User Reviews (312)

  • moviexclusive19 November 2012
    2/10
    Bad doesn't begin to describe how terrible this action movie is – illogical, nonsensical and just plain dumb, this Dawn deserves never to see the light of day
    Warning: Spoilers
    There are big, loud and dumb movies, and then there are movies like 'Red Dawn', which deserve to belong to a category in themselves for being sheer stupidity magnified. The fact that this was in fact a remake of a 1984 movie that starred the likes of Patrick Swayze, C. Thomas Howell, Charlie Sheen and Jennifer Grey is no excuse for how blatantly silly the premise is – if you're looking to give it another go, the least you can do is to try to make it better.

    For those who have not heard of that John Milius picture, its essential conceit was how a ragtag group of teens become a formidable resistance force when their peaceful community is suddenly attacked by an occupying force. The Russians were the ones unfortunate enough to be vilified then – not surprising given the lingering Cold War fears – but writers Carl Ellsworth and Jeremy Passmore have made the North Koreans the invaders this time round, though any real world relevance the opening sequence of edited news footage might suggest the movie would have is quickly thrown out of the window barely ten minutes into the film.

    After briefly introducing the audience to the pair of brothers – the newly returned Iraq War veteran Jed Eckert (Chris Hemsworth) and his hot-headed younger brother Matt (Josh Peck) – the North Koreans are literally dropped into the movie. Waking up the rumble of explosions, Jed and Matt are horrified to discover that the sky is dotted with North Korean bombers and scores of soldiers are parachuting into the town in a hostile takeover attempt. If it already sounds unconvincing as we are describing it to you, trust us when we tell you it looks even more ridiculous on screen.

    Are we supposed to believe that within the span of one night, the North Koreans have suddenly made their way halfway across the globe to attack America? Are we supposed to believe that they could have come with all that firepower? And worst of all, are we supposed to even buy into the fact that they would even bother about a small town called Spokane? Sure, we would willingly suspend our disbelief for a movie that bothers to make sense; but 'Red Dawn' makes no such attempt, and utterly baffles in how it thinks it can get away with such an absurd setup.

    Does it get better along the way? Absolutely not. Seeing his father executed before their eyes, Jed comes to the conclusion that they need to prepare for war – and just like that, he becomes training commander of a young team of rebels who call themselves the 'Wolverines'. They learn to fight, to shoot and to hide, all in the name of preparing to wage an urban guerrilla campaign against the North Koreans who have taken over their town with their arsenal of soldiers, jeeps, and tanks.

    And when they are finally ready, Matt decides to undermine their plans by scuttling off to rescue his girlfriend Erica (Isabel Lucas), thereby igniting a brotherly conflict between the rational and responsible Jed and the impulsive and impetuous Matt. What a pathetic attempt at trying to make us care about two stock types who frankly are just in the movie so we have the good guys – the same goes for bringing Toni (Adrianne Paliki) and Erica into the fray and building some sort of romantic links between Jed and Matt respectively.

    Even if we accept the tradeoffs in plot and character most B-movies would have their audience make, the least director Dan Bradley could have done is to mount some decently shot action sequences. That is precisely Bradley should have done with his cameraman Mitchell Amundsen – shoot him point blank. Clearly trying too hard to emulate the 'Bourne' films to lend the action a sense of urgency, the shaky camera-work is downright frustrating to watch, and even more so because the sequences – especially the final one set within a huge circular room fronted on all sides with glass windows – are pretty promising to begin with.

    No thanks to its abundant flaws, the movie also wastes its promising young cast. Hemsworth has good presence as the smart leader of the team (he takes over Patrick Swayze's role in the original), while Josh Hutcherson (who played Peeta in 'The Hunger Games' and here is in C. Thomas Howell's role) brings naivety and temperance to the role of Robert Kitner, a bookish type who turns warrior because of circumstance. Less convincing is Peck, who mostly just looks too stoned to convey any sort of inner dilemma his character is supposed to face.

    Nonetheless, the acting is the least of the flaws in a movie that is painfully illogical and utterly nonsensical. Its invasion scenario might have been able to fly with an audience in the '80s, but to try to transplant the same premise to today's context is just plain daftness. Ironically, there are some moments that appear to suggest that the filmmakers are wise enough to know not to take the movie too seriously – but those moments fade away as soon as the next unabashed war-mongering scene arrives.

    Don't get us wrong – this isn't about whether we love B-action movies or not. We do, but it is movies that insult the intelligence of its audience that we truly detest, and 'Red Dawn' is one perfect example of that. Watch only if you need to understand the meaning of stupid.
  • brunogronow-120 February 2013
    4/10
    A parody at best
    I'm sure this movie shows more or less how it looked when US forces dropped in to say hello in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 30 year old teenagers in this movie throw out mercilessly sub par dialog like "This is not their land. This is our back yard and we're going to fight for it," or "they killed our father, we have to fight or die." I'm sure that's what they said in Fallujah too when good ol' George W. sent his invading army to destroy their country. Aaameeerica, Aaameeerrrrriiiicaa!! God save them all, they do make me laugh and cry at the same time.

    Enough has already been said in previous reviews about the wildly idiotic plot and lazy directing. Rather get the 1984 version. At least it had some heart in it, though the plot was just as ludicrous, playing on the strange fear of communism America has always fostered.

    One more thing! Modern movies (this one being no exception) way overuse the lazy technique of compressing together various sorts of character growth sequences into a few minutes. It's very annoying and shows a lack of skill on everyones part.
  • sanookdee7 January 2013
    1/10
    waste of time
    I was not going to talk about this moving until I saw one of the actors interviewed on CNN. He talked about making it better than the original because today's audiences are more sophisticated that they were 30 years ago and need a better story and acting. Please, this movie is full of special effects and CGI, the acting is sub par and, it's just a bad, bad movie. If this movies shows anything, it's that Hollywood has no respect for audiences and just recycles an old movie, loads it with pretty faces and special effects, makes it PC and throws it out at audiences. Seems that every year, Hollywood throws out trash like this, fills it with CGI and special effects, lot's of fires and explosions and calls it "art".

    A complete waste of time unless you are a male in his early teens.

    if a movie could get 0 stars, that's what I would give this movie. It will be in the bargain bin at Walmart for .49 Even at this price, it's not worth the money.
  • thesar-227 June 2013
    2/10
    The Top Thirty-Nine Things I Learned from 2012's Red Dawn
    Warning: Spoilers
    1. It never rains in Washington State. Ever.

    2. While it may seem like a good idea at the time to challenge someone older, double your size and obviously a marine, you might want to think twice when that someone has also played the god, Thor.

    3. North Korea certainly picked the most opportune time to invade: every single United States Military Member was either on vacation or retired.

    4. Hemsworth seems to like visiting cabins in the woods in 2012. Sadly, this one didn't pan out for him like the last one.

    5. While escaping a North Korean concentration camp bent on converting Americans to their lifestyle, it is necessary to run with a randomly and implausibly available American flag to show patriotism in a film that states America abandons its citizens at the first sign of trouble.

    6. One U.S. missile is used to shoot down just one of the thousands of invading planes and a solitary cop car is on the rescue. Why am I paying taxes again?

    7. Planes flying overhead and troops parachuting down somehow, and miraculously, simulate earthquake tremors that wake our heroes.

    8. Incredibly, rabbit ears still work. And, if you believe that lie, listen to the news.

    9. Daryl, played by Conner "Tom" Cruise, has a black father. That's gotta raise some questions.

    10. An Independence Day speech about "home" does not hold up today.

    11. One "asshole and his buddy" can easily take off with all the food that would feed a dozen kids, indefinitely, while the North Koreans set up shop.

    12. After ruthlessly invading another country and telling its citizens they are there to install morals, somehow people listen. If only it weren't for those meddling kids…

    13. When in seclusion in a mine shaft, cellphone batteries last for weeks, while my own needs charging every couple of hours.

    14. Silently leaving to go grab a beer can be as deadly as crying out: "I'll be riiiiight back."

    15. When one resistance member causes the death of another to save his ungrateful, useless and blonde girlfriend he calls "family," all is forgiven by the fallen's girlfriend with a simple, two-finger peace sign.

    16. And, it's socially acceptable to abandon and endanger the rest of the victims on a makeshift prison bus to rescue said dumb blonde, as long as it's all about "true love."

    17. Cramming an entire season of Walking Dead and Falling Skies into one 90-minute movie makes you wish for an invasion…of any kind.

    18. Getting shot in the stomach and leaving the bullet intact can't possibly lead to anything bad.

    19. Hotwiring cars is a snap in movies.

    20. Tossing trash cans blindly over a fence will always produce the desired car alarm distraction.

    21. When no one notices two "terrorists" leaving a business, it's reasonable to assume the invaders will automatically find the culprit who aided their escape…

    22. …And when the bad guys do locate that person and stage a public execution, it's further plausible that our heroes will know the exact location of the killing and thwart the assassination in perfect harmony.

    23. Subway® restaurants stay fresh while America is invaded.

    24. When robbing said Subway® restaurant, combining all fountain drinks into one bucket that's probably used to either mop the floor or gather the puke of unsatisfied Subway® customers, makes soldiers smile instead of puke, themselves.

    25. Thinking of luring those North Korean soldiers into an alleyway for an amateur ambush? Fear not: no one for a mile will hear you discharge multiple machine guns. In an echoing alley. With more guards nearby.

    26. Trying to remove a truck out of mud? It's always best to have the strongest behind the wheel while the weaklings push.

    27. Hating kids that are able to blindly leap down three stories and not die by either the fall or two armed guards at their descent is supposed to be funny. I guess.

    28. Aimlessly wandering and retired military men fill the damnedest of plot holes. Unsuccessfully, but still.

    29. If Tom Cruise believes "it worked for Will Smith" when he also attempted to make his own son a star in Red Dawn, he's probably just jumping on another couch.

    30. An EMP can apparently shut down not only the country's entire electrical system, but also the whole U.S. government, armed forces, police, firemen, ambulances, backup systems, 911, missiles, defenses and satellites over a thousand miles up. But, it has no effect on cars, radios or radio stations.

    31. Also, in time, electronics come back online, but all the satellites seem to have drifted off to some neighboring galaxy. I suppose.

    32. Without explanation, other than to hurry up the movie, a villain can produce the exact location of the heroes' hideout without satellites, scouts, intel or previous plot-hole characters directing them.

    33. Remaking a cult-hit takes balls. Admitting defeat = iron balls.

    34. North Korean's fully gassed military vehicles can be folded nicely into soldier's backpacks and used, instantaneously, when they land.

    35. Adding Shia LaBeouf's signature line, "Go!Go!Go!" to your script makes one almost want to press stop and plug in Transformers. Almost.

    36. When selecting a rebellion name, one shouldn't pick their own obvious school mascot when trying to avoid detection. Especially when it takes 15 minutes to spray-paint the name on a wall.

    37. "Killing the lights" in an isolated cabin in no way makes the place suspicious to the enemy.

    38. Ending a chaotic and clichéd climax inside the very work cubicle of the two main character's murdered father, isn't just lazy and predictable, it's sad and inadvertently, hilarious.

    39. Hawkeye Pierce would've solved this crisis in less than a 2-parter episode. After a few martinis, of course.
  • dbupte-537-2734223 November 2012
    1/10
    It's God Awful
    Warning: Spoilers
    Honestly you are better off going to North Korea than seeing this poor excuse of a movie. Honestly I wish N. Korea would invade us just so they could stop the distribution of this awful film. It is a shame that this movie was made in Michigan, not exactly a boost to our rep. I have no idea why they chose Josh Peck for one of the male leads. He makes Hayden Christiansen look like Marlon Brando in his prime. Now that I think about it, I might even have to suggest seeing that new Twilight instead of this. I know that's pretty extreme, but trust me it's really that bad. It also makes sense that this was filmed back in 2009 and just now is being released. In hindsight, the studio should've just cut its losses and canned this thing for good. The one positive is perhaps it will cause people to watch the original film from the 80's which is actually watchable.
  • TheFilmDiscussion .com27 November 2012
    2/10
    "Red Dawn" is a cheap sucker-punch to our time and money
    This pitiful remake is nothing more than a hurried excuse to make money off of an 80′s action brand that made its money off of the pretty faces that starred in it, by doing more of the same. Oh well, we've got Chris Hemsworth and Josh Hutcherson, right? (both fine actors, by the way). But wait, hell with them, let's have a greasy-looking, stoner-faced, mumbling Josh Peck as our war-torn hero. These "pretty faces" fill out the empty space where the rest of the story about a hostile North Korean attack on American soil should be. Wait, where's the United States military? Hell with them, there's some device that shut them all down, and these kids are our last hope! Yeah, right. If you can tie an anchor to every last one of your disbeliefs and drown them in the waters of horrible cinema, then maybe you can appreciate one or two of the well- orchestrated and intense action scenes that "Red Dawn 2.0″ has to offer. Maybe you can even grow attached to some of the characters. But hell with all that, and hell with an ending. That's the reward for your investment. But hey, the studios probably made enough money for a sequel. So there's that.
  • badzed31124 November 2012
    1/10
    2 hour long Rolling Rock commercial
    Warning: Spoilers
    It's been a while, since I have seen something this bad. In fact, I spent the whole screening time waiting for the movie to start making sense. The Koreans invade using a top secret EMP weapon that SINKS SUBMARINES (oh yeah) but leaves all electronics intact and working, with no resistance from the armed forces, apparently taking everyone by surprise. To remedy the situation, US sends 3(!) marines to take orders from a resistance cell operated by a local high school team in order to retrieve an unhackable device that lets the invading forces communicate with each other during the "blackout" (once again, all the electronics still work just fine). They succeed and escape to Canada, leaving the insurgent kids alone against the enemy. The Koreans seem to be completely incompetent and untrained: Not one of them can hit a target, prisoners are rounded up at a high school football team with only a few guards, when laying siege to a building, they never bother to cover the exits, etc. A mysterious Russian guy appears and is immediately identified as a counter insurgency expert. Despite this, he appears in the movie exactly twice and both time does nothing. On top of this, the product placement is pretty bad: at times it seems like the whole flick was shot by using ad money from rolling rock and hammermill. I want my 12 dollars back.
  • bkoganbing14 April 2013
    4/10
    Wolverines ride again
    Ending on a far more positive note that the first Red Dawn, this updated 21st century adaption of that Cold War classic has the USA invaded by North Korea and of course with help from Russia. Interesting how the film was made in 2009 and shelved for two years while we changed the villains from Chinese to North Korean because we have to think of that big Chinese market. That's capitalism at its finest.

    Geopolitically it doesn't make much sense either. The Russians if anything have become super nationalist with the Russian Orthodox Church having more power than they did with the Czars. I doubt they would be helping the government of the still true believers in Revolution. Ditto the Chinese. Back in the day I remember when one did not refer to mainland China without the prefix Red attached to it. But about 30 seconds after Mao Tse-tung could not fog a mirror the revolution was over in China and not a moment too soon. Those who survived Mao's Red Guards could testify to that. Now they're as capitalist as we are with certain lip service paid to Mao just like in Russia lip service to the ideals of Lenin.

    What these two did do after the fall of the Soviet Union which kept North Korea alive is say you're on your own Kim family and the little family enterprise you call a country. Like Prussia, it's a state that supports an army because if you don't join the army, you and your family might starve. And now they can't feed their people, but they can build their own nukes to threaten all around who enjoy prosperity. That's all of their neighbors.

    The recent saber rattling of North Korea has given some credence to the popularity of this film as it did in the recent Olympus has fallen. The North Koreans invade, thousands of paratroopers over the Pacific rim and we're told that Russians are in the East Coast. They declared cyber warfare by screwing up our military defense systems and invaded.

    And like the first version some high school kids fight the invaders and they call themselves Wolverines after their football team. The Wolverine which ironically is an endangered species is one fierce animal that never gives up and will take on a bigger foe and win.

    Unlike the first version the kids are lucky enough to have Chris Hemsworth who was in Iraq to train them. Hemsworth's brother is Josh Peck and they gather a crew together and reek havoc on the occupiers. The action is also located in the Pacific Northwest and the Wolverines do some urban guerrilla warfare. The original story had the kids living and doing their thing in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado and Wyoming.

    In the original which I liked more than this both Patrick Swayze and C. Thomas Howell were killed and the story had an Ishmael like ending with one Wolverine surviving to tell the tale of the kids who fought back while America regrouped to reclaim itself. This one ended on a more upbeat, but false note.

    Then again it was a far wackier premise with this plot than with the other version.
  • jamesgarvin22 November 2012
    1/10
    Easily worst movie we've ever seen
    Words cannot begin to describe how awful this movie is. Not sure if it was meant to be serious or a parody that went haywire. This movie could not end soon enough and the fact that its rating is sitting at a 5 on IMDb right now just made me lose a ton of respect for the IMDb ratings.

    My wife and I can't stop talking about how bad this movie was. A group of high school students terrorize an entire N. Korea army which for some reason or another took over small town USA? WTF? We couldn't stop laughing when the N. Korea military leader kept yelling "The wolverine terrorists are attacking..." yeah - watch out for those high school snipers (all 5 of them) terrorizing your artillery of tanks and thousands of troops.

    I couldn't make up this movie plot and can't reasonably understand how any movie director or studio could come up with this, let alone actually release it to the public. It embarrasses the entire movie industry.

    The director and studio should be banned from producing movies for life.
  • adamsbrian8827 December 2012
    1/10
    Thoroughly disappointed
    I came with somewhat high hopes, and I don't think I could have been more let down. The story is alright, since mostly follows the original and they didn't have much to write on their own. But they really screwed the pooch on this one. Acting was among the worst I have ever seen. Hemsworth is the only one that was passable, the rest disgustingly atrocious. Josh Peck is an absolute joke, It was painful to watch him, he should never have been casted. Even after filming somebody should have done something to midigate his performance. I can't speak enough to how terrible he was. The rest of the supporting cast not much better. Seems like all they could do was make dramatic faces and awkwardly spew out their lines.

    This whole movie was terrible, i feel bad for anyone who is associated with this garbage, for the original movie and cast, because the new generation will likely judge their work on this ridiculous performance.

    I really hope that the next time somebody decides to re-make a movie, they put some real effort into it.
  • retrodyne21 February 2013
    Uninspiring, poorly made film - with poor casting
    A few of the positive reviews for this film were probably written by real people... like 13 year old boys, and frustrated, wannabe soldiers who failed the IQ test.

    The rest can only have been added here by a cubicle farm of movie studio marketing drones, who really earned their pay trying to think of good things to say about this sad, career-damaging waste of time.

    Josh Peck is one of the all-time worst casting calls, and should become a cautionary tale amongst casting agents.

    Agent 1: 'What do you think of this guy for the main character?'

    Agent 2: 'Are you trying to 'Josh Peck' this film?'

    He looks about 20 years older than his older brother, and even in the most dramatic scenes - has a mopey expression on his face that makes you want to slap him. All I can imagine is that he helped fund the film, because there's no other logical reason for him playing this part.

    I would have liked to be in the screening room when they showed this to the studio head. There was probably a long silence when the curtain fell, as half a dozen people were fired by text.
  • industraworks24 November 2012
    3/10
    Red Dawn: You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll kiss you 10 bucks goodbye!
    Warning: Spoilers
    I always wonder who approves these kind of movie ideas? This movie was more annoying then anything I have seen in a very long time, and I felt the urge to walk out numerous times. I did my best not to compare this to the original, and kept an open mind as much as I could. However, this movie lacks real tension and emotion. The opening invasion scenes were very promising, but it went sadly downhill from there. The story arc of Matt Eckert was awful. There were absolutely zero plot twists, the most surprising part was when Jed was killed. But who shot him? I mean come on, the star of the movie gets killed by a "loud bang" out of nowhere, it's like the producers were making this up as they went. There was never a feeling of a big "show down" brewing, no climax. No character repertoire, just a big sterile, loud, jerky camera waste of time. I feel a remake of a classic film should be a homage to that original film. Otherwise, what use is it? Is this what the younger generation likes in action movies these days? I sure hope not.
  • Lightning Soul20 January 2013
    4/10
    Not Only Hard to Believe
    I read a review where the story of the movie was said to be unlogical and hard to believe. Well it's also hard to believe that a man shoots webs from his arms and that an alien lands on earth and can fly and shoot lasers from his eyes.

    But it's not about a band of young men and women fighting against an army that's making this movie bad. It is that it is just so trivial. There is no feeling for the characters involved because they're just the 500th football playing college kids you will see in a movie. There is no heart and there is not one good actor in it.

    Not worth watching at all ...
  • krispy85 March 2013
    7/10
    Decent - once you overlook some things
    I'm not sure why everyone is so hard on this film.. maybe because they were comparing it to the original Red Dawn? Or maybe they were expecting too much?

    I skimmed through some of the other reviews which all seemed to base their low rating 3 ideas. 1. that it's unlikely North Korea can occupy the US; 2. why they would choose to invade a small town; 3. and why a band of teenagers would make a difference.

    Those reasons are irrelevant. If you think of every movie like that, there are lots of things that aren't realistic but that doesn't mean the movie can't be entertaining. For example, it's unrealistic that Bane can hijack a military plane, blow it up, and then jump out of it safely onto another plane, all in mid-flight thousands of ft above ground.

    1. In the movie, they briefly mentioned that the N. Koreans had some kind of new EMP that knocked out the US' communications and equipment. Sure.. that's a far fetch but that's not the point of the movie. The US can attack and occupy other countries, so why can't N. Korea (with Russian assistance)? (N. Korea has one of the largest military in the world)

    2. What city they invaded is not the point either.. they could have made it about Manhattan if that makes you happier. They mentioned that the N. Koreans invaded many parts of the country so this is just one of the places they occupied. Perhaps, this small town, USA was a geographical location that gave them some kind of vantage point for a region of the country?

    3. Why can't a band of rebels (even teenagers) make a difference? It's not that unbelievable that teenagers can shoot. It's also not that unbelievable that they can organize themselves into an effective force under the right leadership (like a marine). They're not trying to say that the group will save the entire country or kill all the invaders in the town. As Chris Hemsworth stated near the beginning of the movie, it's moreso that a small group can make a nuisance for the invaders and defeat their spirit. Look at the movie Defiance, which is based on a true story. There are also elements of rebellion in other more famous movies like Gladiator, The Last Samurai, Braveheart, etc.

    Overall, I really enjoyed this movie actually, despite what others say. I think many people were probably expecting something else and had high hopes and felt disappointed, but if you watch this movie without reading any reviews first or criticism, you may be entertained!
  • Theo Robertson19 June 2013
    4/10
    " North Korea ? It Doesn't Make Sense " - You're Not Wrong
    This is a remake of a 1980s film where America gets occupied by the Soviet Union and Cuba . Hardly a credible premise but you have to meet it on its own right wing terms . Originally this remake was going to feature an occupation of America by the Chinese . Hardly a credible premise but the fact American films get shown in China nowadays means there's a massive potential market and being worried about losing money the producers then changed the enemy invasion force to the North Koreans . This is where the whole movie collapses from the outset

    Some people have defended this film on the grounds that such an invasion could be possible down to the fact that NK has an army of one million people under arms . Indeed it does but this misses out that it lacks any logistical capacity . While amateurs talk tactics professionals talk logistics . NK lacks any force projection . By this I mean it lacks any capacity to invade neighbouring countries . It has no real serviceable navy and even a possible invasion of South Korea would involve hundreds of thousands of troops being transported in either trucks or on foot so any surprise attack on America by NK is laughable . The screenplay does try to get around this unconvincing premise by stating the Koreans have launched an attack by EMP weapons that have destroyed America's communication systems and are are being helped by the Russians though it's never stated why the Russians would be brothers in arms with North Korea

    John Milius wrote the original RED DAWN as a right wing wish fulfillment . The world has changed beyond all recognition since then so what's the political subtext ? Is there one ? I'm not sure . One of the protagonists is a former veteran of the Iraqi conflict and leading the band of guerrilla fighters he makes the point " When I was abroad we were the good guys because we brought order . Now we're the bad guys because we bring chaos " I fail see the thinking behind this . Order=good , chaos = bad ? How is that then ? Surely it should be democracy good , tyranny bad ? If you're expecting any profound discussion about the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter you're watching the wrong film because the remake of RED DAWN is more concerned about setting up action packed set-pieces where brave Americans kill nasty Asiatic commies

    Even then the action scenes collapse when you give them any thought . Don't the North Korean soldiers have things like road blocks where anyone passes through has to be searched for weapons ? There's also a lack of internal continuity . You can guarantee that when the script demands it there's literally thousands of NKs patrolling the streets of the city then when the guerrillas launch an attack there's only a handful of North Koreans who are cannon fodder , then the good guys are back in their camp safe and sound . Why didn't the thousands of communists just head them off in the pass ?

    The original film was bad enough but this one is worse . You can perhaps say this remake has better action scenes but for an action scene to successfully work then there has to still an element of credibility involved and everything about this film lacks any credible element and feels anachronistic in any point it might be making . Indeed in the 1980s American control was criticised in case America became a target of foreign invasion . Try claiming people should be allowed access to guns in case of a sneak attack by North Korea and listen to the laughter
  • Melina Gunnett14 November 2012
    3/10
    Red Dawn Redeux
    I can't wait for the new Red Dawn to come out on video. Okay maybe I'll wait for it to hit Netflix. Either way it is going to make a great drinking game. One rule – Every time you see or hear an overused cliché or war trope, drink. You'll be soused 15 minutes into the film. On the up side, the rest of the movie will probably be better that way.

    One of my friends that saw the movie with me summed it up nicely. OMG, it really is a remake. Up until we actually started watching the movie she had been holding out hope that they had re-done the movie and fixed the oh so many problems the first Red Dawn had.

    The original Red Dawn had its place. I remember seeing it back when it came out. It had all the hot young actors of the day. It's problem wasn't the cast, all of them were good actors, most when on to long successful careers. I suspect many of the actors from this movie will do the same. (I'd tell you who was in it, but I suspect they are already hoping that people forget that they were involved.) The problem wasn't even the concept. Everyone loves an underdog story and there is nothing more under-doggy than a bunch of high schoolers trying to fight back against overwhelming odds. They could have handled the concept, lets be generous and only say, A LOT better. To their credit the writers did try to fill in some of the plot holes for the remake.

    They setting was moved from some agricultural town in Colorado to Spokane, which at least has an airbase and decommissioned missile silos that might make it a strategic site if someone was to invade the United States. They also made the point that the kids weren't trying to beat the invaders, but act as insurgents, making trouble where they could.

    The new movie does offer a nice training montage and lots of high quality explosions. Sadly the dialogue is just as painful to listen to as it was in the first movie. Too bad they didn't spend a bit less on the pyrotechnics and a little more on the script, but hey, it does have a lot of things that blow up.

    BANG! POW! BLAST! And don't forget to drink up, because someone is probably saying something cheesy. ;)
  • scottdelaney9812 September 2013
    1/10
    Great Potential, Poor Execution
    Warning: Spoilers
    As a fan of the original I was really looking forward to this. What a wasted opportunity.

    A few random observations in no particular order:

    Killing is nasty business, not cause to dance with glee shouting "wolverines!" Don't misunderstand me, as means to show how one might become numb to killing this could be very effective. It just doesn't work if you're depicting all the killing from afar in a simplistic, comic book fashion. See the original where they execute the Russian soldier and the informer in their midst.

    Rebel insurgents generally do not wear make up, have their hair done, or wear fashionable, clean clothes that look like they were just bought at the Gap.

    When you jump through window glass and slide across the broken glass on the floor you bleed. A lot.

    Hiding in the woods and engaging in guerrilla warfare is dirty. Faces, hands, clothes, etc. Men (even 16, 17 and 18 year olds) grow beards. They do not appear clean shaven at all times and hair gel is not plentiful. Maintaining the Brad Pitt 3 day growth is also difficult.

    Also, contemplative evenings spent reminiscing and listening to Creedence are not part of the guerrilla rebel experience.
  • poopiter3 December 2012
    6/10
    Worth Seeing As Long As U Remember Why It Was Made...
    Warning: Spoilers
    The reviewers that are giving this as a worst move ever review must have been expecting 9 or 10 outta 10 going into this. I expected a 6 and I knew it would be hokey and have unbelievable situations when I decided to see it. But for this type of movie you got to remember that its just about having fun and you will find it entertaining.

    The big problems you have to overlook is the inconsistency of whether they have power. Its knocked out originally for the attack but then does it ever come back. Some buildings have power, some have emergency type lighting, some are dark.

    It would have been nice to keep Robert as the somewhat shy guy turns to bloodlust lunatic like in the original. The scene from the original where he kills daryl is awesome.

    They definitely lightened things up a bit overall. The original has just about everyone dying and this one only has about 3 or 4 of them getting killed.

    The gun fights and guerilla attacks are pretty good. They are frequent and keep the pace going pretty well. Of course its nice to have the hottie from Friday Night Lights and Isabel Lucas in the cast. The acting is decent except for a couple weird scenes with Josh Peck. I liked that Helmsworth is back from Iraq which gives the group a little more military background. And as your watching the movie you get a nice patriotic high.

    I suggest seeing it especially with the other options that are out as long as you can let go of being critical of its flaws and focus on having a good time.
  • Anssi Vartiainen25 September 2016
    Boring remake
    The United States gets invaded by North Korea. That pretty much sums up the ludicrousness of the film. I mean, the original had Soviet Union being the invading force, which at least played to the fears and politics of the time. This didn't have the guts to go with Russia - although they kinda did - but couldn't they haven chosen anything else but North Korea?

    Not that it really matters. The whole premise is silly, but so is the movie as a whole. And the worst thing is that it tries to take itself way too seriously. The tone is grim and dark, the characters suffer, there's death and dismemberment, the whole gruesome nine yards. And throughout this whole ordeal were supposed to believe that North Korea successfully invaded the only superpower of our time. Yeah... no.

    And the worst thing is that I've seen this idea done much better. I haven't seen the original film, but there's a film called Tomorrow, When the War Began, released a few years before this one, which takes place in Australia and has China as the invading force. Well, they don't explicitly specify the nation. But it's China. And yes, it's a stupid, silly film as well, but it acknowledges it. It's a teenage action-comedy and has much greater camp value because of it. The main characters are teenagers, like in this film, but the ludicrousness of the situation is turned to the film's advantage through decent writing and characters. And it still gets to have its guns akimbo action scenes and character deaths needed to sell the point that war is not actually such a hot idea.

    So, to summarize, if the premise interests you, see Tomorrow, When the War Began instead. Enough said.
  • Tyypo26 April 2014
    5/10
    Generic Action Movie
    Warning: Spoilers
    No one should have been expecting a good movie here, and as such there is no reason for anyone to be disappointed. Bad guys try to take over the US, and ultimately will fail. People get shot, things get blown up.

    An annoying thing for me is that this film was set in Spokane, Washington, and yet there were no clearly identifiable landmarks shown that would clarify this. Even if not filmed there, a few establishing shots would have been nice. The only recognizable structure or otherwise was that of the Space Needle in a snow globe towards the beginning, which of course is in Seattle. I'm sure all Spokane residents own a few of these.
  • FlashCallahan7 March 2013
    1/10
    Red Yawn......
    Warning: Spoilers
    The first time around, it wasn't the best eighties movie in the world, but it had a great cast, and it was fun for what it was.

    Take this remake, probably the worst remake I've seen in a very long time, and you realise the only reason this has seen the inside of a movie theatre is because of Thor, Avengers Assemble, and The Hunger Games, no other reason what so ever.

    This time, the North Koreans have invaded, and the character from Die Another Die is trying to take over whatever.

    The worst thing he can do is kill Thors dad, not only will this vex the 'Wolverines', it gets rid of the best actor in the film very early on.

    But the biggest problem is the fact that the heroes rarely seem in danger, from the first encounter, the N. Koreans just stand there and watch them drive about and look perplexed, and the res too the film the heroes just blow up stuff and argue.

    Toward the end of the film Dean Morgan, the cut price George Clooney appears to give it Gravitas, but its too late, the film is ruined, as there is no real flow in narrative structure.

    It's the worst mainstream release I've seen since that awful RZA film with Crowe, and it really poisons your memory of a half decent eighties movie.

    A horrid, rancid, pointless movie, that the film company has released in a desperate attempt to make a little money on the basis that two stars are quite big now.

    It fails, miserably.
  • paul-236920 February 2013
    10/10
    Great Popcorn Movie... how come people didn't get it?
    I almost didn't watch this movie after reading all the bad reviews. First of all i would like to say that my family and I thoroughly enjoyed the movie from start to finish. People seem so ready to criticise remakes for some reason without giving them a chance. Whether you have seen the 1984 original or not, If your a fan of against the odds action flicks you will enjoy this, its a great popcorn movie. Some critics ( this is what they like to call themselves, although I believe they are stuck up adolescents with hardly any worldly experiences) say the violence was too toned down.. well boohoo, a great movie doesn't need to be gory and contain large amounts of gratuitous violence, to be honest some movies do this because they are bad movies and have nothing else to offer.

    On another note, have any of the critics bashing this movie actually watched it from start to finish or have they just flicked through it enabling them to give their review?

    Here are an few shameful comments from the movie bashers

    "why would N. Korea invade a small US town..WTF?"

    Duh.. they invaded most of the US... listen to the dialogue

    "Where is the US Army"

    This was explained in the news footage montage at the start, the US army is scattered across the world, fighting conflicts in the middle east and other parts of the world... plus,they never expected an attack on their own soil

    "We couldn't stop laughing when the N. Korea military leader kept yelling "The wolverine terrorists are attacking"

    Oh yeah, and I couldn't stop laughing at your comment! the plot was very simply, why couldn't you follow it? these radio transmissions came from the Korean Marine, made purposely to cause confusion... plus a little comic relief for the audience (the one's paying attention anyway)

    For the people saying that the story was unbelievable, i just don't have anything to say to you retards except... it's a movie, it's make believe, it's for entertainment.

    All in all a great popcorn movie, does it deserve the 10 I gave it? probably not, but a solid 8 easily, it gets the 10 the offset the unfounded 1's its been getting... what's wrong with people today
  • phd_travel12 July 2013
    1/10
    Deserved to flop - childish and cheap
    The story comes across as amateurish and childish - not to mention ludicrous and politically incorrect. An unnecessary movie to remake. At least in the Swayze version there was a cold war going on. North Koreans have so many problems of their own eg enough food to eat they are hardly going to mount a parachute attack on suburban Pacific Northwest. Most of it felt like paintball in the woods.

    The cast is bad. Josh Peck and Chris Hemsworth as brothers? Josh looked really daft and his character was so annoying. Chris doesn't look good with a crew cut - in fact it makes him look like an overweight redneck. The ladies Isabel and Adrianne looked like they would rather be elsewhere. Poor Will Yun Lee - his biggest role in this drivel.

    In fact the audience would all be better of being elsewhere than watching this.
  • follis1226 November 2012
    6/10
    Not as memorable as the original, but fun (possible spoilers)
    Warning: Spoilers
    I suspect the new version will not be remembered by this generation in the way the original is today.

    The 1984 version was a better reflection of the times. The US and USSR were deep into the cold war, and both were focused on the eventual showdown. A lot of Americans were pretty sure a shooting war was coming, but didn't know what it would look like. Red Dawn (1984) gave us a scenario to ponder, and it was very intriguing. If you are too young to remember this it is difficult to explain, but it was a genuine concern.

    The new version is the same story without the relevance. They tried, but the idea of North Korea invading the US seems absurd compared to the 1984 scenario. I heard the original plot had China as the aggressor. If they would have stuck with that, it may have come closer.

    Bottom line:

    The new is an entertaining action movie, but it fails to reflect any true fears of our time. The original did both.
  • Michael O'Keefe4 April 2014
    5/10
    Home of the brave and braver.
    Warning: Spoilers
    This movie is actually based on the 1984 film, of the same name, starring Patrick Swaze and C. Thomas Howell. The whole story centers around a group of young people more than willing to defend their hometown from a North Korean invasion. The mainland is vulnerable due to increased deployment of American troops abroad. After a mysterious power outage in Spokane, Washington a young Marine,Jed Eckert(Chris Hemsworth), home on leave, and his brother Matt(Josh Peck)awaken to swarms of North Korean paratroopers and transport aircraft. The brothers are joined by other friends at the family cabin in the woods. The group of young people are anxious and fearful, but must come to a decision to surrender to the invaders or try and fight the good fight defending their families, friends and hometown. After acquiring various weapons, the small group of teen defenders carry out guerrilla attacks against the obviously better prepared North Korean troops. But as you know, might doesn't always determine the winner of the fight.

    Prepare for sequences of intense war violence that is accompanied by very strong language and disturbing images. RED DAWN is directed by Dan Bradley and has a supporting cast featuring: Josh Hutcherson, Adrianne Palicki, Isabel Lucas, Edwin Hodge, Will Yun Lee, Fernando Chien and Alyssa Diaz.
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.