Un fusil pour l'honneur

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.

If this movie hadn't been shot in color, I might have mistaken it for a '40s B Western. Tell the truth: the plot was lifted from The Mark of Zorro and the names were changed, right? At least those '40s actors didn't appear to forget their lines. Or maybe no lines were written for those embarrassing scenes in Blood Red where there are painful, inexplicable gaps in both dialogue and action. This film is noteworthy only as the single film to date in which both Julia and Eric Roberts have appeared together. That's the only reason I watched it as long as I did. And what brilliant, inspired casting! They played brother and sister. My Video Movie Guide is right: this is a turkey.

When a friend told me about this film, I looked up "Blood Red" on IMDB and was shocked to see that it the pathetic overall score of 3.8. This would seem to indicate that the film is garbage, as even films like "Plan 9 From Outer Space" (once named the worst movie ever made) has a score of 4.0! To earn a 3.8, the film would have to be truly horrible in every way...which, oddly, it isn't. Now I am not arguing that the film is great or even really good....but the only thing about this film that should earn a 3.8 is Eric Roberts' ridiculous and anachronistic hairdo!

The story is set in the late 19th century. The main characters in the film are generations of Italian-Americans who love the land and its healthy vineyards. However, a greedy railroad tycoon (Dennis Hopper) is intent on running his trains right through their farms...whether they like it or not. And, when the farmers won't leave, the railroad responds with violence. But because the railroad has bribed local officials, it looks as if the farmers will have to take care of business themselves.

I have no idea if this story is based on facts or if it's all fiction. But it's an interesting story...and is in some ways like a western in style and plot. In old westerns, a rich bully trying to take everyone's land is among the most common themes.

So why do I think it earned a 3.8? Well, actually, I am not exactly sure. While it's not among the best acted or paced films, it's not boring and kept my interest. The ending, I admit, was handled poorly...and made little sense. It's also a rare film because you can see the siblings Eric and Julia Roberts in the same movie...though Julia's part is quite small.

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".