I wasn’t a big fan of “Red”, in fact if you ask me to recall a specific scene from the movie I likely couldn’t, because I forget most of it the moment I walked out of the movie. Does that mean it’s a bad pic? It mean they shouldn’t have bothered with a sequel? No, not at all – just, for some reason, it didn’t grab me. May have been an aching tooth I had on the day (I don’t know that I did, that’s just an example) or maybe it’s that Mary Louise-Parker didn’t get her kit off, and that disappointed me, but I just remember it not ‘grabbing’ me like I’d hoped it to. If anything, it played for me like “Mystery Men” meets “Prime Suspect”. You know what it could be? It could be that Bruce Willis’s lazy, sleepish performances of late – you know what I’m talking about – are getting to me a bit, and watching “Red” only served as yet another reminder of just how great he was… back in the late ’80s and early ’90s.
Alas, I’ll hold out hope that this “Red 2″ is the movie I’d wanted “Red” to be.
And I’ll hold out further hope that “Red 3″, announced today, is the movie “Red 2″ should’ve been – if it’s not what my kettle ends up boiling for.
But yes, “Red 3″. They’re doing it. So they’re obviously confident they’ve got something of interest in this franchise. Jon and Erich Hoeber are writing it; they’re the guys who wrote the first two. So obviously they’re happy enough with how Summit have treated their screenplays.
Lorenzo Di Bonaventura and Mark Vahradian are also returning, as producers, but as yet none of the cast are said to be contracted for a third go. Still, I imagine Bruce Willis, the aforesaid Ms Parker, Helen Mirren, John Malkovich and Catherine Zeta-Jones (she joins in “Red 2″) will be returning without a fuss. Me, on the other hand, that’s something else.