SlyGuy21
You have no idea how shocked I was when "Directed by Kevin Smith" popped up during the end credits. OK, a little backstory first, the reason I've been posting so many reviews is because I have such a backlog of recorded movies, and a lot of the reviews to come are of movies I've never seen. So when I saw the description for "Red State", I thought it would be like "The Most Dangerous Game" or something along the lines of that. People being hunted by nutjobs for sport because of their differing views. Boy was I wrong, at some points this is one of the scariest films I've ever seen. So, as per usual, lets jump to the pros and cons.There are really only three positives to the movie for me. John Goodman, Michael Parks, and just how ballsy the theme of the movie is. It starts as just your run-of-the-mill slasher flick, teenagers looking for a good time, but of course they get more than they bargained for. Then it goes to straight-up horror movie territory, then an action movie, then a solemn drama. This is the biggest identity crisis I've seen yet in terms of cinema. But, unlike say "A New Hope" where genre-blending was used very successfully, the only two genres that work are the horror and action movie ones. So the movie's like a great sandwich, made with bad bread. So the theme of the movie revolves around a crazy cult (which is totally not a reference to the WBC) killing people they deem "homosexuals" and "sinners". They then get found out by the ATF and a shootout occurs. Do you know how ballsy that is? Could you imagine if this were directed by PureFlix, and the religious nutjobs were portrayed as the protagonists? Don't think they wouldn't do something like that either. It's a real departure for Kevin Smith who's known for his comedies. John Goodman gives a great performance as usual, but the gold star definitely goes to Michael Parks. Congratulations Jennifer Lawrence from "Silver Linings Playbook", you are no longer my "Most Hated Character in Cinematic History" (you'll have to settle for second place from now on). A quick note, that's an award no actor wants. It basically means I won't watch the movie again because that particular character is in it. The award is essentially a "Kiss of Death" for any film. The first recipient was Jennifer Lawrence, and now Michael Parks has taken the title. Unlike Lawrence however, Parks' performance is so good it's horrifying. I know he's an important character, but he's so evil, that seeing the movie once is enough. Abin Cooper (Parks) is the most evil, manipulating, brainwashing, holier-than-thou, psycho, I've ever seen. Not the best villain, there's a difference. A good villain is someone you love to see on screen, Abin Cooper is so evil, I don't want to see him ever again. I was begging for him to get shot, regardless of him being armed or not. Parks makes you hate his very existence, and the fact that he's using his beliefs as reasoning for his crimes is detestable. Jennifer Lawrence might have been Charles Manson in "Silver Linings Playbook", but Michael Parks is the devil himself. Granted I didn't hate Parks as a person after viewing this, but I hated his character more the Lawrence's. If I go my whole life with seeing Abin Cooper again, it won't be long enough.The rest of the movie is pretty dull, it starts off uninteresting, till the boys are brought to the church, and has a lackluster ending. The random part is that the movie tries to be a kind of social commentary at the end, but the execution is more "Huh?" than anything. And this was before the whole "Unarmed people getting shot" craze started. I know it's making reference to the Waco Siege, but it didn't have a big impact on me because it was so sudden and out of nowhere. It just feels tacked on and without any purpose other than to add another genre to the mix.In conclusion, would I see this again? No. Was half of the movie interesting? Yes. It took a lot of guts to make this movie, and I applaud Smith for that, but the beginning and end fell flat for me. It's not bad, just average. If anything, watch the movie for Michael Parks' performance, you will hate his guts by the end of it.
Steppenwulf
This is a really good film – don't let the rating fool you:-) Tight plot, no wasted scenes. Some great dark humour, but also a really tense main plot. It shows up everyone and everything for the foolishness it is: teenage lust, fire-and-brimstone preachers, government agencies, dogs (!), terrorist legislation, you name it and the film slams it. Do yourself a favour and see this film – please! That way you will not miss out some beautiful, vintage Kevin Smith dialogue: "What do you recon a cross like that costs?" — "You mean in dollars or in common sense?". So, to conclude – this is a film that deserves a lot rating that it has, in my opinion. Kevin Smith has never shied away from complicated topics and this is no exception. But the lightness of touch makes this film more of a tongue-in-cheek satire than some of his other much darker films.
fredschepers
OK, I am a Tarantino fan. I didn't expect anything of this film. Never even heard of. Thought I was going to see a horror film. How ever: Its brilliant. Good Story, good cast and excellent screen shots. The dialoques were amazing. So without expectations the film caught me instantly. 5 minutes at the most. Mr Smith might be a bit of a controversial filmmaker. But he ticked our boxes here like. I am not going to spoil anything.Just watch it. If you like films like I do (And I am not interested in goof's, famous names etc.) you will have a pleasant time...have fun
Chris Whybrow
Good God, what a waste of time.Watch this if you enjoy watching Special Agents do their job as badly as possible. Who would you root for in a fight between insane fundamentalists and a team of special agents? 'Red State' gives you the answer. Neither of them. This isn't a film about politics, or religion, or anything truly meaningful. It's a film about two groups of murderers trying to kill as many innocent people as possible. How enlightening.It also has one of the worst endings to a film I've ever seen. The shootout is resolved by a student prank, of all things, and then this is followed by two entirely irrelevant scenes that anyone remotely interested in the story would have no interest in whatsoever.And why is the film called 'Red State' anyway? To me that sounds like the title was stolen from a much better film about communism. Why couldn't they have made that film instead?
