MovieChat Forums > Red Dawn (2012) Discussion > This movie's premise is absurd, but face...

This movie's premise is absurd, but face it: the original sucked too


The basic premise of the original was at least slightly more plausible (though the guy in another thread claiming the USSR could totally crush NATO in 1984 is waaayyy off); a small, bankrupt country like North Korea successfully invading and holding any part of the U.S. is risible.

But that's only at the level of basic premise. The original Red Dawn was also a piece of jingoistic schlock, and it's comical to see people treating it as some hallowed classic, like remaking it is akin to remaking Citizen Kane or something. Have you actually watched it as an adult? Let's take a look at what DVD Verdict said about the original flavour 1984 film:

As a kid, I remember holding this film in high regard, but as an adult, viewing it ten years later, Red Dawn is kind of stupid. Okay, extremely stupid. First of all, the film makes no sense, not even a lick. It has tank-sized plot holes in which tanks drive through and randomly explode.


--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

reply

[deleted]

Red Dawn (1984) was absolutely atrocious story-wise too. I know that both movies suck / are cheesefests, but the stories are so incoherent and ridiculous that it makes the movies even more laughable.

For example, in the first movie, suffering from food shortages, the Soviet Union is somehow able to invade the United States and keep up a reasonable offense / defense? It's not like there's a bunch of countries around the Soviet Union that they could have picked on at the time to get food, or even Western Europe (equally as ridiculous).

Secondly, Europe just surrenders? Doesn't that solve the whole issue? Why would you cross the ocean and maintain a war across the globe when countries right next to you would probably give you everything you want?

Anyways, Red Dawn (1984) is so amusing because it shows the absurd lionization of the Soviet Union by the US at the time. The Soviet's nukes were a huge problem, yeah, but the Soviet Union would have failed at even invading Western Europe.

Red Dawn (2012) is idiotic and unnecessary. Nobody thinks North Korea is a serious invasive threat, not even South Korea. The whole premise of this movie, by changing the enemies to North Korean (one of the most spineless moves in Hollywood I've seen), becomes even more of a joke. Even if the enemies were kept Chinese, this movie is still a joke - China hasn't invaded anybody or even fought a war for decades.

reply

I agree with you about 99 percent of that. I'm not sure the Soviets, with all their tank divisions, would have necessarily failed at invading Western Europe.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

reply

No. The original is good. Period.

This movie is trash, period.



I do love the nuclear philosophies in this thread, however. Right on the mark.

reply

I don't think it was so much a 'classic' just that there was no way a remake could do anything that wasn't done in the first one, and it could only be worse (which is was). It was a waste of time and money to most anyone that saw the first, and really, really wouldn't work nowadays.

The first one's premise was indeed silly, but the execution of the idea was done well. Definitely some good casting. Hell, even the snot bubble was great. ^_^

But I get why people didn't like it either.

reply

Old post, but in the trivia section for the original Red Dawn it says this:

"The plot, a Soviet/Cuban invasion from Mexico, was based on CIA and War College studies of US weaknesses at the time."

So it was somewhat based on things that might of happened in the current environment in the original Red Dawn movie. Obviously there were plot holes, but come on, in today's world we watch robots fighting it out and super heroes fighting aliens from a different dimension.

reply