughout the flick as you know where it is going 5 minutes into the flick. How can you not like the old timers? Nothing to write home about. Forgotten as soon as you leave theCute movie but totally predictable. Never any suspense throughout the flick as you know where it is going 5 minutes into the flick. How can you not like the old timers? Nothing to write home about. Forgotten as soon as you leave the theater. Sort of like old timers day in baseball.… Expand

3 of 7 users found this helpful34

All this user's reviews

ShiiraOct 21, 2010

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Sarah(Mary-Louise Parker) likes to curl up in bed with a book, and not for nothing does she read trashy pulp fiction("Love's Savage Secret"), instead of something literary like, say, Susan Choi's "American Woman". After another day of drudgery in her cubicle, all the beautiful woman wants is a little romance and political intrigue before she turns out the lights. Who has time for meta-fiction? The popular/literary novel binary forged by the reading habits of this federal pensions benefits worker, propagates another binary, a filmic one: mainstream/independent(and foreign) movies, where "Red", a pulp movie, indirectly questions our preconceptions about literature, in which a paperback novel denotes that Sarah isn't well-read, that "Love's Savage Secret" is junk. Our scrutinizing begins the very moment when the reader discovers Frank Moses(Bruce Willis) in her house, as if the ex-CIA hitman stepped out of the pages from Sarah's book. After bounding and gagging her, Frank, in a sense, kidnaps this woman from ordinary life. Will she spy? Will she kill? Will she fall in love? As the old adage goes: Don't judge a book by its cover, so likewise, don't judge a movie from its poster. Due to its first-rate cast, "Red" is the perfect candidate to fight for the legitimacy of populist art, as John Malkovich, Morgan Freeman, and Helen Mirren help take aim at the identically titled Krzysztof Kieslowski masterpiece, aspiring to be what Elmore Leonard is to popular fiction, "the fillet of the genre"(described as so by the Jeff Daniels character in Noah Baumbach's "The Squid and the Whale"), the implication being that the so-called art house-side of cinema doesn't necessarily have absolute hegemonic control over movies for the masses. It was an assertion that the late film critic Pauline Kael(the democratization of art was her pedagogy) would make time and time again in the pages of The New Yorker, cognate to Stephen King's disdain for the literary novel/writer, the diffuse story, and its tyranny over the story well-told. (The EW columnist would champion Scott Smith's "The Ruins" over, for example, Paul Auster's "New York Trilogy", just as Kael hated Alain Resnais' "Hiroshima Mon Amour" as much as she loved Michael Schultz's "Car Wash".) So does it make a difference that its Helen Mirren blasting away at the bad guys, as opposed to some lesser actress with half her talent, and being half her age? Hell, yes, it makes a difference. She was the Queen of England, for god's sake; she was also the wife in Peter Greenaway's "The Cook, The Thief, The Wife and Her Lover", who in the most kabuki of gestures, cooks "her lover" and serves him to "the thief", her husband. Killing is serious business, and Mirren(as Victoria), wields her machine gun with a steely concentration which suggests that she doesn't know the difference between Quentin Tarantino and William Shakespeare. In superlative genre fiction, the author is able to take a stock situation and make it, if not wholly original, then at the very least, not wholly routine. After a bullet catches Victoria on her thigh, the spot of blood that sullies the hit woman's pristine white outfit, somehow manages to look elegant, like a spot of tea on this venerable lady of stage and screen's garb. By far, Victoria is the most compelling character in "Red", and yet Sarah doesn't truly identify with her, because if this paperback reader did, she would pick up a gun and start shooting alongside the lethal femme. The contemporary reader, in general, lives vicariously through its characters, because as a whole, they are usually written with the anti-modernist sensibility of having to be identified with. Sarah just wants to observe, not participate, so since she never turns into a contract killer, neither "Love's Savage Secret", nor its transmogrifying adaptation, "Red", must be any good.… Expand

1 of 6 users found this helpful15

All this user's reviews

Forrestgump1Oct 17, 2010

"Filled with an Outstanding cast of action superstars including Bruce Willis & Morgan Freemen , Red is a fun and enjoyable , sometimes silly and over the top mediocre film. But the wit , charm and Humor & decent action sequences make up for"Filled with an Outstanding cast of action superstars including Bruce Willis & Morgan Freemen , Red is a fun and enjoyable , sometimes silly and over the top mediocre film. But the wit , charm and Humor & decent action sequences make up for it in the end" .. B-… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

brewcrewprideOct 19, 2010

Despite its top notch cast, "Red" suffers mainly from a script that brushes over to many pot holes and develops characters that do not entirely click with each other, a lot of people will probably have a good time at it. Itâ

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

bigmolejackOct 20, 2010

The rating on Metacritic is pretty much spot on. The film has many interesting and original action pieces, yet they all feel very loosely tied together, with a lack of thought for the narrative to slot in. It has an effective use of castingThe rating on Metacritic is pretty much spot on. The film has many interesting and original action pieces, yet they all feel very loosely tied together, with a lack of thought for the narrative to slot in. It has an effective use of casting yet Morgan Freeman is underused. It's pretty formulaic, yet it has just enough charm to keep you interested. The reviews give a good statement on the quality, yet for most of us, we'll be perfectly satisfied with it.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

Film_Fanatic_15Nov 22, 2010

This movie has your action stars (Bruce Willis & John Malkovich). Your Oscar winning actors (Helen Mirren & Morgan Freeman). Great! Now we can focus on the actual story. Wait a minute. The plotline is so simple and boring it kept me think ofThis movie has your action stars (Bruce Willis & John Malkovich). Your Oscar winning actors (Helen Mirren & Morgan Freeman). Great! Now we can focus on the actual story. Wait a minute. The plotline is so simple and boring it kept me think of excuses to temporarily walk out of the theater. This is basically another action flick that has no important story, while only engaging the audience by impressive special effects, which are the highlight of this movie. The cast doesn't exactly work for this film and the script lacks intelligence. It soon becomes an ongoing action packed epic that just resists to end. By the end, I was wondering....Did the director use the explosive in this movie to accidentally screw with this movie so far that in the end there really isn't any importance to this movie at all? This movie was extremely close to becoming an ultimate disaster.… Expand