Tags
2001: a space odyssey, adrianne palicki, air raid drill, andropov, barry mcguire, ben johnson, bomb shelter, brad savage, brezhnev, c. thomas howell, charlie sheen, chernenko, chris hemsworth, connor cruise, darren dalton, doug toby, eve of destruction, evil empire, harry dean stanton, hunger games, isabel lucas, jennifer grey, john milius, josh hutcherson, josh peck, lea thompson, north korea, oscar winner, partisan rock, patrick swayze, peeta, ray lovejoy, red dawn, road house, ron o'neal, ronald reagan, rotten tomatoes, soviet union, spokane washington, steve lenz, super fly, the day after, thor, varsity blues, will yun lee, wolverines
In these times when Hollywood remains so skittish to move forward with new and original content, this year (and currently in theaters) we have a remake of one of my favorite movies from when I was young, Red Dawn. Below, I will explain why this remake makes no sense, giving 5 reasons why it never should have been done at all and why the producers and filmmakers who perpetrated this cinematic crime should have to pay. Dearly.
The original Red Dawn, released in 1984, was the very first film ever given the PG-13 rating.This movie was conceived of and made at the height of the Cold War. Every day was tense, never knowing what the Russians were up to and the fact that from 1981 to 1985, three of General Secretaries of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union – Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko – had died, leading to a great deal of uncertainty. US President Ronald Regan‘s inflammatory rhetoric towards the Russians made every day even more tense – he called them an “evil empire” and unknowingly announcing on a TV broadcast that “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.” Life in the 80s wasn’t all shitty pop music and McDonald’s for lunch. It was pretty terrifying, especially as a kid. When The Day After was shown on national TV in November 1983, the horrors of nuclear war and its after effects became as real as they ever would. It is still the 19th most watched television show in history. People were filled even more with the fear of nuclear annihilation. Bomb shelters were built and precautions were even taken in school with the resumption of the Cuban Missile Crisis-era air raid drills. So the time was ripe for a film like Red Dawn.
Na na na na boo boo – Russians are stupid and…who am I again? I forgot.
Red Dawn (1984)
A quiet, small town in the mountains of Colorado operates like any other day. Kids are in school, parents are at work. Soothing the wounds of a tough football loss is Matt Eckard (Charlie Sheen) who is teased by his older brother and former BMOC, Jed (the one and only Patrick Swayze), who drops him off at school. Shortly thereafter, in the middle of a lecture on the great conqueror Genghis Khan, paratroopers by the thousands drop from airplanes above and settle on school grounds, preparing weapons and taking up positions. What at first is thought to be a military exercise gone awry soon comes to light that it’s a Russian invasion. World War III has begun. The kids scramble to get out of the school as the Russian open fire. Jed luckily has come back in his pick-up truck and collects his brother and a few friends – Robert (C. Thomas Howell), Daryl (Darren Dalton), Arturo (Doug Toby) and Danny (Brad Savage) who go to the sporting goods/convenience store of Robert’s father. They take all of the supplies they can handle and head up into the mountains in an attempt to survive.
They do a good job staying out of the way of the Russians and living, but they are running out of food, and need news. They go to the ranch of a family friend, Mr. Mason (Oscar-winner Ben Johnson) who tells Robert that his father has been killed. Mr. Mason has two granddaughters, Toni (a pre-nose job Jennifer Grey) and Erica (Lea Thompson), he’d like Jed and Company to take with them as they had been accosted by Russian soldiers. Reluctantly they do so, but it pays off in the end.
WOLVERINES!!!!
After some time in the mountains, they are happened upon by some Russian soldiers and a shoot-out occurs. When the kids overwhelm the Russian soldiers and kill them, they decide to band together and fight to take back what was theirs to begin with. In quick succession, they learn the art of guerrilla warfare and how to take out the enemy without being captured or killed. They wreak havoc on the invaders and an elite Russian squad is brought in especially to hunt them down. They are eventually sold out by Daryl, whose father is the mayor of the town. He was forced to swallow a bug that would help the Russians and Cubans find them and destroy them. They make Daryl pay heavily for his actions (like with his life) and make one final flourish to turn the tide against the invading hordes.
This film was a benchmark in my childhood and to have it whored out hurts a little, I have to admit.
Here’s the trailer:
Red Dawn (2012)
Production on this film ended in 2009 and was ready for release in 2010. However, it sat shelved for a couple of years due to MGM’s financial woes and the fact that the filmmakers changed the major villains from the Chinese to the North Koreans. Was there a change in heart about the Chinese being a threat to the United States? Oh, no there wasn’t – the studio saw that China was a BIG market for a film like this and didn’t want to hurt its box office chances there by painting them as Anti-American in the film. This is why business people have no, well…business, in the creative arts. The story suffers because of this change, even though the Russians play a small part. Does anyone believe that the North Koreans have the moxie let alone the firepower to attempt this? The North Koreans have, I believe, the fourth largest standing army in the world. For a nation of only 24 million, that says a lot. With the firepower it would take to not only invade the United States and its 300 million+ population and the resources to keep those troops supplied makes this scenario all the more dumb. This is arguably the most egregious misstep in this film, which has about 500 of them.
The basic storyline is the same from the original – a communist invader, North Korea, tricks the US and invades, splitting the country into “occupied” and “free” zones. This version is much more urban-based, its setting being Spokane, Washington, than the original, which saw large portions of it based in the Rocky Mountains. The mountains play almost no role, switching instead to a wooded refuge, albeit a limited one. So, the landscape of the film is much different than the original, allowing for closer contact between the insurgents and the hostile invaders. However, we never get an up close depiction of any of the North Koreans, not even Captain Cho (Will Yun Lee). In the original, there is a relationship which we as viewers build with the Cuban Col. Ernesto Bella (a surprising turn for Super Fly actor Ron O’Neal). At points, we can even find ourselves identifying with him. Not the case in this new version. There is no doubt we are to view the North Koreans not as people, but killing machines intent on taking the American way of life away.
Newfangled, more multicultural Wolverines…with goofier hats.
The core cast is also much more multicultural than before as well even adding another girl to the mix. Gotta love Hollywood political correctness. Only a few of the characters have changed names (no Arturo anymore). These kids operate more as a family than a band of people thrown together in extraordinary circumstances. The strife that existed in the first film was nowhere to be seen here outside of the consequences of the dipshit love story (addressed below) and traitorous Pete (Steve Lenz) who gets his just desserts.
Here’s the trailer:
So, here’s a list of 5 reasons why this version is a waste. And trust me, it could have been longer. Beware if you intend to watch the 2012 version…there are spoilers ahead.
5) The invasion
Gross suspension of disbelief is required for the invasion in the remake. Spokane as of the time of the making of this film had a population of 208,000+ and rests only 280 west of Seattle whose population was about 620,000 at the time of the making. The Cascade Mountains divide the two cities, which does provide a natural barrier. So when Matt (Josh Peck) and his home-from-duty Marine brother Jed (Thor actor Chris Hemsworth) simply watch as the paratroopers rain down on Spokane before racing off to find their cop father (Brett Cullen who is no damn Harry Dean Stanton), it’s a little hard to take. That the Koreans were able to literally shut off every passage in and around the city and start rounding people up within minutes with no resistance is ludicrous. What makes this seem all the more silly is that Washington is an “open carry” state, meaning that citizens can visibly carry otherwise legal sidearms in holsters unless they are in restricted areas like school or governmental zones. How many cowboys do you think there are in Eastern Washington, so close to the Idaho border? In a survey taken in 2001, 33.1% of all Washington households had at least one gun. Americans are a plucky lot, very intent on protecting this country. To think that the Koreans suffered really no resistance (at least that we see or hear of) is crazy even if they used targeted non-nuke tactical missile strikes. CRAZY.
And here is another reason why this would never happen…
4) The stupid love story
Matty & Erica: insurgent love.
There is no time for love when you’re trying to kill and/or expel a foreign army who has invaded your country, right? The fact that that Matty-Erica (Isabel Lucas) love story is in this film is either a clear grab for female viewers who grew up watching Josh Peck on that silly ass Drake & Josh show on Nickelodeon or the product of lazy writers/producers content with adding every cliche they can. This is one of the clear deviations from the original where there was, rightfully, no love story at all except for a crush that Erica/Lea Thompson had on Col. Tanner/Powers Boothe that barely plays itself out. It never cost anyone their lives and didn’t exist as some ridiculous obstacle for the group to achieve their goals. They had all that they needed there with the Russian and Cuban armies. So why add it in? Matty’s singular obsession with finding Erica was tiresome contrived nonsense. It weighed the story down and took away from what could have been some pretty intense fighting/action scenes, which is what this movie should have been from start to finish. Instead, we get weepy-eyed teens flush with love, willing to risk everyone’s lives so they can reunite. Yawn.
3) Jed being an active-duty Marine on home from leave
Come the fuck on. Really? This was certainly convenient, huh? Jed/The Swayz says in the original, “You think you’re so smart, man, but you’re just a bunch of scared kids,” and there was beauty in that notion, that scared kids could do their part and wreck some shit to help protect our country. But that changed when they decided to have Jed as a marine in the remake, which gave the kids a person to train them, a person with knowledge on how the enemy works, and frankly it undermines the message of the first movie, albeit a highly unlikely one, that anyone who loves their country can defend it when they have enough of a push. And as much as I like Hemsworth because I do, he’s no Swayze. Road House, bitches.
2) The worst damn ending ever?
Partisan Rock: In the early days of WWIII, guerrillas, mostly children placed the names of their lost upon this rock…
I was so disappointed in the ending as I was with the entire film. While the ending of the original film wasn’t exactly prophetic, it was at least a nice epilogue on the film. The shot of Partisan Rock and accompanying voice over was at least a summation, an end note to what we happened prior. The way the 2012 version ends picks up where the shitty beginning left off – with Matty as the quarterback of the team – is embarrassing. Instead of being the kid who can’t trust his teammates, trying to do everything on his own, Matt is now changed, is a team player (even though his selfish ass actions earlier got one of his friends killed) and commands the team in the wake of the loss of his brother. He recites the same monologue that Jed had barked after the invasion as he addresses a new crop of kids who intend on fighting as Wolverines. Ray Lovejoy, editor of 2001: A Space Odyssey, is quietly laughing in his grave.
Here is a clip of this fucking travesty:
And the final, most egregious trampling of the first movie is:
1) Robert’s lack of transition into a killing machine
A dorky, Holden Caulfield-esque version of the original Robert.
One of the best parts of the first movie was watching Robert/C. Thomas Howell go from superwuss to killing machine. He was a force to be reckoned with, fearless and unhinged which was exactly what the group needed. When dirty work needed to be done, Robert did it (reference Daryl’s execution). Times of war are hard times, and Robert exemplified the person who did what needed to be done. In the new incarnation, however, Robert/Josh Hutcherson, undergoes no such change. He remains almost passive, like all of the kids, even as they fight the North Koreans if that’s even possible. This is a movie about war and ideology – how can there really be none of either in the remake? There was no tipping point for Robert, not even the death of his father. The deer hunting scene was just a joke. How can they take the spiritual essence of that scene and turn it into a prank? This version of the movie is soft, plain and simple. These kids are soft, plain and simple and maybe that’s because of the opponent they were fighting. The Russians were the most formidable army in the world outside of ours when the first film was produced. They were battle tested in Eastern Europe and in Afghanistan. It’s been since the Korean War since the North Koreans (who had plenty of help form China and Russia in that conflict) have done anything except stare blankly across the DMZ at the South Koreans and oppress the shit out of their people.
And I do find it fitting that Josh Hutcherson was cast to play this role since he had to go through a similar arc as Robert did in the first film for his role as Peeta in the underwhelming Hunger Games film.
So that’s that. I guess when you let former stunt man and second-unit director Dan Bradley direct his first feature, this is what you get even though he’s worked on some pretty high speed movies. Let’s face it, this is the Varsity Blues version of Red Dawn. It should never have been made in the first place. The 11% on Rotten Tomatoes is pretty good indication of that. The original film was a reflection of the times it was made. Nuclear war fears were escalating and people were building bomb shelters convinced that the button would be pushed. In no way can I say the same about this new version. What is it telling us about the times we live in today? That North Korea is a serious threat? Sorry, not the case. And the casts don’t even compare. Connor Cruise? Really? He has about as much on-screen presence as my soccer cleats from 1993. The fighting scenes are weak and boring with a serious lack of RPGs. We never get that one scene that really grips you like when Jed carries Matt’s body to the playground where he waits to die alongside his brother. There just isn’t that level of humanity in it. Perhaps I’m being overly sentimental about the original film, but I can’t help it. This one meant something to me as a kid.The remake seems like a showcase for pretty people with guns and nothing more. It should have remained shelved. We’d all be better off for it. So kids, I watched this one so you don’t have to. That’s me – always a team player.
The Swayz abides.
Here’s a little Barry Mcguire for you. This song always reminds me of the original film:
Spirit of the Thing 
In my opinion, both movies kind of suck, but the remake was god-awful and not worth seeing at all. Good reviews for both, however.
Pingback: The 5 Worst Films I Saw That Were Released in 2012 « Spirit of the Thing
Classic and cult classic movies from the 80s, should be left alone. Is there no more imagination to create new classics? Now, I could understand remaking a movie from the fifties or sixties… Technology is much different and can breathe new life into a movie forgotten. But a cult classic 80s movie? Those movies are alive & well….and most are popular with even the younger audiences! Why screw with it?
Couldn’t agree more. Perceived need to add “nowness” to properties by using young up-and-coming stars to capitalize on their fame. Thor and Peeta from The Hunger Games…need I say more? The 2012 version is an absolute tragedy.
I’m a huge fan of the original and I was a little kid when it came out. Everything I’ve read has said pretty much the same thing that the remake was a piece of shit. Thanks for the review you saved me a miserable hour and a half.
You’re God-Damned-Right! The remake was HORRIBLE! The 1984 version was shown on a continuous loop @ the welcome center in Navy bootcamp; so it’s pretty well embedded in my head… but I want to forget the 2012 version. Good thing I didn’t pay to see it in a theatre… or I would have demanded my money back. US hardware repainted to make it ‘Korean’ sure as hell didn’t help any, either, but that’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg of complaints for this limp-wristed flick. 😦
Without a doubt, the 2012’s remake is a very serious candidate for the “worst film of the decade” award. One of the most horrific things I saw in theaters ever!
The Original’s message was to show that since we as a people have Gun Rights, we are more than prepared to wreak havoc with any foreign invader. And if you think such a notion is silly, think about the Yugoslavs, the Polish, Greeks, and virtually every eastern European nation plus France during the 2nd world war, untrained civilians took to the mountains with just a few civilian weapons and few people who knew how to use them, and from those few resources they were eventually able to fight their own guerrilla war against the German invaders and later the Soviets.
Can you believe they are going to remake Platoon, American Psycho and Jacobs Ladder ? Films acted, scripted, and written by some of Hollywoods best ? This rehashing of 80 and 90s cinema has to stop. I am especially pissed about American Psycho. A 80s time piece. That there going to get force fucked in a modern times.
the most annoying thing about these remakes of not that well known films, like Red Dawn and I Spit on Your Grave / The Day of the Woman, is that due to downloads nerds, all mentioned of the original film on the internet and in popular discourse is lost. So if the old film was ok as a b movie and the new one sucks, you can’t say anything good about the odd one without someone laughing.
I HATE download nerds. It’s the same people who would have, on a site hosting bootleg live videos, some shitty recording of a band of 60 year olds that are a bit past it that was recorded on a camera-phone from 2004 yesterday seeded way above a pro shot concert from when they were at their prime, that’s hard to find.
anal retentive, spastic, tasteless nerds.
Where do you live? I’m going to personally beat each of your heads in.
I’d like to film it. Haha
I didn’t think it was as awful as you make it out to be. I think Robert had a decent change to a killing machine on the roof when they were pinned down and as for the spiritual essence blood drinking thing, its literally a prank that happens all the time amongst hunters.I also feel like this is coming from an older generation that this movie isn’t targeted for, it has the basic message of the original just portrayed to a new audience
Agree with you 100%. The guy just critic just sounds like he is whining that times are changing and that he isn’t happy with it. I have seen things from when I was a child become “ruined” in my views, but younger people love them. That is not surprising because, let’s face it, why make a movie that would appeal to a crowd of 50-year-olds when you have a crowd MASSIVELY bigger. Not to mention it is a MODERN remake. Again, I think the critic is just butthurt that they “ruined his childhood” from one movie.
This remake was BETTER than the original. In the first one they had just magically became good at guerilla warfare with no training at all. And you had to fill in information that the movie didn’t give you. The remake had transitions and was so much easier to follow. And they didn’t occupy ALL of the U.S. only a portion of it. They nuked more military parts of it and dropped soldiers where needed. Along with help from russia remeber. Together it could happen. Hollywood would not be where it is now if it didn’t add a good love story either. Great movie the remake was.
The original didn’t have the enemy occupying all of America either… hence the radio references to “Free America”. The enemy invaded the heartland and tried to occupy it leaving American forces fighting from fractional regions of the country.
Actually in the remake its says there is a free america from Montana to Michigan and Arizona to Georgia I think
Do you honestly believe that North Korea, a nation that hasn’t seen combat since the Korean War, can take on a nation that fights almost all the time? Still though, the remake would have been better if they replaced DPRK with Soviet Russia. The acting was great but the plot is kinda meh
This article is really biased. I believe the remake was good, they actually went through training and was easy to follow. It made much more sense.
Ridiculous characterization of the great Ronald Reagan.
I would beg to differ with you. Reagan was a reckless dick who flirted with disaster every day he woke up and flapped his gums. He was a criminal and should have died a slobbering idiot in prison rather than at home.
Reagan’s words you quote never aired (they were leaked to embarrass him), so how could you remember it? Reagan actually befriended the soviets and earned their respect while adamantly standing up for the American values and strength that he knew they could not meet (on both counts). The Soviet Union was actually evil in nature, from how it came to be (murderously) to how it behaved (tyrannically and without respecting any human rights) for most of its days. In the end, it was a miserable failure of mass-production of human misery and poverty. Read something, don’t just watch cheesy Hollywood movies, which both of these were.
Thanks for the comment, although it is quite off base. If you don’t think that clip wasn’t played around the time it was filmed, then you are wrong. Sure it wasn’t aired as part of that address, but it was aired a short time later. So yes, I can remember it because it happened. While I’ll not deny that the Soviets methods were brutal, Reagan’s tactics took us to the brink on more than one occasion. He was irresponsible in his rhetoric (at home as much abroad) and his policies didn’t work – trickle down economics, escalation of the arms race, Iran Contra, etc, etc, etc). Reagan brought down the Soviets as much as I did and I was 5 when he was elected. Their system and its old guard were dying off and the younger guard coming up didn’t have the same ideals. This is plainly seen when they lost three General Secretaries of the Party from 82-85 ushering in the Gorbachev era. Shit changed and it wasn’t because Reagan was tough on the Russians, but because their system failed and they knew it couldn’t be sustained.
To call the Russians evil is so fucking subjective that it hurts. I think Reagan was evil as well – he didn’t give a shit about the poor and single-handedly lets the AIDS crisis run rampant. If you don’t think his policies didn’t mass produce “human misery and poverty”, perhaps you should revisit the 80s. And fuck you as well for telling me to read anything. I’m very well versed in historical events, studied history in college and continue to stay as informed as possible.
I stopped reading this article about two thirds the way through. I have sean both virsions of this story. After reading this, it’s clear that insight to any war life, tactics and the boundaries of love have no respect from the head from witch this was written. People have fallen and or have bean in love durring times of war. There is much hightened emotion. And when you have so few people left in your life, you just might see that and accept this fate. As to taking over a town, I can’t say I’d try,..but if I had to cross into enemy teritory and do a take over, I would do my best to cut the perimeter off from the rest of the world. A crappy sherrif is still the guy with the badge and he never lost his honor to his country or family. In either version. The place may have bean different and so may have bean the enemy. But both eras of this movie story were dam excelent. Your review was hacked up by any thing but a WOLVERINE.
I appreciate your comment, however it’s hard to take any of it seriously when so many words are misspelled. Since you didn’t read the entirety of my post, it’s a little hard to take anything you say seriously. I provided 5 reasons why this movie was shitty in comparison to the original which I hold very dear. The new version of Red Dawn would be fucking laughable even if it were a stand alone film not based on a far superior and plausible scenario. My biggest beef, I will tell you what it is since you didn’t have the decency to finish the article before commenting, is that the 2012 version is particularly unfaithful to the original and unreasonably so. The areas where it strayed took elements from the original and took them so terribly far into the land of cliche that they made no sense. In the points you made, few of which are coherent, you can’t even defend the remake’s choices. To state that my review is hacked up by anything other than sound reason and logic when referencing the first film is a mistake on your part. I addressed the most salient errors the remake took license with and took the filmmakers to task for them. Plain and simple, the 2012 version of Red Dawn is a pile of shit, not worthy of the money it took to make nor the 2 hours of my time to watch. I’m glad you enjoyed it. That makes about 3 people that did.
You’re being so incredibly immature in quite a few of your replies I have been reading. You are using any mistakes you can find on the people replying to fill in your “defensive stance”. I fully understood all of the this poster said, and you just tried to make them sound like their opinion isn’t eligible because they made a couple of spelling errors. That is total BS by the way. If that was the case, your arrogance and biased stance towards the remake makes your article’s points and stated opinions negated as well. You are attacking a movie because it is not the EXACT replica of the movie you loved as a child. They are two different movies just with the same title and similar backstories. Get over it and stop whining about a movie that was clearly quite popular. It has a good rating on Netflix, and moderate ratings all over the internet with the exclusion of the critic sites that are filled with people like you that only try to find flaws in the movies. Lastly, the love story is not ill-placed. It shows that when you have lost almost everything, the little you do have left becomes your everything. It’s foolish to think someone wouldn’t try to save their loved one in this scenario. He also HARDLY is shown missing Erica minus a few minor spots that last only seconds until he starts trying to find her for, what, 5 minutes screen times, tops? Maybe you don’t understand human emotions and relations which would partially explain your huge whining spree you went on about invalid points of why this movie is no good. Only the ending point would I agree with, but not for your point of view on it.
‘Classic’ and ‘cult’ to describe what surely was a comedy (I’m talking about the 1984 one). So bad it was funny
I’ve never seen the first one but I appreciate the American pride demonstrated in the remake. Finally a movie that doesn’t reak of liberal hollywood bullshit. Also, I do see this remake as relevant (similar to the original) due to how weak and vulnerable our government has become within the past 5 years. It is scary right now knowing that our spineless president is leaving our country vulnerable to attacks by other countries such as Russia and N. Korea. Though I did notice quite a few weaknesses in the storyline, I found it an interesting perspective on what could happen.
Remakes are intended to be different. Hence, their name. If you wanted to watch something with the same exact plot and same exact metaphors, with the same exact beginning and ending — then watch the original. You can’t seriously expect the movie directors to remake it to how you want it, right? Overall, the movie was a sound production. The cast acted professionally and portrayed emotions – especially and specifically the overwhelming patriotism – pretty well.
Here is some feedback on some of your notes.
4) The love story was pivotal to this particular movie’s plot. Because of the risks Matt took, he ultimately went through some personal conflict. In order for him to do what was best for the team, he had to put his self-interests – like love – and put it behind the goals of The Wolverines. The movie producers didn’t have to use a love story distraction to get Matt to go through his character development, no, but they did. So it wasn’t “stupid.”
3) You really don’t think there was an active duty Marine – anywhere – during any big event in the United States? Why is it so hard to believe? It honestly makes more sense that The Wolverines started off from someone who knew a lot about gunfire and strategic war concepts. Do you think that a bunch of young kids (with no background in anything regarding war) could pull together such massive defense attacks against the North Korean troops?
2) I’m not saying the movie had the best ending ever, either. But it’s your opinion.
1) The transformation/development of characters from each movie are going to be different because again; the newer movie was a remake. You really can’t use a valid argument to put down the newer movie just because it wasn’t like the first one.
Most of what you said was completely opinion based, and super biased because you seem to have really liked the original make. The point isn’t to compare how similar the two movies are, but evaluate them as whole new ones.
I don’t think movie directors should do remakes at all. Why remake a movie if it is intended to be different? Why not just do something original? The concept of a foreign natton invading the US is hardly original. So why tell this story using the original film as a jumping off point? You assertion is absurd.
Some feedback on your feedback:
4) The love story wasn’t pivotal. It was a shitty attempt to bring a different demographic into seeing this film. I’ll stand by this comment. Matt’s personal conflict is so on the nose that it’s a fucking joke, much like the whole film. The producers, writers and director took such an easy way out with this one. And yes, it was really stupid.
3) Sure, I think there could have been active duty military everywhere, but, as I said in my post, it was that the kids in the original movie banded themselves together and took on the Russians/Cubans that made the story more triumphal. Once again, the people involved with making this film took another easy shortcut. Re: your comment about kids without background in war being able to attack a more seasoned army – have a look at the American Revolution, the ability of the IRA and Republicans in Ireland and their ability to combat far stronger military forces. Seems like that turned out all right, yes? The Irish did it with virtually no weapons at all. Once again, your retort has no legs.
2) You’re correct in asserting the ending was shitty is my opinion. That’s why I wrote it and the piece as a whole.
1) That the movie was largely based on previous material, importing a vast amount amount of it from the original did lead me and most people to believe that the character motivations would be the same since IT’S THE SAME FUCKING STORY. The whole point of my post, which you obviously missed, wasn’t to bash the new Red Dawn for not being like the original. It was because the stupid pile of shit never should have been made in the first place. I am not alone in this assertion either. This movie sits at 12% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes and for good reason. This movie has been evaluated as a new one as you are kind enough to ask that people do and most think it’s a shitpile.
I’m glad you liked it. I guess someone had to.
Cool. If you don’t like remakes, don’t watch them.
4) I’m pretty sure you literally just said that the love story was “an easy way out” to get Matt’s personal dilemma to happen. I mean, fine, that being said I could agree with your opinion about it being one of the most cheesiest ways to do it. But if it has a point in the movie, even if it’s a really pathetic way of doing it, it still has a point…
3) Uh…just saying that I have no “retort” doesn’t actually mean I don’t. The American Revolution; you’re joking right? That in itself was a full fledged war. Many, many Americans were fighting against the British colony. Before you try to say that it was the same case in the movie, let me stop you right there. So what if they didn’t have military forces in the American Revolutionary War? The whole revolt was a pre-meditated concept! The Americans are the ones that had been living under British colony rule for a looooooong time. Not 2 days. It wasn’t as if five or six kids were kicked out and suddenly they attacked the British colony the way the Wolverines did in the movie. The American Revolution involved people with special mindsets, or at least a more knowledgeable sense of what they were doing. I don’t really care how you put it; it makes a lot more sense with Jed being who he was.
2) Ok, good for you.
1) It’s still a remake.
I could swear as much as you did throughout the post but it’s not worth it. You wrote a piece, which was great. But you should be able to take the heat and defend your articles without being such a prick about it.
youre obviously way to biased to write this article in the first place. i cant say either of these films are my favourites, but i did enjoy watching them both straight after eachother, and to me it shouldnt even be considered a remake, only thing similar between them is the name of the movie and the characters.
and i rly do believe that north korea attacking the northwest and russia attacking the eastcoast is plauisble,
Spot freak in on. Nice work!
Who ever wrote this is a dumb ass. IT’S A MOVIE! Do you think that superhero movies are possible? NO. If it doesn’t matter in superhero movie, why would it matter for any other movie?
Sigh. There is a suspension of disbelief that comes along with superhero films because…they are steeped in fiction. We know that Superman does not exist, that the X-Men and their powers are fictional. No reasonable person over the age of 10 goes into one of those films believing that what they are watching is real or that they could actually happen. On the flip side, Red Dawn is, in fact, steeped in our current political climate as was the original, so it is reasonable to believe that the film is based, in part, on physically possible events. Films, like most art, are a reflection of the times in which they were made or a reaction to those times. This version of Red Dawn does a poor job in this arena and that’s why it’s so fucking stupid, apparently just like me as I am the “dumb ass” who wrote this piece. You ask why it matters? Well, it matters because it is positioned to let us believe that what occurs in this film can happen. It can’t. Not as the scenario is set up. Had the film adhered to its original enemy being the Chinese, it would have been far more plausible, the other ridiculous portions that I pointed out in my article notwithstanding. It also matters because it is an unnecessary remake of a film that had relevance when it was made, whereas this iteration is a just a ridiculous money grab and a way to launch young stars into a different genre of film. It has as much depth as as a Twinkie has nutrition – zero. This film is indicative of the great original idea vacuum in Hollywood where they are more apt to recycle a film like this than make an original film. It’s a sad state and it’s people like you who blindly run to the theaters like a lemming that help continue this practice. I’d love to debate this more if you have any more to add.
I stopped watching halfway through after realizing Josh Peck was a main character and wasn’t going to get shot for playing such a douchy character. Screwed the plan, got his friend killed, and almost killed a busload of people just to save his girlfriend. Not to mention the blatent product placement, I did feel I was watching a movie from the 80’s for a bit.
God you obviously have no taste in movies. The only good point you made is when Josh Peck took over as leader. It sounds to me like you’re still stuck in the 80s. I watched both of them. I am not being bias at all when I say the the remake made a whole lot more sense. Please do us all a favor and never review a movie ever again.
If you think you have taste by saying that the 2012 version of Red Dawn is good means you’re a lost cause. There is no need to address your comment further as any credibility you may have had is out the window. Thanks for visiting, but please don’t bother reading any more of my reviews. You neanderthalic intelligence obviously can’t keep up.
I’m watching Red Dawn right now and I mean the original, I watched the remake once and will never watch it again.
To say that the remake is not that bad. Yes it deviates in many ways from the original. I love the original and I agree that it is better mainly because it is the original. I didn’t like the love story in the new version. That could have been left out. I think the original was good about showing how war can change you and not for the better. The thing about Jed being a Marine isn’t that far off. A coincidence? Perhaps but there are logs of military personnel on leave at any given time. Why not Jed? Also you can say the original highlighted the will of those untrained people to fight for their country, but lets face it, even in the American revolution professional officers actually lead the troops, even the militia. The Baron von Steuben came to Valley Forge and assisted. You can have all the desire you want but when facing a professional army, it will only get you so far. Learning the craft of warfare must play a big role too.
I’ve seen both movies and even though I grew up watching the original I would rather sit and watch the new one. As for your theory of disbelife concerning the plot, it’s kinda the point to a good film. I guess your not a star wars fan… I also love how you paint the 80’s to be so scary. The only thing I remeber people fearing was our senile president accidentally launching a nuclear strike. Yes we had to do those pointless drills where we hid by our locker (which I knew wouldn’t help at all) but honestly the cold war was nothing more then some cloke and dagger, spy game pissing contest that had little to no chance of ever becoming a real war. You do have one thing right, hollywood should write original scripts, but why not remake a film that kinda faded away in most peoples mind? You seem like a butthurt fan boy more then a journalist doing a review. Wait till you see the remake of polterguist.
I agree with Harmonov… I’ve watched both and the remake sucks. Granted I may be biased seeing as I was a kid when the original came out and I grew up in that era but there is so much more “Ludicrosity” in the remake. (yes I coined a word there). I also agree with Harmonov’s remake comment… I wish Hollywood would knock it off, grow some balls and find some risky, interesting and fresh material to produce. Leave the TV shows on TV where they were and leave the old movies be. Just make new material.
80s classics need to be left alone. First The Hitcher remake then the Karate Kid, and now this. Its’s terrible, there is literally no reason for a remake. Just shows the lack of creativity and abundance of greed. No real effort gets put into these remakes, there just slapped together cash-grabs capitalizing on the fame of the originals.
Personally loved Red Dawn (1984 one of course) I understand why others didn’t, but it’s still a classic. It helps to sometimes put the plot aside and focus on the psychological side, which is done really well. I haven’t seen all of the remake (couldn’t sit through it) but from what I saw it wasn’t worth it. The characters seemed bland and boring right from the get go. The characters in the original are what made it what is was. Robert stood out in particular. I liked the small moments where the Lt Col. seems almost disturbed with how cold-blooded he was. He was also a good comparison to Jed, who was essentially doing exactly the same things, but felt a whole lot more conflicted about it.
Plot-holes and believability aside, it’s still an engaging and entertaining film. Even as an adult I enjoy watching it from time to time. I feel the remake went for more of a YA/dystopian world feel thats become a trend as of late. And yes, the romantic side-plot was completely unnecessary. Hollywood seems to have forgotten that women can be important protagonists, and not just love interests.
Though then again maybe the remake wasn’t so bad and I just have a bias towards 80s films. For some reason I can watch a cast full of kids in 80s movie and enjoy it, but when I watch a recently made movie, I find all the kids insufferable and interchangeable.
I gotta say the first is a classic i loved it… Ya no one will really invade america but when it came out I believe it was released at the perfect time to become a hit. The new one is shit. Half ass actors for the most part and a bullshit love story. An invasion just wouldnt work i cant speak for all of the country. But here in texas we are patriotic and heavily armed there will be some sort of resistance. I will say however i enjoyed the original AND the australian version “tomorrow when the war began” no one is gonna invade astralia but it in my mind was more believable than red dawn 2. I could see someone taking over aystralia much easier than america they are ranked what 26th as far as military goes. China could probably overrun them for at least a couple days.
Two things:
1. I largely agree with your comments, except that your at least implied assertion that Pres. Reagan (e.g., “inflammatory rhetoric”) and this country were on something of a par with the malignant performances of the Soviet Union is unfortunate and quite miscast. Reagan knew very well what he was doing, and in putting such pressure on the Soviets as he did was perhaps the single most significant reason for the USSR’s collapse on December 25, 1991. That was one of the genuine miracles of all history, that an empire with a mighty military (however hollow its economy might have become) went down without firing a shot. I will never forget that day and how utterly stunning it was. As MacArthur said in another context on September 2, 1945, in connection with the formal Japanese surrender aboard _Missouri_, “We have had our last chance.” The chance we were given on that glorious Christmas Day in 1991 was, sadly, squandered, and so now we have the increasingly Soviet redux Russia, among other delights of the early 21st century, to deal with.
2. Certainly one may write as he pleases on his blog, but then one may read as he pleases on someone else’s blog. Can you not express yourself adequately without resorting to obscenities, profanities, and vulgarities? Your writing is direct enough and sufficiently punchy without such evidences (incorrect, I earnestly hope, but then who can tell?) of an unfortunately careless, insensitive, unpolished, and uncivilized character.
Terrible review. Half your “negatives” are just complaining about things that are different from the original. Of course there’s differences, it’s a remake, not a copy. There are supposed to be differences.
The second is better than the first. First colorado is in the middle of the country. So how did they get there so fast and second, why would the russians care about a tiny mountain town in colorado. The second one at least they made it a little more strategic.
Yes washington allows open carry. And so do 30 other states, that doesnt mean everyone is just walking around carrying guns. And north korea is invading the entire US. They said in the movie a coalition was formed. Russia took the east coast and north korea has the north west which consists of washington and oregon. Presumably other countries took california. A lot more realistic than russia taking the entire US overnight.
Your review is garbage.
I think red dawn should Americans eyes to what could happen us caused by our own pussy government.
Well said! I will not watch the remake.
Actually. Regan NEVER Said that on air./open mice.
Aside from that I agree with mots of what you write here
You are correct – he said it during a sound check and that clip was circulated:
Also, LOVE that Downfall video about this remake. I had never seen that before. Thanks for the 3+ minutes of hilarity. It does a wonderful job of summing up many of the issues I had with this film.
Im not even american, but i liked the original Red Dawn a lot (maybe cause i hate commies and their ideology). Now unfortunately i saw this article too late, just watched the remake. Honestly, what a shitshow, aside from some decent action scenes, there’s nothing else. Another case were a remake was completely unecessary, and seems Hollywood have yet to understand the lesson.
I couldn’t agree more with just about everything you said! Specially about the character of Robert! The original was a big part of my childhood as well. Had it on VHS and watched it probably hundreds of times in the 80’s. Some movies or most all movies don’t need to be remade or at least not remade by people who don’t have the balls to make a brutal invasion war movie like the original. Wolverines!!!!!
Either the 1984 or 2012 version of this film were anything worth writing home about. Honestly the acting and story line in both lacked any real character development or story development. Very typical action movie which I do enjoy. I have now watched both back to back. What I can say is the ending in both especially the 2012 felt very rushed made it seem like there was something more only to be let down. But what I do like about them both is they make for somewhat realistic scenarios. But we as Americans would in real life give more of a fight.