Red Dawn (2012) User Reviews

Boring remake

[Vartiainen · 4/10 · 25 September 2016]

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.

A parody at best

[brunogronow-1 · 4/10 · 20 February 2013]

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.

" North Korea ? It Doesn't Make Sense " - You're Not Wrong

[Theo Robertson · 4/10 · 19 June 2013]

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

The acting... is painfully bad

[JabezGill · 2/10 · 28 February 2020]

And I'm mostly talking about Josh Peck... if a better actor had played his role I think the movie could have been saved.

Hemsworth was solid as usual, Josh Hutcherson wasn't bad, Friday Night Lights girls was good...although she was overly dramatic towards the end... and Isabel Lucas was a total smoke show like she usually is.

But Peck made every scene he was in seem like a horrible high school play or a really bad acting class where the students are trying to "out drama" one another.

Also, the ending of this movie was stupid as heck. At least the original movie gave us some closure and let us know the outcome of the resistance and the war.

Uninspiring, poorly made film - with poor casting

[retrodyne · 21 February 2013]

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.

Decent - once you overlook some things

[krispy8 · 7/10 · 5 March 2013]

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!

waste of time

[sanookdee · 1/10 · 7 January 2013]

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.

Worth Seeing As Long As U Remember Why It Was Made...

[poopiter · 6/10 · 3 December 2012]

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.

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

[moviexclusive · 2/10 · 19 November 2012]

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.

North korea was ment to be China.

[nathanolando · 6/10 · 28 July 2021]

If you're thinking, hey wait a minute, how can the country with some of the worlds most malnorished troops, where middle class couples rent food for wedding photos, invade the us.

It's because the director couldn't use china, which was the invading country in the source material, which makes infinitely more sense, little bit ironic. Considering the premise of the movie.

XD.

Josh pecks acting sucks

[chezisaac · 3/10 · 13 May 2022]

His character was so annoying, and his acting straight up sucks. This movie could have been better, without him in it.

Just by looking at him is annoying.

Great Popcorn Movie... how come people didn't get it?

[paul-2369 · 10/10 · 20 February 2013]

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

Not as memorable as the original, but fun (possible spoilers)

[follis12 · 6/10 · 26 November 2012]

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.

It's God Awful

[dbupte-537-27342 · 1/10 · 23 November 2012]

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.

"Red Dawn" is a cheap sucker-punch to our time and money

[thefilmdiscussion · 2/10 · 27 November 2012]

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.

An enjoyable popcorn flick. Why all the hate?

[spmact · 7/10 · 21 March 2013]

I don't know why there is so much hate for this movie. It's not nearly as bad as people are making it out to be. I watched this shortly after watching the 80s version, and I have to say that I enjoyed the new version much more.

This one was more briskly paced, even though the invasion starts later. They did a good job of keeping the story moving forward without getting boring at times like the original tended to be. Having said that, there is still enough character development to get to relate to the teens and what they're going through - though the original version did a better job at relaying the struggles and fears of the main characters. There is also a good balance between action and dialogue, with a few humorous scenes and also some nods to the original in the form of similar scenes done in different ways.

All in all it was an enjoyable film for what it is, and even though it had its far fetched moments, like the teens jumping down 20 foot heights more than once and just walking away from it, or the fact that the North Korean army could stage an invasion of the US (the original Chinese army version was more plausible), they didn't detract too much from the film. I would say give it a shot if you don't have unrealistic expectations given what kind of film it is, and you may be pleasantly surprised. I grew up in the 80s and think some classic films from that era should never be remade, but this one was an actual improvement over the original and I don't think it deserves all the hate it's getting.

2 hour long Rolling Rock commercial

[badzed311 · 1/10 · 24 November 2012]

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.

The Chaos theory plays out in Spokane.

[gaelicguy · 6/10 · 13 November 2012]

One of the basic tenets of the chaos theory is that events are deterministic, suggesting that, given initial conditions, events are not susceptible to randomness. However, it is this precise determinism that, paradoxically, does NOT make them predictable at all, but vulnerable to… chaos. This is the key premise to director Dan Bradley's "Red Dawn."

Chris Hemsworth, (Jed Eckert) a US Marine, has recently returned to his native Spokane, after a six year tour of duty in Iraq. His father, Tom Eckert (Brett Cullen) is the city's chief of police. Chris's younger brother, Matt, (Josh Peck) looks up to his older brother, whom he thinks heroic. The brothers, along with Danny (Edwin Hodge), Matt's best friend, Robert (Josh Hutcherson), tech guru extraordinaries and Daryl (Connor Cruise) Robert's best friend and the mayor's son, are a close cadre and live and enjoy a relatively typical and happy existence in their small corner of the city. Matt has a girlfriend, Erica (Isabel Lucas) and then there's the 'no nonsense' Toni (Adrianne Palicki) who has eyes for Chris.

One quiet morning, the city is besieged by air and on land, by a group of North Korean militia and Chris and company finds themselves prisoners under enemy occupation. Chris determined to fight back at all costs, because as he says, the fight is on their home turf and, "When you're fighting for your family, it all hurts a little less and makes a little more sense" takes full command. The group galvanizes and the games begin.

"Red Dawn" is an updated version of 1984 cult classic, which several teen icons of the 1980s. Of course, these were the waning days of Soviet Russia, but what with President Ronald Reagan calling the Soviet Union, an "evil empire," the plot, in its day had great resonance. Dan Bradley, making his directorial debut, has selected material that suits him. His years of experience as stunt coordinator, serve him very well. As action films go, this is a perfectly adequate film, with impressive special effects, and all of the attendant trappings of the genre – tanks, AKA 47's and all manner of weapons, but for the faint of heart, take note. The film contains several protracted scenes that are very violent, some a bit gratuitous and ear plugs might come in handy, as well. The film, in Dolby 88, may have some scurrying for aspirin - the action scenes are exceedingly loud. However, the cast deliver uniformly good performances, and, as is so often the case, there are the usual twists and turns and a few surprises.

The film's fundamental concept would have made for an excellent political thriller. However, Bradley says that, in comparison to its 1984 counterpart, the 2012 version of "Red Dawn," the invasion seemed "an apt metaphor" for the unease Americans feel about the world today and opines that, "Americans just don't feel as secure as they once were." Perhaps, without having heard of it, Americans are, increasingly, subscribing to the afore-mentioned chaos theory.

Thoroughly disappointed

[adamsbrian88 · 1/10 · 27 December 2012]

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.

Great Movie

[shonufftx22 · 7/10 · 21 November 2012]

I do not know why the other reviewers are being so harsh. I like the original as well, but this one deserved a remake. Bring it more modern and make it more appealing to the younger crowd. I thought the movie was well shot and acted. The action sequences and fight scenes were far better than the original. The drama more though out and acted. With the exception of Peck (who really wasn't that bad), he just seemed forced. They stuck close enough to the original to call it a remake, but they took a different direction on the story to provide a objective. Very well done. 8/10. Seems like everyone is just hating on the remakes for the sake of hating on a remake.

Easily worst movie we've ever seen

[jamesgarvin · 1/10 · 22 November 2012]

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.

A lot better than I thought it would be!

[kshea240 · 8/10 · 4 December 2012]

Because this movie was a remake everyone already hated it without even giving it a chance. I understand the North Koreans would have a tough time invading the U.S. it was originally written as China but had to change it. This Red Dawn was way more believable in the sense that a group of kids could be trained by a Marine to fight guerrilla warfare instead of an average Jed (Patrick Swayze). I also liked how they differed from the original and didn't follow it to a T. One thing i did not appreciate was how Jed died instantly. Should of went out with a bang. This movie was only one hour and thirty minutes. I would of liked it to be longer to develop characters and their relationships, maybe explain more about the takeover etc. The action was well done. Actors also good. Very entertaining movie. I would hope for a sequel. This movie was screwed from all these haters who complain about everything instead of enjoying a good movie. Overall well worth the $10 ticket.

Good movie but doesn't live up to the original

[casmartone · 6/10 · 13 October 2012]

OK, this is kind of a reboot so I understood it wasn't going to be the completely same story line. That being said they did follow a similar premise but it just seemed kind of forced. The plausibility of the first movie was oddly enough more realistic with no explanation of the situation other than a montage during the opening title sequence. Some great action scenes but some of it just didn't solidify into a cohesive story. I had some time overcoming Josh from Nick's "Josh and Drake" fame being a action hero. Chris "Thor" Helmsworth plays the troubled Marine but doesn't bring the emotion of Patrick's original portrayal. Overall it just seemed rushed compared to the original. If it had another name and just a few changes it would probably have been more favorable in my mind as a different movie altogether. See it but may just wait until DVD.

if i could give minus 10 stars- i would!

[finnfinnvard · 1/10 · 6 April 2018]

It seriously is SO BAD, that you actually have to see it to believe it. What ever you judged bad before- will appear brilliant compared to this crap here!

Red Dawn: You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll kiss you 10 bucks goodbye!

[industraworks · 3/10 · 24 November 2012]

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.