--- title: "Reds: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/reds/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/reds" critics_score: 69 critics_reviews: 10 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Reds (1981): what the critics said Critics' score 69 from 10 reviews: 7 positive, 1 mixed, 2 negative. Most critics come down in favour of Reds, and the praise clusters in the same places. Nearly every review admires Beatty’s nerve in directing, producing, co-writing and starring in a three-hour film about an American communist, and most think the gamble pays off. The interviews with real witnesses, cut in among the drama, are singled out again and again as the film’s best idea. The performances draw steady approval, with Jack Nicholson’s Eugene O’Neill mentioned more often than any other. The spread is wide, from warm admiration to outright rejection, and the sharpest dissent comes from the release-era reviews. Variety finds it ponderous and lacking any emotional progression; Pauline Kael in The New Yorker thinks it backs away from its own subject. Later reviews are gentler, though Empire and Slant Magazine both find the biopic shape conventional and the running time long, and Slant objects to the ages of the leads. ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). Ebert praises the film as a romantic epic with intelligence and wit, centering on the personal relationship between John Reed and Louise Bryant amid historical events. He highlights strong performances by Beatty, Keaton, and Nicholson that make the characters engaging and human. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/reds-1981) ## The Guardian Rating A–. 2 May 2012. The film is an engrossing, beautifully filmed and remarkably balanced portrait of a fascinating moment in history. It is cleverly enhanced by the intercutting of real-life documentary interviews and everything a historian could want in a movie. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2012/may/02/reds-votes-left-warren-beatty) ## Film Comment — David Thomson Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 1982. The critic views Reds as a courageous, coherent, and ambitious film that restores dignity to the big-budget epic genre. He singles out its intelligent engagement with American history and its reminder of the country's original purpose. [Read the review](https://www.filmcomment.com/article/redtime-milos-forman-ragtime-warren-beatty-reds/) ## The AV Club — Noel Murray Rating B+. 18 October 2006. The critic praises the film's blend of epic scope with naturalistic acting and its use of real interviews with witnesses, noting how it portrays the curdling of revolutionary ideals. They single out the strong supporting performances, especially Jack Nicholson's as Eugene O'Neill. [Read the review](https://www.avclub.com/reds-1798202076) ## Time Out — PT Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 10 September 2012. The review finds Reds mightily impressive in its creative grasp of the contradictions of epic political cinema and historical representation. It singles out the way the film yokes romance and revolution while using documentary inserts of witnesses alongside a dialectical biopic structure focused on American socialist heritage. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/reds) ## Empire — Kim Newman Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2012. The critic admires Beatty's bold ambition in directing, producing, starring in and co-writing this three-hour biopic of radical journalist John Reed and the Russian Revolution, highlighting the effective mix of personal romance and political history. It notes some conventional biopic elements and overlong stretches that make the narrative feel less timeless. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/reds-review/) ## The New York Times — Vincent Canby Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 6 December 1981. Canby admires 'Reds' as an ambitious, flamboyant epic that succeeds where similar films fail, dramatizing a remarkable period in American intellectual history with emotional effect. He notes it is not perfect but excites the imagination through its personal rather than ideological approach. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/1981/12/06/movies/film-view-why-reds-succeeds-and-ragtime-doesn-t.html) ## Slant Magazine Fi1m's normalised score 50/100 (inferred from the text). 10 October 2006. The review finds the film a handsome but unsatisfying epic, praising the witnesses' interviews and some performances like Nicholson's and Stapleton's, but criticizing the leads' ages, the portrayal of characters, and the overly conventional approach. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/reds-dvd/) ## The New Yorker — Pauline Kael Fi1m's normalised score 40/100 (inferred from the text). 14 December 1981. Kael finds 'Reds' absorbing due to Beatty's dedication but ultimately not very good, as it backs away from its subject and lacks clarity. She singles out Beatty's touching but overly sentimental performance as a saving grace amid the film's struggles with its material. [Read the review](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1981/12/21/the-current-cinema-75) ## Variety — Variety Staff Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 31 December 1980. The review calls the film a courageous but ultimately too ponderous attempt to combine socio-political drama with a love story. It praises the intelligent setup of the political and emotional scenes in the first half but criticizes the lack of overall emotional progression and excessive arguments. [Read the review](https://variety.com/1980/film/reviews/reds-1200424896/) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/reds.md