Holy shit. Call the police!! It seems Kevin Smith joined George Lucas and ran a train on a few of your childhoods.

I enjoyed Red State for what it was and do own it on blu-ray. It is like a caricature of this country. This movie is what other countries must think of us. Every teenager wants to have four-somes, every religious person is bat shit crazy, the government mishandles everything it touches and every prisoner is ass-raped in jail. Well the last two ARE true.

I did like the acting and some of the surprises were powerful. The writing and the directing were good but not great. I do wish Kevin Smith could go back to what I used to love about his movies. He is too old for that though and can't do it anymore. I understand that.

By the way - Clerks II ruled!!!

A caricature of this country? Uh, um, no. I love my social commentary and satire, but if Red State is an actual attempt of social commentary and satire, then Kevin Smith needs to pack his bags and go back to Jersey.

1. When I was a teenager, the only four-somes I wanted to have were with three hot, smoking women. Not with my two best, male friends nor with some 50-year-old woman. Even when I was sticking my dick into practically everything that had a hole, I still retained some level of standards.
2. Not every religious person is bat shit crazy. Smith's commentary is against the extremists (like the Phelps family), not every day Joe Sixpack who's a Catholic, Presbyterian or whatever.
3. The government mishandling everyth... okay, you may be onto something with that one. However, I thought of that moment in the film as if it was "paying homage" to the incidents that happened at Waco.
4. Okay, not every prisoner is ass raped in jail. Every jail is not the equivalent of the show Oz.

If Smith is "too old" for making films involving dick and fart jokes, then why do Clerks II, Zack and Miri Make a Porno and Cop Out exist?

I see what you did. You stole the plotline from one of the animated Clerks episodes ...

On the topic of the commentary on Phelps family and religion, was there anyone in the movie that was religious and not a nutbag? Because when two sides aren't shown then it means the director intends that everyone is portrayed that way.

Example, a director has a Muslim terrorist in his movie, but does not show any Muslim good guys, the director is portraying Muslims as terrorists. Or you have one black dude in your film and he's the bad guy, then the movie is saying black dudes are bad guys. There has to be another side to contrast.

I just think saying Smith is only criticizing religious wackos is too much of a simplicity. Because there are no level headed religious people in the film to compare. This is sorta filmmaking 101 and why other bigger movies get into trouble for stereotyping a certain way. Anyway, this film really isn't worth all this discussion.

I feel sorry for whoever paid $70 to see this on his "tour".

While it's not stated anywhere in the film......the flick is a direct mock of the westboro baptist church - the original plan was for Parks to play an exact carbon copy of Phelps but Parks didn't want to because of how "boring" a person he is. There really wasn't a need to show any good religious groups in the film.

No there doesn't.

Are you saying that if you have a black guy as the bad guy in a movie, you have to have a black guy who's a good guy too? Why? That's like saying that black people can't be bad guys in real life, which is completely untrue.

You could take it further and say if you have a lawyer or politician as a bad guy, you have to have a lawyer or a politician be a good guy too. That's ridiculous.

The situation in this film was the conflict between this church and a few other groups of people. The idea that a "good church" needs to be involved in the interest of some kind of fairness is silly.

No, there doesn't have to be both opposing view points. If you have a scummy lawyer in your film and no other lawyer, the message is lawyers are scum. Same in this movie, this movie has only crazy religious people, so it's saying religious people are crazy. There doesn't have to be a good church or anything. Just a simple line about John Goodman's character believing in God but not associated with the crazies.

I agree that there doesn't need to be both view points.

I disagree with the message being stated. While watching the movie I never thought ALL religious people are crazy... only THESE religious people are crazy. I would think you'd have to show a lot more people than just one church to drive that message. Plus wasn't one church member (the mom) not quite on the same page as the others?

Exactly. This group, this situation. Extrapolating it out to all groups is wrong.

Finally got around to watching this, what a horrible film. It felt amateurish, like it was made by a first time filmmaker. Here are the questions I had when the movie ended.
Why would three high schoolers agree to be in a foursome with some unknown girl? Why wouldn't they turn back once they realized she was 50? Wouldn't the sheriff know a better spot to get his freak on that isn't on the side of the road? Why would the preacher blackmail the sheriff over a public CB line that is most likely being recorded? How did Travis end up in gun room with the dead Billy-Ray? Why didn't Travis shoot everybody in the church instead of running right through them? Why didn't Travis shoot them while they were chasing him around the house? How did Travis get past everybody chasing him when they had him cornered in a room with no exit? I don't even want to continue with all my questions, this was a horrible movie.

what??? I thought Red State was supposed to leave you "shaken & grateful & wanting to make art".

I would like to think that it is because not everyone in the world is as smart as many of us. There are many people out there that don't think their decisions through including people with jobs that are perceived as important. This seemed like a podunk town so it has a small minded sheriff in it that didn't mind getting blown on the side of a country road. Probably better than him showing up to the local motel with another guy.

I didn't feel like bumping it, but I watched it with my wife the other night and we both loved it. It was intense and very tightly edited. Despite how much I enjoyed it, it really could have been better in one area... the obscene cock talk in an otherwise bleak film. I assume it's levied as balancing out the bleak tone with some light heated Smith "dick talk" but it just came across as amateurish and very out of place.

As much as I've enjoyed Smith, the direction could have been so much better. It just had a very bland look to it. He's obviously grown in shot selection and moving the camera but everything about the look was blah. In those two areas he showed a lot of improvement with Z&M and Cop Out(as hated as it is) so this was a step back. I assume it's because this was basically an indie pic.

Shame on the Academy Awards for snubbing Michael Parks. He was phenomenal.

My guess is that he was shooting it more like a documentary featuring multiple sides rather than a feature film. I think he intended to put us right there in the thoughts and actions of the various people/groups involved rather than watching them as a third person fly on the wall like most movies. I think there was one aerial shot if I'm not mistaken but aside from that everything else could have been filmed by a documentary filmmaker.

Okay, I can sorta see that, but if that was the intention he failed at getting that across.

Yeah, I just took from the very close shots that it was made for us to feel like we were there rather than just watching a movie. At least once the movie shifted to the compound.

Caught this on a whim on Netflix for the first time today. I think it came out just around the time we had our first baby so it was the first Kevin Smith film I haven't sought out in the theater since Chasing Amy. I rated it 3.5 / 5 stars mostly for the beginning not giving me much to latch onto and yet an intriguing twist-upon-twist-upon-twist narrative. I do wonder if we'd stuck with some of the characters a little bit more if we'd "feel it" more when they make an emotionally-charged decision (raise the stakes investment, so to speak).

You didn't miss anything, it was never in theaters.

Well, it was, but it was more of a traveling roadshow with one or two showings in a bunch of major cities in North America with overpriced tickets to boot.

This film was terrible, by the way.