Blood Red

So many people seem to hate this film! Yes, it's flawed (script is generic and predictable) but I still liked it, as it entertained me and had interesting subject matter. And an interesting cast too... At least check it out to hear Hopper's Irish accent.

Sebastian Collogero (Giancarlo Giannini) is the patriarch of a Sicilian family farming and making wine in rural California. His roguish son Marco (Eric Roberts) pursues neighbor Antonio Segestra's daughter Angelica. They are an immigrant community proud to be new citizens. Land baron William Bradford Berrigan (Dennis Hopper) is looking to take over the valley to build his railroad. Sebastian Collogero leads the farmers in opposition. Mr. Berrigan brings in Andrews (Burt Young) and his thugs to kill Collogero. Devoted daughter Maria Collogero (Julia Roberts) witnesses the lynching and Marco leads a war against Berrigan.

Eric Roberts has his fluffy flowing hair and struts around while overacting. The release was delayed and this is actually one of the first acting roles for Julia. That's probably the only interesting aspect of this movie. It is visually more align with a TV movie although director Peter Masterson obviously is shooting higher. The overall quality is not good and its higher aspirations only make it worst.

I'm not specifically familiar with filmmaker Peter Masterson or screenwriter Ron Cutler, but that's no specific indicator of quality. It's a considerable cast of very recognizable names that was assembled for this period piece. The very premise sounds enticing. Why have I never especially heard of this title before? Why does it seem to have had such a poor reception? Maybe it's because this is an independently produced feature without the benefits of major backing or wide release; then again, the involvement of so large a cast says otherwise, and a Coppola (Carmine) composing the score is no small get. Maybe it's because the ideas and themes herein - family, immigration, legacy, the individual versus large corporations, the inexorable march of industry and development no matter the cost, corruption, and more, all at the turn of the century - is a panoply more fitting for a protracted TV miniseries (a la 'North and south'), and this is a 90-minute standalone film. The latter facet begins to zero in a little more on the truth, I think, for while nothing about this is necessarily outright bad, small weaknesses rear their head all throughout the length, and at least in part it stems from the proceedings being shortchanged. 'Blood red' tells a compelling story, but it feels like only a fraction of the whole story being regrettably compressed.

Perhaps the cast recognized this in the screenplay, or in the nature of the contract they signed - that the characters they would be portraying wouldn't be as fully fleshed out as they could or should be. Maybe that's why, despite all their best efforts, sometimes it seems like the actors are a little uncomfortable and out of sorts in a scene, like they just can't quite get a grasp on the whole affair. A lot of plot happens even within just the first third, and every scene and major beat to greet us feels like it's given a fraction of the attention and import that it deserves. I understand why longer miniseries don't necessarily appeal to all comers, and I readily admit that I personally prefer singular features over any extended episode by episode storytelling, yet it seems readily apparent that the saga Cutler penned needed far greater breadth to explore all the possible depth and complexity. Incidentally, a fair point of reference in terms of narrative scope and content may be the 'Godfather' films of the composer's son; imagine what those would have looked like were they in any way abbreviated, and one begins to understand the chief problem with 'Blood red.' The scene writing suffers in turn, and the dialogue, and so on down the line.

In most every other way I think this is actually pretty well done. The cast did as well as they could, I think; the crew put in fantastic work. The filming locations are gorgeous, and the production design and art direction are superb. The costume design, hair, and makeup are splendid, and the props, all helping to visualize a particular place at a particular time. The stunts and effects are excellent. Coppola's score is highly enjoyable. I find no significant fault with the cinematography, or Masterson's direction. All this is well and good; it's unfortunate that all the potential richness of the tale is shrunk down into a fragment of what it could and should have been. From start to finish what detail and nuance there may have been in the plot is reduced to a notably smaller amount of emphatic items that are much more blunt and forthright as they present, largely stripped of the best value. As one critical, glaring example, see a scene shortly after the two-thirds mark, which for all the gravity it should have possessed instead just comes across as empty, flailing raised voices. I still think the final end result is entertaining, engaging, and worthwhile, but "satisfying" or "rewarding" are words that are much more difficult to meaningfully apply.

I see what this tried to be, and I commend the effort. Whatever the reason was for this precise realization, however - lack of resources, lack of vision, anything else - when all is said and done the picture is just casually disappointing. All its star power, and all the hard work of those behind the scenes, can only go so far when the necessary minutiae that would lend to the weight and impact of the storytelling are so heavily diminished if not outright omitted. Frankly, I would very much like to see another filmmaker take up Cutler's screenplay, and expand upon it to give it the treatment it deserves. The sad fact remains that even at its best 1989's 'Blood red' is a shade of the film it might have been, and it's hard to speak of it as any more than a soft recommendation. Whether you're a fan of this period in history, and all it entails, or of those involved, it's still worth checking out, but keep your expectations in check and don't go out of your way for it.

This was obviously a low budget film. It shows in every scene. What is nice to see is where it was made. A lot of the film was shot in Columbia, CA, in the Sierra Nevada Mountains near Sonora, CA. Some of the film was also shot in Jamestown, CA, very near Columbia. There is a railroad museum in Jamestown and they used some of the old trains in the picture. "High Noon" was also shot in Jamestown, as was "Back to the Future III".

This is playing On-Demand and is presented in its original 1.85:1 aspect ratio for the first time on home video.

The Good: The acting talent speaks for itself: Eric and Julia Roberts, Burt Young, Giancarlo Giannini, Elias Koteas, Michael Madsen... The cinematography by Toyomichi Kurita is beautiful. Themes: Late 19th century California, the beginning of wine culture, immigrant vs. business interests, William Jennings Bryan populism vs robber baron statism. All the tools are there for a great film.

The Bad: The screenplay is the problem. It needed a page one rewrite from someone who could write dialogue, and who could write scenes to emphasize the political, religious, and economic issues of the period. The characterization is almost non existent, with only Giannini's part getting some depth. There is so much wasted talented in this film. Usually Eric Roberts is criticized for overacting, but this picture could have definitely benefited from his passion. Also the music by Carmine Coppola is so old-fashioned and silly that it borders on soap opera cues.

The first half will keep your attention. After that, it becomes boring. Bad dialogue, bad music, and pedestrian mise-en-scene kill the movie. I was actually rewriting the scenes in my head as I was watching the film.