Red, 1994

If I can say one thing about Krzysztof Kieslowski’s Three Colors trilogy it is this: I won’t be watching it again any time soon. I was hoping for a grand finale to really top off the trilogy, but Red just barely sufficed as another entry in the series that didn’t stand out in any way. While Red was beautiful in every way, it was hard to watch. There’s something to be said for complexity in a movie. I don’t want to be spoon fed every detail of the plot, but I do need to be given a chance to understand. Of course, having to follow subtitles while trying to visually digest the lovely cinematography might have added to the problem. On an artistic level, Red is certainly impressive. But from an entertainment standpoint, it ultimately fails. I think I could easily turn off the subtitles and watch Red with no knowledge of the plot, if one could consider the story a plot. I’d have almost no clue what the characters were saying, but the movie would still leave an impression. It’s that visually satisfying. Red is wonderfully photographed, almost to a fault. There were times where I felt like Red was a moving painting, and I wanted the story to stop so I could take in the artwork. Red touches on some interesting issues and ideas, ranging from privacy to relationships and fraternity. The movie is certainly intriguing, but as I said above, it’s just not entertaining. If you’re interested in film as an art form, I’d imagine that the Three Colors trilogy is a great place to start. But if you’re looking to kick back with some popcorn and relax, you’re better off finding a different movie.

What did you think about this review?

Thank you for voting.

Like Dislike

Abuse report sent

Report abuse