Reviews & Ratings for
Red Dawn More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 35:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

345 reviews in total

---

111 out of 163 people found the following review useful:
It obviously touched a nerve, 29 September 2005

Author: doveshooter from Tuscaloosa, Ala.

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Reading previous commentary, I'm amused by the violent reaction this movie still elicits. The ranting of previous reviewers indicates the movie touched a nerve. I have seen really, really bad movies and Red Dawn is certainly not as bad as the ratings it has received here.

As is so often the case, many previous reviewers are criticizing the film because its premise conflicts with their political philosophy. I wonder how they would have rated this film had the characters been teen-aged members of an all-black football team who become partisans fighting bigoted southern whites in a 1960s civil war that never occurred. Would they be so harsh if the movie were about a group of teenage Jewish soccer team members fighting the Nazis in World War II? they might not have rated it nine or 10 stars but I'd bet they would have given it more than one star. Given the current political climate, they might even receive it more warmly if the characters were Iraqi teenagers fighting Americans.

I understand the temptation to judge movies based on your own preferences rather than the movie's own merits. I recently watched Easy Rider for the first time and absolutely could have kicked myself for wasting the two hours or so it took the silly drivel to play out. Were I to rate it strictly on the way I felt about the movie -- the silly situations at the commune where 50 hippies are supposed to live all winter on about a half acre of wheat, about enough to produce a loaf of bread, the laborious acid dropping scene, the cartoonishly villainous red necks, the lame acting (other than Nicholson) -- I guess I'd have to give it about a one-star rating. But it was a beautifully filmed movie and it obviously spoke to people at that time. So a more valid assessment from my perspective would be that it's an anachronism that seems a bit silly today but obviously had merit in context.

I believe Red Dawn touched something in young people of the mid-80s in the same way Easy Rider touched young people in the late 60s. Sift through the silliness of both movies and you find something people were looking for. Prior to this movie, young people were told that if World War III came, they would either be swallowed by an irresistible communist onslaught or fried in a matter of seconds by a nuclear explosion. Red Dawn said to them, "If the time comes, you will not be helpless. You will fight back and win." It was an entirely unique message at the time and one people were longing to hear. In fact, The United States was already fighting back and won it's greatest victory over its most formidable foe without direct armed conflict and bloodshed because of visionary and resolute political leadership.

From the time of its release until today, Red Dawn has been roundly criticized for the implausibility of the plot. It's quite true that the communist bloc was not capable of a successful invasion of the United States in 1984. But for those who failed to grasp this, Red Dawn was not a documentary. The prologue establishes the circumstances under which the invasion occurred and the action that proceeds from that premise is possible. Would communist troops shoot up a school? Their battle record indicates that if they saw it as or mistook it for a tactical objective, they most certainly would. Would they shoot civilians? Is there anybody out there so ignorant to suggest they wouldn't?

Good Points about Red Dawn: *The action sequences are well done and look realistic. For instance, there's a scene where a plane drops a bomb. You see the fireball first and then hear the sounds. That's a nice, realistic touch. *The actors handle their weapons properly *Beautiful photography *There's some good chemistry between some of the actors *The outcome is typical of what happens in partisan fighting. Partisans typically enjoy initial success because of surprise and knowledge of the terrain. But they usually eventually succumb to better-trained, better-equipped troops *I liked the musical score

Bad points about Red Dawn: *The communists are a tad too stupid for too long *The use of horses is a stretch. *Some of the teenage high-fiving and exuberance will make you groan *Some (but not all) of the dialog and acting is awfully stiff

In short, it's an action picture that will entertain people who like action pictures. It has a unique plot line that has now become an anachronism. At it takes a jab at one of Hollywood's scared cows, communism which is refreshing. Nobody should be ashamed of making it, acting in it or enjoying watching it.

Politically, the real question is not why Hollywood made a film like Red Dawn. It is rather, why did 50 years of totalitarian communist oppression spawn so few films critical of communism? Why are there seemingly scores of movies about McCarthyism and none about the Soviet gulag system? Schindler's List shows that Hollywood can make an incredible film, a film so compelling you can't take your eyes off of it, about something so horrible you can hardly bear to think about it. Stalin's body count exceeds Hitler's yet there is no Schindler's List for the Gulag. And that is something to be ashamed of.

---

57 out of 83 people found the following review useful:
Wayne missed the point., 29 September 2004
Author: mjwalser from Washington DC

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Previous commenter Wayne missed the point... "Red Dawn" does not glorify violence and war. Far from it... the movie tries to show just how gruesome and de-humanizing an extended conflict like this can be. The occupying Soviet and Cuban/Nicaraguan soldiers are not portrayed as monsters. In fact, there are many moments when they are shown for exactly what they are... often young and frequently scared soldiers, doing the job they have been told to do. There are certain individual characters that are shown as ruthless killers, but they are generally the exception. The movie is less an action film, and more a cautionary tale of taking things too far and going over a precipice from which it is not easy to return. Neitzsche said "Those that do battle with monsters should take care, lest monsters they become." The Wolverines start out as a band of scared kids running for their lives, and grow into guerilla fighters forced to fight for their freedom. Eventually, they take it too far, and start to lose their emotional connection to what they are doing. It's hard to say more without giving away some key points of the ending sequences, but suffice to say that the kids come perilously close to fulfilling Neitzsche's warning. Those that take this movie simply at face value will lose a lot of the potential impact, and will likely miss the messages contained therein.

---

91 out of 151 people found the following review useful:
It's Only A Movie..., 10 May 2002
Author: dijgriffin from USA

I saw this movie when I was in college in Colorado Springs, Colorado when it came out in 1984. Many people dismiss this movie at best as either a teen fantasy or at worse as a right-wing maniac's delusional vision of the future. Yes, it is a teen movie, but there's a bit more to it than that. I'm basically writing this for those of you who either weren't born or too young to remember those days. I grew up in the aftermath of the Vietnam War. Anything mildly patriotic was regarded in bad taste. So when John Millius and his friends decided to make this patriotic teen movie about resistance fighters fighting invaders from the Evil Empire, he was just tapping into the frustration that many people (including myself) felt at that time. The scene I remember most vividly is the one when Patrick Swazye shoots the young Russian political officer in the Chevy Blazer. The audience consisted mostly of guys from nearby Fort Collins and Peterson AFB, and they gave this scene a standing ovation. In this post 11 September world, it's hard to imagine a time when, during the Cold War, flying the flag or loving your native land made many people think you were either a Nazi or a member of the John Birch Society. Now this film isn't "Seven Days in May" or "Fail-Safe." It's just a movie that was made at a time after we had lost a war and many in the world regarded the USA as a paper tiger. That's all.

---

59 out of 96 people found the following review useful:
Great Flick, 2 May 2006

Author: Akos5372 from United States

Being a Russian American I found myself switching allegiances during this movie. I must say I loved this flick. I've always been fascinated with the cold war, and the what if scenarios. If you can relate, then this movie is a must see. I thought this movie showed a very strong human side to the realities of a partisan's life, and I believe it was fair. It wasn't an American Rambo, where one man takes down a whole Soviet battalion. No it was a powerful story of what people must conform to in order to deal with the outcome of invasion of ones motherland, and how people, the ordinary person deals with this reality and how they're transformed by it. The United States has never been invaded, and I found this film to be a great prediction of how if an invasion ever took place the American people would fight to the bitter end if they had to. In a way these partisans reminded me of the Soviet partisans of WW2, and how they fought on. This is a great movie which is not overdone, but is very realistic, and fair. The acting is not brilliant, but is good, and the whole movie works. I absolutely loved it!

---

60 out of 98 people found the following review useful:
Wolverines!, 15 August 2002
Author: Mr Parker (spookyscribe@yahoo.com) from New York City

Someone else before me wrote that a lot of people don't understand how believable this movie was in it's day. I have to agree with the author. I remember this movie as being pretty scary and pretty violent. I haven't seen it in a while but there's a lot of scenes that haunt me. One in particular is when several of the kids look for their parents at a concentration camp. Harry Dean Stanton gives a powerful performance that serves to show that he's a genuine actor. That scene is heartbreaking, as well as a scene that follows with Patrick Swayze breaking down in the snow covered woods. C. Thomas Howell vs. the helicopter. The ritual of the deer blood. Powers Boothe. The final battle and resolution. Yeah, it's a little much and these days, it wouldn't exactly fly but dammit Jim, I dug it at the time and I still do. I think everyone should see it, just so you can either remember or learn what it was like to live in a time when the general thinking was a little paranoid. I think the movie manages to capture at least that, being what it is, a paranoid fantasy of someone who probably has a huge gun collection in his concrete reinforced cellar. Rating: *** out of *****.

---

49 out of 84 people found the following review useful:
Sums up US feelings, 22 January 2003
Author: Jason Raffile from Boston

Man o man. This movie is great. As a history student its awesome to look back on these types of things and see what the buzz was around the time of the movie's release. The plot is insane, acting over-the-top, but the historical commentary is amazing. People actually believed that such a thing as this was possible in the mid-80s, pre-Gorbachev. This is not "low-level propaganda," its the most obvious pro-American movie I have EVER seen.

On the movie alone, the "film" shouldn't even rate. But as a Cold-War barometer, every interested person should see this to peer into the height of US-Soviet tensions.

---

63 out of 112 people found the following review useful:
Misunderstood? What's to misunderstand?, 24 January 2006

Author: Gungrave from United Kingdom

Well, I cant honestly say this movie evoked any sort of political argument or emotive response from myself, unlike a lot of some of the reviewers on here (in fact a few seem to have taken the film or its reviews as a personal affront!). The film was an entertaining, nostalgic and highly commercial action movie from a time past.....and on a base level I just plain enjoyed it. It made me smile! The trailer reminded me of a video game called Freedom Fighters (set in New York, you play the part of a plumber leading a resistance force against a Russian invasion) which I had enjoyed too, i liked the premise, so my flatmates and I (2 English, 1 Irish and 1 American) sat through the movie last night. Once the giggles from the girls had subsided (yes Swayze and Sheen look like babies and have not aged too well!) the opening parachute invasion got quite a buzz. Handled clumsily and probably with an extremely limited budget it took a good 20 minutes for the B-movie ethic to settle in, but once over that the premise really started to work, and you could actually begin to empathise with the kids in their situation. The story became a bit strung out in places, the action was cardboardy and basic and the acting was...well....not there really, but I don't think that was down to a lack of talent. But it hung together, and we all enjoyed it. Where peoples readings of political messages come from I have no idea. I understand that America has it's extremists who hide in the mountains, stash mountains of weapons and food for just such an event, but the movie certainly doesn't satirise them. The joke in the film of the NRA bumper sticker and the dead guys "cold, dead hand" falls flat if it was intended as a purposeful message and therefore seems more to be an attempt at acknowledging the certain irony of such events in the states. The rhetoric of the kids in their internal arguments is hollow and situational, not political, and just about manage to hold some water. The movie is and was just a great "what if.....?" and an amusing 80's Hollywood schtick action movie, no more, no less. If a backstory of a continued Cold War was introduced I can well see this being ripe for a remake, and perhaps then you can apply your knee-jerk reactionary theories to it with more basis then...who know?

---

24 out of 36 people found the following review useful:
Ditto that !, 13 July 2006
Author: Southern Boy from United States

'Far Off Gone' is right on with that summary.

As a teen when this movie came out, us kids had grown up with Cold War news every night on TV. All these ICBMs being made, the 'Star Wars' defense initiative (SDI), even movies like 'War Games' contributed to a overall climate of concern about Russian/USA relations.

Then this movie hit theaters and us teens and younger adults felt we weren't so powerless after all. I can only speak for myself, but the opening scene was very sobering to a 18 year old kid who could relate to the dumbfounded kids in the classroom watching Soviet paratroopers hitting the schoolyard. I guess its one of those things where you had to be at the age and grown up in that era to really understand how the movie was received for its time.

The cast is chock full of stars in their younger years, and acting isn't bad either. Great movie and certainly worth watching at least once.

---

21 out of 32 people found the following review useful:
Just because it's propaganda, doesn't mean it's bad, 15 December 2003
Author: aah35 from Bahrain

Anyone who has seen Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph Des Willens" (Triumph of the Will), the documentary about the Nuremburg Rallies, understands that even the vilest propaganda can attain the status of great art. Without a doubt, Nazism was a force to be despised and resisted, yet "Triumph" remains a fascinating, even great film.

That said, I will not put "Red Dawn" on the same plane as Riefenstahl's work. It is neither as good a film nor as vile propaganda. But it does underscore a point I see running through many of the criticisms of "Red Dawn" that have been posted here. Many of the movie's detractors reject the film out of hand because of its undeniably conservative overtones. This, I believe, is lazy criticism. The movie has an excellent pedigree. I suggest you search on ImDb under John Milius' name to see what other films he has been involved in. Some of his more notable accomplishments include the screenplays of "Jeremiah Johnson" and co-authoring "Apocalypse Now", as well as the notably UNconservative adaptation of "Clear and Present Danger". Basil Poledouris' score is fantastic, with its Copland-esque homages. The touches of authenticity in the film are also admirable, including the indoctrination camp (see the recently published "Gulag" or Koestler's "Darkness at Noon")and "Radio Free America" scenes, not to mention the efforts the filmmakers went to to make the military hardware look Russian (as opposed to Russians flying American aircraft in dismal movies like "Iron Eagle II" and "Rambo"). Yes, Red Dawn is propaganda, but just because it may be, from your perspective, the wrong kind of propaganda, you are not justified in invalidating the whole enterprise. It is slick, well-made, and memorable.

---

30 out of 52 people found the following review useful:
Curiosity value only, 24 January 2005

Author: Steve Brook (sjbrook1@bigpond.com) from Melbourne, Australia

I spent eight years of the Cold War in a central European "socialist" country, from 1966 to 1974. So I was exposed to a lot of film and TV propaganda. But I have to say that nothing I saw there could come anywhere near "Red Dawn" for improbability, crudeness or sheer knuckle-dragging dopiness. Maybe I see it this way because I am Australian, and therefore many things American have for me a bouquet of strangeness -- to mention only what seems an exaggerated idea of patriotism; not many Australians get misty-eyed at the sight of their national flag. Be that as it may, yes, the Soviet empire deserved to collapse, as eventually it did. But primitive movies like "Red Dawn" had nothing to do with it. Today, it has only curiosity value.

---

---

Page 1 of 35:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Amazon.com summary
Ratings	Awards	External reviews
Parents Guide	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user reviews	Your vote history