Editing Reds (film) (section)

==Reception==
Released on December 4, 1981, ''Reds'' opened to widespread critical acclaim. Despite its political subject matter and limited promotion by Beatty, the film became the [[1981 in film|13th-highest-grossing picture of 1981]], grossing $40 million in U.S. box office revenues, a figure that does not include the film's foreign box office revenues or its substantial subsequent earnings in home video, worldwide broadcast and cable television, and subscription television and streaming services.<ref name="box office" /> Beatty later remarked that the film "made a little money" in box office returns. During the film's second and third weekends, there were concerns that it would become a massive flop like ''Heaven's Gate'', but it performed more strongly over the next month. The film was screened at the [[White House]] for President [[Ronald Reagan]].<ref name=":0"/>

''Reds'' holds a 90% "Fresh" rating on the [[Review aggregator|review aggregate]] website [[Rotten Tomatoes]] based on 49 reviews, with an average rating of 7.90/10. The site's consensus reads, "Brawny in both intellect and scope, ''Reds'' is an intimate epic that captures the tumult of revolutionary change and the passion of those navigating through it."<ref name="rotten">{{cite web|url=http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/reds/|title=Reds (1981)|website=[[Rotten Tomatoes]] |access-date=February 16, 2022}}</ref> On [[Metacritic]], the film has a score of 76 out of 100 based on 15 reviews, indicating "generally favorable reviews".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.metacritic.com/movie/reds|title=Reds Reviews - Metacritic|website=[[Metacritic]]|publisher=[[CBS Interactive]]|accessdate=February 16, 2022}}</ref>

[[John Simon (critic)|John Simon]] of the ''[[National Review]]'' wrote, "Never exactly boring, sometimes entertaining, ''Reds'' is frequently irritating and finally disappointing".<ref>{{cite book |title=John Simon on Film: Criticism 1982-2001|last1=Simon|first1=John |publisher=Applause Books |year=2005 |page=19}}</ref> ''[[Commentary (magazine)|Commentary]]'' published a largely negative review by [[Richard Grenier (newspaper columnist)|Richard Grenier]], who, among other things, saw the film as deliberately obscuring the protagonists' communist politics and as exaggerating Bryant's talent and accomplishments.<ref name=Grenier>{{cite web| url = https://www.commentary.org/articles/richard-grenier/bolshevism-for-the-80s/| title = Grenier, Richard, "Bolshevism for the 80's," ''Commentary'', March 1982.| date = March 1982}}</ref> Conversely, in a retrospective article for ''[[Jacobin (magazine)|Jacobin]]'', Jim Poe called ''Reds'' "one of the greatest and most faithful depictions of revolutionary politics", praising its "light touch and brisk storytelling" for an epic, as well as its cinematography, shifts in mood and performances, in particular those of Keaton and Beatty.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://jacobinmag.com/2021/12/reds-history-film-warren-beatty-john-reed-louise-bryant-russian-revolution |title=Forty Years Later, Reds Is Still One of the Best Films Ever Made About Revolutionary Politics |last=Poe |first=Jim |date=2 December 2021 |website=[[Jacobin (magazine)|Jacobin]] |access-date=25 December 2021}}</ref>

The February 2020 issue of ''[[New York Magazine]]'' lists ''Reds'' as among "The Best Movies That Lost Best Picture at the Oscars."<ref>{{cite news|title=The Best Movies That Lost Best Picture at the Oscars|url=https://www.vulture.com/article/best-oscar-best-picture-losers.html|magazine=[[New York Magazine]]|access-date=March 17, 2025}}</ref>