Red

While fishing in Miller's Band with his dog Red, the lonely widower and owner of a small general store Avery Ludlow (Brian Cox) is surrounded by three teenage thieves seeking money and without any reason, one of them shoots Red on the head. Avery investigates the empty cartridge and finds the owner of the shotgun Danny McCormack (Noel Fisher), his brother Harold (Kyle Gallner) and their friend Pete Doust (Shiloh Fernandez). Avery seeks out Danny's father Michael McCormack (Tom Sizemore) that is a corrupt businessman expecting excuses and punishment for the boys, but he finds an arrogant man that does not pay attention to his complaints about the cruelty of Danny to his dog. He decides to sue Danny using his friend and lawyer Sam Berry (Richard Riehle), but Mr. McCormack uses his political influence to obstruct justice. The reporter Carrie Donnel (Kim Dickens) makes a program for TV showing the cruelty of the offender and how justice does not work, but again Mr. McCormack affects her work. However, Avery does not give up of his quest for justice.

Yesterday I saw the trailer of "Red" and I liked what I saw, so I decided to watch this movie expecting to see a sort of "Death Wish". However the story is a powerful drama with a complex lead character performed by the veteran Brian Cox. In this regard, it is great to see the quest for justice of an old man against the corrupt system ruled by money and influence. The cast is superb, with Noel Fisher perfect in the role of the mean Danny, and Tom Sizemore in an awesome performance in the role of the patriarch of a dysfunctional family. Unfortunately the conclusion is not well resolved and quite pointless. The Brazilian title misleads the viewer, giving a wrong idea of the plot. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Rastros de Vingança" ("Tracks of Revenge")

Brian Cox is ranked among the best character actors in the business. Yet, for all his talent, he's seldom chosen as a leading man, instead being called upon to fill supporting roles as far ranging as the original Hannibal Lecter (Manhunter) to William Wallace's dad in Bravehart and William Stryker in X2, the X-Men sequel, among only a few of his 134 roles thus far. So it comes as a bit of a surprise to see him handed the lead in Red, a mini-masterpiece of one man's quest for justice which screened at the 2008 edition of Montreal's Fantasia film festival.

Directed by Trygve Allister Diesen and Lucky McKee (May, The Woods), and based on a story by Jack Ketchum, Red tells the story of aging war vet Avery Ludlow (Cox), whose only remaining companion after a life of tragedy, a dog named Red, is brutally killed by a group of teens. Built upon a remarkably rich, layered and textured script by Stephen Susco (The Grudge), the story doesn't play out as your simple paint-by-numbers revenge thriller. Instead, it unfolds slowly and all too realistically as Ludlow seeks redress, not revenge, from the wealthy father of two of the boys (Tom Sizemore in full sleaze mode), only to be rebuffed by parents and legal channels alike. Even when these attempts fail, Ludlow, ever the civil citizen, tells his story to the local TV news, and launches a lawsuit against the killers.

Drawing parallels between teen dog killer Danny McCormack (Noel Fisher) and Ludlow's chilling account of how his own son single handedly destroyed his family, we're presented with a man whose motivation for justice is driven in large part by a belated attempt to right the wrongs of his past. So much so, in fact, that in the absence of his companion dog, the quest for justice virtually becomes Ludlow's reason for living, to the point where it practically consumes him.

Cox's performance here is nothing short of breathtaking. He carries this movie on his back and is in every scene, mesmerizing you with his nuanced portrayal of a lonely man to whom tragedy has bequeathed a host of inner demons to torment him in his twilight years.

Don't mistake Red for lesser fare such as Death Wish or The Brave One. While it is constructed around a fairly simple premise that on the surface appears primed to appeal to the base human desire for revenge, the story here is so much more than that, and to give it short shrift and dismiss it as mere manipulative movie making would be to miss out on a story and performance that is a true must see.

Avery Ludlow is retired and has little left in his life but for his dog, his store and his health. He finds simple pleasures in the peace of his life and all the companionship he needs from his dog, Red. Out fishing one day he a trio of teenagers come across him and politely start to trouble him and essentially intimidate money out of him. The leader of the three has a rifle and, for his own reasons, he leaves Avery with a parting gift of shooting Red dead. Avery is grief-stricken and tracks down the teenagers, going direct to the main boy's father to let him deal with it in a manner that will satisfy Avery. However this fails so Avery tries other legal means to get justice for this wrong, however his persistence in this matter makes it a bigger deal for the well-connected family of the man boy.

On the face of it this is a revenge thriller where a man seeks justice and continues to do so even as events escalate – in fact, not only on the face of it but indeed that is the narrative arch we are looking at here, no point is pretending to be surprised by it, we all know where we are going with this from when we got on board. However it walks a very impressive line while doing this that prevents it being about the revenge but instead the justice sought, or rather the undefined "action" that Avery seeks someone to hand him that will in some way make up for his loss. This is very well presented because it is clear throughout that ultimately nothing can fill that gap – which is part of the reason things continue to build. I very much liked how it did this as it never fell into violence at the expense of the emotional part of the story and it thus keeps it much more engaging than if it had simply because a violent revenge thriller.

Some have said that this is a film for dog lovers as they will appreciate the loss most but I do not think that is true. Although Red is the subject of the loss, it is about more than the dog but also what the dog represents to Avery – and as this comes out the scale of his pain and his loss is more engaging and moving. This general feeling of something emotionally valuable being taken unfairly by another is a raw emotion in the film and it was very well done. True it helps to understand the loyal companionship a dog gives a man but even if you don't, the emotion is real and convincing enough to hook you. Praise to Cox for making this work because he is the heart of the film and is the reason we care as much as we do. You can see what attracted him as an actor because the script gives him plenty to work with, including a strong ending that is another part of the film being about the main character's feelings rather than the act of revenge/justice. He acts all others off the screen and the only downside is that everyone else feels weaker than they actually are by comparison.

I thought Fisher and Gallner were both good even if there was room for them to find more of their character and bring it out in ways that were not in the script. Gallner probably does this best as so much of his mannerisms and body language tell you about his place in that family and how he feels his father views him. Sizemore isn't asked to do much but does it fairly well and is a good presence. Riedle, Englund, Plummer, The Wire's Williams and others all give solid accounts of themselves but everyone knows that, while they have lines, Cox has the real character of the piece and mostly they deliver the goods in support without ever shining for more. Considering the budget the film looks great with impressive cinematography and selection/use of locations. You can see where things are implied rather than shown due to money constraints but these do not matter at all and are well done.

Red is not a cheerful film, not is it one that has a "big" ending or impacting telling. Rather it is a patient and slower film that engages thanks to the convincing core of emotion that drives all the action; without this it could have been a simple and emotionally distant revenge thriller. Cox does excellent work to bring this out and produces the goods from the start right to the final scene, while all the others turn in performances that are solidly good. An engaging and emotional film that is much better than the "taking law into own hands" genre that the plot suggests it belongs in.

I initially thought this film might be OK, but would probably turn out a let-down, as so many do. I was totally wrong. The film was unexpectedly very good. If you are an animal lover and a family man, you should be able to relate to this film and thus should definitely enjoy it.

I found the story very interesting and the acting was excellent. I watched the film whilst having a bottle of wine and this may have made it even better, but I actually found it very touching and even a little emotional. I am not normally the kind of person, who gets emotional watching a film, but this one struck a cord with me and in a way it saddened me, but at the same time, as I could relate to the main actor, he gave me great strength.

Brian Cox played the part tremendously and managed to portray the past tragedies in his life extremely well and with utter conviction. I scored the film 7, but it would be a high 7 and close to an 8. I prefer action type films and slower paced ones like this normally bore me. This one however was far from boring and in actual fact was thoroughly entertaining.

After seeing the trailer for this a few weeks ago, I decided to read the source novel before going to the movie. Jack Ketchum's novel is a pretty taught thriller that stays very realistic in telling its tale of an old man's increasingly frustrating attempts to get justice for his senselessly murdered pooch, but the book does feature a gratuitous romantic entanglement and a final chapter that could have been completely excised with no loss of the story's narrative power; the final chapter goes on after the real climax to the story and is in fact more of an epilogue than a proper ending, but it unnecessarily gives the reader an all-too-tidy three-way happy ending with an incongruous bit of tragedy thrown in for good (?) measure. Thankfully the novel's problems were carefully considered and left out of the film, even to the point of losing or consolidating some of the minor characters with no harm done to the overall story.

This is a textbook example of exactly how to handle a novel-to-screen adaptation, and I'd wager that author Jack Ketchum is more than pleased with the translation. Brian Cox — always a consummate actor — turns in one of his best performances, and the whole cast is equally game, especially two of the boys involved in the attempted robbery and pet-slaying. And for those expecting a seventies-style vengeance flick filled with wall-to-wall guns-a-blazin', I'd advise you to check your expectations at the door. The pursuit of justice follows very legal steps until it's apparent that such an approach won't amount to anything, but even when it gets rough the story stays completely believable. One of the year's best films, and that's no lie.