User reviews

This film take me by surprise, original and captivating. Usually I read something about the film before heading to the cinema but in this case I saw the trailer and read the quickly description. I'm mentioning this because affects yours/my mood and expectatives about the film, before even seeing the film, and your opinion of it. This films plays with different styles and the narrative is a metaphorical one. The beginning of the film set the pace and there is some humour there when you least expected. However all this funny bit and pieces that I enjoyed are related to the fact that I speak spanish, and the rhythm of the conversations, the tone of how things are said, can lead to laugh and enjoy the absurd moment or see it as a truly dramatic one. There is a another layer that talk about how we "slowly get used to" corruption and crime as far as we don't get our benefits taken away and our placid lives interrupted... too much. If you wanna see a film about a crime and a mystery, this film may disappoint you... if you go with a good open mood, you may have a great time!

Set in the 1970's in Argentina, this psychological thriller maintains an air of suspense throughout. Superb performances by Dario Grandinetti and Alfredo Castro, along with excellent writing and direction from Benjamin Naishtat.

Overall, I wasn't really thrilled with the ending here, but was very much engrossed in the film and interested as to how it was all going to turn out as the drama deepened.

Yesterday evening, I took advantage of a French premiere within UGC Les Halles, in Paris, in the presence of the Argentine director Benjamín Naishtat who fluently spoke French with an almost-irreproachable accent. He confided us he was inspired by the detective movies (« polar » in French) of the 70's.

The film generally seems to be the mixture of two films from two distinct directors. The duels (all those involving Darío Grandinetti and / or Alfredo Castro) highlight an obvious cinematographic maturity based on an irreproachable photography and well-built dialogues. These scenes remind me of the excellent film The Clan (2015) which takes place a few years later, at the beginning of the 80's. Conversely, others scenes such as the rehearsal of the dance show are almost annoying and weirdly seem to come from another movie and from another director.

In summary, I'm rather disappointed with this slightly-muddleheaded movie, despite some excellent scenes. I'm nevertheless convinced that the next movie realized by Benjamín Naishtat will be better built. 4/5 of 10.

This is not an easy movie to describe. And I think some historians have even more to say about the time this is playing (adding to the flavor of the country and the political backdrop). So there is a lot of baggage from the start, which some may be more aware than others. But even if you begin from zero, you can take a lot from this movie.

To do that, you have to be aware that the movie itself is not meant to excite you every other minute. Some may call it mundane, slow and even boring. Now that is valid depending on what your taste is like. So try not to judge someone who has the complete opposite opinion on this (or any other movie for that matter) than you. Overall I do think that the way this is shot and how it is played (excellent) made me go for the rating I chose. Again, it will not tickle everyone ... but those that will be intrigued by the characters and maybe the period and place it is playing, with everything that was going on back then ... they'll have fun - or the equivalent of it.

Funnily enough, I'd never heard of this one - but who's not going to be tempted by a "parable of iniquity", eh? Going on previous Argentine films, it's either going to be surprisingly good or mystifying obscure. And I know what I'm expecting...

And well, it starts with Claudio going to a restaurant and getting into an argument with a guy about his table - and it's fair to say things escalate from there. In a mystifying obscure manner, because after 15 minutes the other guy shoots himself in the head. What?!? So, obviously, the answer is for Claudio and his wife to put the guy in their car and drive to the beach.

I'm sorry, I don't have a clue what's going on here. It's also accompanied by that "look at this, it's so mysterious" music that you used to get in 60s TV series, which is super annoying. And then, 40 minutes in, I got a potential "Ahhhh - maybe THAT's what's going on!" but there's still an awful lot of unrelated strangeness going on like some American cowboys, a school dance performance, a deserted house, a room full of badly stuff animals, a status of a walrus, a solar eclipse - you name it! And there's so much randomness that it's still not clear whether I'm on the right lines.

And then, 75 minutes in, we seem to be heading in a different direction - and they're going to have to get a move on though because they've only got 35 minutes left. And, miracle of miracles, I was actually on the right lines - but nothing actually came of it, so Claudio goes to a dance recital with a wig on. As you do (and don't worry - this isn't a spoiler).

And that's it. And what a load of old nonsense it was. I can believe that if you're a fan of political satire, you might recognise/understand some of what's going on here - and, quite frankly, you're welcome to it. There is a vague theme of "disappeared" throughout the film, which is (I guess) the "satirical" element but it's not, for me, making any particular point - I'm left with the general feeling that political coups are a bad thing, but I think I might have thought that beforehand.

It's acted well enough - Dario Grandinetti carries the film as Claudio, but he is ably assisted by everyone else in the film (within the context of me not having the faintest idea what any of them are doing). And I guess it looks fine as a representation of mid-70s Argentina, assuming that's what it looked like. And the direction? Well, let's be generous and say that I suspect he achieved what he was looking to achieve (but it wouldn't have been my choice).

And one final random comment which is nothing to do with the film at all - Argentina has the weirdest architecture with every building being just nuts. And yes, I suspect there are plenty of un-photogenic buildings that were excluded - but there must have been some serious architecture drugs at play in South America around this time.

So - in case you haven't guessed by now, I didn't think much of this film. I have to admit that I paid much closer attention to this than I might otherwise have done because I was trying to work out how the various things that were going on were related to each other and how they were all going to come together for a clever ending. And boy do I now feel like I wasted that effort. Rotten Tomatoes has very interesting (and not at all unexpected) ratings - the critics love it on 96% approval, whereas the audience (ie normal people) give it 39% (which still feels generous) and no audience member could be bothered to write a review (I mean, where do you start?). I cannot, for the life of me, imagine who would want to watch this film - but it is available to rent in all the usual locations if you're mad enough to do so.

It is 1975. Claudio (Darío Grandinetti) is the Doctor, a prestigious lawyer from a town in an unnamed province of Argentina, married to Susana (Andrea Frigerio) and with a teenage daughter. A tense incident with a stranger (Diego Cremonesi) in a town restaurant will be the first in a series of events that will call into question the Doctor's calm.

Actually, the first scene of the film is another, a powerful fixed shot over a house, in a scene of enormous eloquence. For those who do not know, or do not remember, in 1975 Isabel Perón ruled and Argentina was already devastated by the kidnappings and murders of the Triple A (Alianza Anticomunista Argentina), a parapolice organization linked to the Government, in a true advance of what that it would be state terrorism established by the civil-military dictatorship that overthrew Isabel in 1976.

Red is a remarkable and disturbing film. Its plot suffers an apparent drift by situations that seem disconnected but that in reality are integrated into a powerful and implacable X-ray of an era: violence (sometimes left out of the field), disappearances, dispossession, looting of the victims, the swindle, the silence, the imposture, the impunity. But all under a layer of apparent normality and within the framework of a province intervened to "restore" it.

Naishtat's film could be defined as a sociological and political black cop. Each scene is a necessary note (and never underlined) on the general picture, including the successful scene on a beach in Mar del Plata.

From the formal point of view, the filmic recreation of the time is remarkable, with that tone between faded and sepia that dominates photography and its red titles. There is a great use of still shots and beautiful wide shots in desert locations.

Grandinetti's very good performance, while the apparent over-acting of a character who later appears in charge of Alfredo Castro (the actor from I'm afraid of a bullfighter), also has its justification.

The school device could not be absent in this story, when a teacher (Susana Pampín) rehearses with Claudio's daughter and other classmates the dance Los Salvajes from the opera Las Indias Galantes by Rameau (a luxury of the soundtrack) for an act school and what he says to put them in position for the scene, in what constitutes a disturbing staging in the abyss.

It's a pretty well-acted movie with a good period context and pretty good photography. But the script is empty, very empty. The end comes to nothing and everything that happens during the movie ends in nothing. This is not good Argentine cinema, it is one of the weakest films I have seen.

Summer movie season has arrived in NYC. I can always tell by the higher quality of the foreign films that come to town (you can bet none of the Hollywood films are of high quality). "Rojo" is the best film I've seen since at least the winter and I can't remember which one that was. This one features good acting and camera work and with some thought-provoking allegory and symbolism.

Nutshell: An influential lawyer is slowly losing his ethical footing after a confrontation with an unbalanced patron at a restaurant, leading to a visit from an amateur detective investigating the disappearance of the patron. Give it a chance, because it is slow to get underway. But if you appreciate superior filmmaking there is always a reward with a good motion picture, and this is one example.

******** 8/10 - Website no longer prints my star rating.

There's a reason why in a layered structure of any kind, the mid-section is the weightiest. Be it the myocardium of the human heart, the mantle inside the earth's surface, or the middle class in societies, this thick layer forms the core of functions, paying its debt in the overall scheme of functioning. Minus the middle layer, any structure faces imminent collapse because it's a designed assumption that this stratum will go on regardless of what upheaval the top and bottom parts face or cause. In societies, the middle class goes to work, is law-abiding, pays taxes that oil the troposphere and powerful, and enable subsidization and relief for the lower rungs. What runs this routine-driven societal waist is what comes from the top in terms of belief, thought-freedom, and individual liberty. That's the symbiotic structure on paper, at least. But what happens when the top layer is chopped off and surgically replaced with a dictatorship that feeds vials of vitiating fluids that serve to control, divide, and enforce compliance?

Writer-director Benjamín Naishtat, in his 2018 outing, faces this troubling scenario with Rojo (Red) against the backdrop of pre-coup days in Argentina-when the army junta took over the President and dissidents began disappearing mysteriously, but not surprisingly-when the middle class, sensing the seismic shifts above them, sets into motion what it does best: self-preservation and hoarding for the long haul. In a quiet, foot-steps-powered extended opening sequence opening (the sound by Fernando Ribero stands out, no pun intended), the camera's facing the façade of a home. The front door opens and closes with all manner of folks trooping out. You'd think it's a regular day at the household. It's only later that you realize that the rot's already set in, and those people aren't going through their existential drill. It's the hovering cloud of a regime that dictates this regimen. That quiet scene cuts into the clatter of cutlery at a restaurant where you meet the face of the middle class: small-town lawyer Claudio (a superb, troubled, profoundly stirring performance by Dario Grandinetti) who's waiting for his wife Susana (Andrea Frigerio in a dazzlingly understated act of middle-class haughtiness and entitlement). Before the lady arrives, the lawyer has a run-in with an aggressive, menacing man (Diego Cremonesi) who seems to begrudge the middle class their fortunes. As things spiral out of control and with a shocking splatter of face-offs, Claudio is torn between doing the right thing and not getting involved.

It's here that the desert plays a role in making people disappear. It's also here that the movie title zooms in, red and angry, festering and bloody, hapless and helpless. Director Naishtat creates a portrait of allegorical beauty all through Rojo via situational stand-ups referring to disappearances, Claudio's own role in adding to the Missing list, and his folding into a fraudulent scheme with family acquaintance Vivas (Claudio Martínez Bel). There's a reference to societal stressors taking their toll on families and individuals' mental health in a scene where Vivas' wife, Mabel (Mara Bestelli), has a meltdown. Plus, there's Claudio and Susana's daughter Paula (Laura Grandinetti), whose dance teacher at school, prepping her class for a grand performance, instructs her students to feel and convey intentions. She may well have been urging us, a medium for her director's metaphorical intent throughout the movie. All raging hormones, Paula's boyfriend, Santiago (Rafael Federman), epitomizes the patriarchal entitlement that invidiously seeps into every generation. Santiago plays his part in a savage disappearing act as well, and Naishtat's stunning commentary hits hard: how a purging force that's spewed from the top begins to find validation and enforcement in the middle class. WhatsApp forwards, anyone? Redemption for Claudio arrives in the form of Detective Sinclair (Alfredo Castro in a superbly funny and satirical turn). Still, it's clear that the law-enforcer is battling devils of his own, possibly of what he's already seen in Buenos Aires, and how the poison's spreading its inevitable compounds across the country.

Naishtat also uses a brilliantly shot eclipse scene to capture a society in transit towards destruction. Employing bloody-red filters to create engulfing menace, he captures the fear and helplessness in the face of an overpowering force, life coming to stand still as everyone stares at the bloodied sun with special goggles: to survive such a consuming force, you need to have filters-and blinkers-on. The cinematography by Pedro Sotero is stunning, a mix of still violence and beauty, all 70s in its look and yet disturbingly contemporary and relevant in its execution, much like the script. Adding to the chilling atmosphere is composer Vincent van Warmerdam's ominous score, a worrisome thrum that courses its way through the movie's runtime.

And it is Claudio who is the middle class. Who is us. Ensconced in the security of a blanketed living, rattled by the presence of Sinclair who threatens that existence, unnerved not by the impending coup that'll shake the nation but by the fear of the rattling of the innards of his life, he does what we all do instinctively as society's mantle and as human beings. Cover up the baldness of our morals by the façade and charade of artificial sanctimony.

Perhaps it's because I expected more from this movie. I knew and like the actors. The second scene, at the restaurant, was really promising. But from there on it became a senseless mess, moving really slowly to arrive to nowhere. You see, I'm an Argentinian who was 20 at the time the action is set, and despite minor mistakes, the political and social environment is well recreated. For this reason and for the good acting, I give it a 4/10. But still, I don't think it was even nearly worth of my time.

The beginning is awesome, there is a fantastic noir atmosphere, cinenatogphy is inspired, script is very wrll written (at least most of the time). However, the end is not in the same level of the film's development, and perhaps sone open parallel stoties should have had an end. Though, it is a good layered film and deals seriously with a horrible time in Latin American history.

This movie gives the impression that the director was trying to say something but didn't know how. He dances vaguely around the issue of Argentina's imminent takeover by a bloothirsty military dictatorship. It drops little hints, hints that are too remote and superficial to convey the message or, worse, make it appear to be banal. Perhaps the story itself was interesting? No, not even that.

I saw this at MOMA this past January and as I see it is up on video now I thought I'd summarize. The period in question is the nasty Isabel Peron dictatorship and the equally nasty dictatorship that replaced it. Disappearing people had been occurring in Latin America for hundreds of years and this period was no different. That is one of the underlying themes, and one of the few scenes that worked is a scene of local people going to a home and emptying it of anything of any value. It reminded me of a scene in Kazantzakis' Zorba where the moment the ageing widow dies, all of the town turns up to calmly steal everything not nailed down. The film also has some brief moments of great cinematography. It also is clearly influenced by Fargo, True Detective and some aspects of Scandinavian noir, although wihtout the depth, dark humor, or coherence.

Ultimately though. Rojo. is entirely incoherent. it not only fails to tell a meaningful story, it fails to tell an intelligible one. it is a tedious experience to watch it, with no reward at all for the audience.

For the movie's brief comment on society. Could have been done in 5 minutes.

I started watching this movie with the hopes that it would be somewhat good, but I was quickly disappointed. Like an argentine movie form the 70s, it is filled with lots of stuff that does not make sense to the main plot, or maybe that was the idea.

The scene with the magician dumbs down the situation with the people being kidnapped during a democratic government, so it is like taking the viewer by an idiot.

The dancing scenes do not add anything to the plot.

Then there were some errors, like a house with a split A/C (the medic's house), it is like they didn't care to find a proper 70s house. And I have my doubts about anyone having an A/C in a house in 1975 in Argentina.

Yeah, this was an awful movie, I don't even know why I am rating it with a 4.

A bad, boring film which wastes the talent of Grandinetti. Make better use of your time by watching another film . This is total nonsense and includes a very gratuitous and grotesque scene where a bull is castrated, which is not in any way essential to the film's plot. Also included is a scene where a record with an A&M label plays on a record player while Camilo Sesto's Quieres Ser Mi Amante is heard. Camilo Sesto's music was never released on A&M. He recorded for Ariola, which later became part of the BMG conglomerate. A&M Records was an American record label that had absolutely no connection with Ariola or BMG, and is now part of the Universal Music Group. Por favor!

It is a film with a beginning that captivates you and that allows you to remain attentive to the rest of the film even when after the beginning it seems that some scenes are not related, however, as it gets closer to the end, the relationship of everything is understood. Personally, it was difficult for me to understand right away what the objective of placing it in 1975 was, but then I understood that the message of everything was the following: the violence of the dictatorship that had been experienced since 1976 in Argentina was internalized in the Argentine people. Since before the dictatorship itself and the same citizens reproduced it, especially the middle class. Whoever wants to see this film should take this detail into account before seeing it.