Oh, the things a war movie blogger has to do. One of them is going to see the rare war
movie release realizing that it will most likely be terrible (ex.
“Battleship”). I had put off seeing the
new “Red Dawn” because it seems a useless remake of a bad film and I have been
very busy with soccer. However, I could
not let my public down so I bit the bullet and headed for the theater. Being a masochist, I also watched the
original (which I have to admit I had not seen due to the terrible reviews it
got when it came out). What a day! I have cemented my place in war movie heaven
by spending some time in war movie hell.
 |
| "Wolverines!" |
“Red Dawn” (1984) actually has a
pretty good reputation. Apparently there
were a large number of high school boys who saw it in 1984 and there are a lot
of conservatives today that remember it fondly since it fit their fantasy of
World War III. It is definitely a curio
from the Cold War days. Specifically,
the Russians in Afghanistan days. The
opening scrawl confusingly explains that NATO has dissolved, Mexico has gone
communist, and the Warsaw Pact is on the move.
Before you know it, Cuban paratroopers are landing in Calumet,
Colorado. An idyllically all-American
town that is of great strategic importance, I suppose. A few high school boys join the slightly
older Jed (Patrick Swayse) in the outdoors.
The crew includes his brother Matt (Charlie Sheen). After some hand-wringing (and crying), they
decide to become survivalists. The movie
is probably required viewing for militias.
 |
| Dirty Dance with this you commie bastard |
The town is under occupation and
any adults (like Jed and Matt’s father) with balls are in a re-education
camp. Books are being burned. The weasely mayor is collaborating (he is a
liberal). There are three villains: the Cuban Col. Bella (who is now on the receiving end of insurgency), a Soviet adviser (who believes in several eyes for an eye), and a
counterterrorist expert Col. Strelnikov (the menacing William Smith) brought in
to hunt down the insurgents. When the
gang (called the “Wolverines”) kills three Soviets, the commies react by
executing civilians including Jed and Matt’s father. It’s on now.
They are joined by two girls (Lea Thompson and Jennifer Gray) who
insist on being treated equally and refuse to do the dishes as teenage boys in
the audience snicker. There is a montage
of attacks (including on a Soviet tank crew that stops at a gas station to fill
up with regular).
 |
| Jed draws down on Strelnikov |
The director brings in Powers
Boothe as a downed pilot to provide acting lessons and fill in the audience
with how all this conquest came about.
Coming from him it almost seems plausible. There are some bloody fire fights with old
school deaths. The movie supposedly set
a record for body counts, especially for the first PG-13 rated film. They keep getting whittled down, including
the execution of one of their own (the mayor’s son) for swallowing a homing
bug. A couple more go in a surprise
attack by vicious looking Soviet choppers straight out of Afghanistan. The final set piece is Jed and Matt’s two man
assault on enemy headquarters as cover for the escape of Danny and Erica to Free America. Would you believe there is a duel between Jed
and Strelnikov? And an encounter with Bella?
 |
| Jed ambushs some Orientals |
“Red Dawn” (2012) has the same
basic premise and some familiar elements, but differs in many ways, including
tone. The causes of the war are even
more WTFish. Something about all
American forces being abroad putting out conflicts and this allows the North
Koreans (with their fourth largest army in the world) to swoop in. Their secret weapon is an electro-magnetic
pulse thingy. Who cares? Not 14 year old boys. The brothers are fleshed out a lot more. Jed (Chris Hemsworth) is a Marine on
leave. Matt (Josh Peck) is the starting
high school quarterback. They are at
odds with each other, naturally. Matt is
not a team player. Each is also given a
love interest. Matt’s is the head
cheerleader, surprise! All he cares
about is rescuing her and she isn’t even Megan Fox. The gang is more heterogeneous and the girls
are treated equally from the start. We
get a montage of training instead of
attacks. Five minutes of montage can
transform high schoolers into killing machines.
 |
| Wolverines + Special Forces |
The main villain is a Col.
Cho. He is your typical inscrutable
oriental villain. The kind you can’t
wait to see die in a nasty way. The
movie also throws in a Russian spetsnaz and a slimy collaborating teen. Don’t look forward to their cathartic
deaths. Instead of one downed airman,
this version drops in three crusty Special Forces types to teach and learn from
the Wolverines.
The big finale also involves an
assault on the headquarters, but with the purpose of acquiring a black box that
will change the course of the war. Or so
we are vaguely informed. There is a massive
expenditure of ammo and the grand entrance of a tank through the wall of the
headquarters. Hey, it could happen. There is a much cooler confrontation between Jed and Cho than between Jed and Strelnikov in the original.
How to compare the movies? 1984 has more explosions than 2012 (30-23)
which is surprising. 2012 has many more
crash-crazy car chases. 1984 drowns 2012
in tears. It is one of the weepiest
movies I have ever seen. Even after they
become tough warriors, they still bawl at the drop of a hat. And I’m not talking about the girls. There is a scene where Swayse and Sheen cry
as they see their father for the last time that is hilarious!
1984 has many more terrible acting
performances. You can argue that Swayse
and Sheen became good actors, but they certainly are not there yet. The movie is one of the most poorly acted
films I have ever seen. The dialogue
does not help. At one point one of the
gang actually says “Things are different now”.
You think? The acting in 2012 is
tolerable. Hemsworth dominates every
scene. He is charismatic. The rest of the cast does not stand out, but
does not embarrass itself (except Peck who is wooden). The dialogue has some groaners. They are told “you made a difference”. One of the special forces stoically states
“it’s a good day to die”. There’s the
usual “I’m not going to leave you” altruism and the “you fucked with the wrong
family” epithet for a villain. You also
get several talkie dysfunctional brothers’ dialogues. Kudos to 2012 for one unexpected death
similar to Samuel Jackson’s in “Deep Blue Sea”.
Cinematography goes to 2012 unless you get sick
watching hand-held, quick cutting, video gamesque camerawork. 1984 is fairly tame in that respect. It doesn’t even have the slo-mo the 1980s are
noted for. The score duel goes to 2012
also. It is revved up and surprisingly
does not have a slew of soundtrack worthy hits.
1984 is more cheesily backed.
As far as realism, why argue whether dog shit or cat
poop smells worse? With that said, no
plot could top North f***ing Korea invading the U.S. And you put clips of Obama to imply this
could happen in the near future! In for
a penny… Of course, as you might already
know, the original villains were the Chinese until the makers were contacted by
Walmart (I only made up the Walmart part).
Why couldn’t these high schoolers battle aliens or
zombies? Something that could actually
happen. By the way, how does a North
Korean fighter jet participate in a battle in America? Did it launch from one of those North Korean
aircraft carriers? 1984 also featured enemy jets, by the way.
In conclusion, “Red Dawn” (1984) was worse than I expected and “Red Dawn” (2012) was better. 2012 has some good action of the modern frenetic variety. The kind where you don’t have the foggiest idea who just got killed, but you’re pretty sure it should be everyone. It improves upon the original in almost every way and does not suffer from the common "what the hell is the purpose of this remake" conundrum. It’s just a shame it had to demonize those nice North Koreans. I hope it doesn’t piss them off to where they might invade us. The makers of the film will be held accountable if that happens. It is not wise to poke a chihuahua.
Red Dawn (1984) = D
Red Dawn (2012) = C+
The points you earned for war movie heaven by spending time in war movie hell made me laugh. The review is probably way better that the best elemnts pf both movies put together. Although... the 2012 version might be watchable when there is nothing else to see.
ReplyDeleteI am afraid there are going to be people very upset about my take on the 1984 version. It has a fanatical following.
ReplyDeleteIn the 1984 review you made two factual mistakes.
ReplyDeleteIt is Col Bella not Cella, and it was Lea Thompson not Emma Thompson.
Thanks. I fixed it.
ReplyDeleteThanks for doing the review. I remember enjoying the original Red Dawn when it came out, but I was the target age group. I can't force myself to watch it again, but I suspect that it would be pretty bad.
ReplyDeleteSince I did not see it when it came out (it shows that even then I was swayed by critics), I can only wonder if I would have liked it. I doubt it.
ReplyDeleteAt least the original had Ben Johnson and director John Milius made several references to The Searchers.
ReplyDeleteThe original is the original.. Of course it will almost always be better.. Since you had not seen it until recently.. makes this whole entry.. insignificant.. good bye :) oh and your mom said to leave the keys to the van by the door.
ReplyDeleteHilarious. Just like both movies.
DeleteStupid attempt to retroactively review a movie that's 30 years old and compare it to a contemporary remake.
ReplyDeleteReviewer is obviously a teenager.
Wrong.
DeleteLike most of the reboots of successful movies from the '80s, this one failed miserably. I understand your POV of the '84 version is influenced by your generation--you must be a Millenial or more likely a post-Millenial--so you have no connection to the influence this movie had over teens at a time when WWIII was a frightening possibility. This movie has to be one of the top ten must-sees from the '80s. Right up there with The Breakfast Club and 48 Hours. So, reviewer, stick to what you know: your IPhone, your PS4, and your Alexa.
ReplyDeleteWell, Mr. (or Ms.) Condescending, I was 28 when the first one came out and you can do the math to figure out that your theory of me being a clueless millenial is incorrect. I did not go into the cult status of the movie. You are correct that it is highly regarded by teenagers of the 1980's. They also loved movies like "Missing in Action". My review discusses the fact that the movie sucks as a war movie. Do you watch it now and still think it is a good movie? If so, I feel sorry for you. It's one thing to be nostalgic, it's another to be delusional.
DeleteThe original Red Dawn well the film itself surprised me, almost all the characters are dead and are forgotten. Even the villains have a compassionate moment, of course we have a typical Russian who only kills civilians, then comes another one who stops it because "when the fox eats your hen, you do not kill the pigs in revenge", we have the commander of Bella, a former communist partisan who the further it continues he has enough of it and in the end he just wants to go back to his wife. ”Even the very first murder of the Russian soldiers was accidental, they were exploring the area, taking pictures and accidentally stumbling upon the main characters.
ReplyDeleteRemake on the other hand ... it's completely gone sense of first movie. Koreans are bad because they are bad. The main characters are and are. There is no such impact as in the original, where virtually all heroes died, except for one that did not take part in the action.
In the case of the first movie as well, there is also an additional factor. Namely, that only 300 km from my home, a few months happened, and actually is still happening a similiar think like in the movie, with the sudden attack of Russians, including attacking a civilian buildings.
What the heck are you talking about in the last paragraph.
DeleteAbout it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_bombing_of_Lviv
DeleteI live 250-300 km from Lviv, where Russians bombing city.
Just watched both for the first time. For all the almost-comedic acting in the original, the makers sure seem to have done their homework when it comes to gear, equipment, and enemy vehicles. SFX seemed acceptable given the era, but I don't watch many '80s movies. As for the remake, I will definitely say it is easier to watch acting-wise. Despite that, it's the vehicles and CGI that throws me off. The cars and tanks just made it seem like they were fighting the USA, and IMO all the big fireballs would have better off as dust and smoke!
ReplyDeleteAll that being said, I honestly think we might be in the situation for a proper remake that is culturally relavent in 5-15 years with what looks like a quiet Cold War with China looming.
OMG I can't believe you are suggesting a remake. LOL Maybe the third will be a good movie.
DeleteWell, I doubt that today people would be opposed to present Russians as bad guys (and honestly as long as you was not under they shoes, it was never issue).
Delete