Talk:Reds (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the War films task force.

This was the last major Hollywood film released with an Intermission[edit]

Can someone say Titanic? -G


This needs to be at Reds (film). There is no way that the two sports teams are any less notable. Reds should be a disambiguation.

Robert Penn Warren in the movie?[edit]

OK, it has been many years since I wore out the VHS tape from air of Reds that I obtained in college. But I watched it over and over both before and after I interviewed Robert Penn Warren while I was an undergrad at Vanderbilt. And I came away from watching it convinced that Warren was one of the interviewees. Neither IMDB nor Wikipedia has this. I'm going to get the new DVD and see whether it sheds any light.

Anyone else have any insight?

-Tom Tom Wood 05:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Critical Response?[edit]

Why is the only critical response a negative review? The movie currently holds a 94% percent on Rotten Tomatoes and 7.4 on, putting this one reviewer (her strong reputation aside) in the small (6%) minority. I have not watched the movie myself, so I don't feel equipped to edit, but someone should correct what seems to be a case of a biased writer.


Apart from anything else, Kael is simply one reviewer (however exalted) out of scores of eminent film reviewers. There is no earthly reason to include extended text from her subjective review over the subjective review of other writers supportive or otherwise of the film. If there are to be reviews - quote from a variety of reviews and reflect the balance between positive and negative reviews by major critics that the film received. Davidpatrick (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the project to build up material , from many contributions - I added Kael's criticism because I'd read it, I didn't have any other reviews. It seems to me intelligent hands and minds could have edited it down if it was too much and then other , wholly positive critical reviews placed alongside. Just to slash and burn, is that the point?. seems dumbass to me, just my point of view. Sayerslle (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)