466 reviews
You can either sit there and pick plot holes in this or just enjoy the ride, I did the latter. Had never heard of this until recently, when I saw a synopsis, and thought it would be my kind of thing. As someone who grew up, during the cold War, it was a time where you never knew what could happen, so those that find this far fetched couldn't have been living at the time, anything was possible back then (is it much different now?).
The film is decently acted, and you're dropped into the action within minutes, there's very few places where the film drags.
I bought the blu ray to see it, and as an aside, if you can get it cheap fine, but don't pay over the odds as it's one of the worst blu rays picture quality wise in my collection.
Definitely worth seeing once and making your own mind up about it.
The film is decently acted, and you're dropped into the action within minutes, there's very few places where the film drags.
I bought the blu ray to see it, and as an aside, if you can get it cheap fine, but don't pay over the odds as it's one of the worst blu rays picture quality wise in my collection.
Definitely worth seeing once and making your own mind up about it.
- rocknrelics
- Jul 30, 2020
- Permalink
- doveshooter
- Sep 28, 2005
- Permalink
It's no masterpiece, but reading some of the reviews here...you'd think it was an affront to humanity and that some people has been personally harmed by its existence.
It's an action movie, folks. Don't get your communist panties in a twist. Just kick back, enjoy it and get off your soapbox.
It's an action movie, folks. Don't get your communist panties in a twist. Just kick back, enjoy it and get off your soapbox.
- Kharnivore2099
- May 10, 2019
- Permalink
I saw this movie as a teenage not long after it was released on video for the first (and not the last!) time. I watched a large part of it tonight on TBS, and while watching, I tried to recall my initial thoughts when I saw it as a youth.
I do remember liking it as a teenager, though I also remember that I did find the premise a bit hard to swallow. (America placed in such a vulnerable position and without any real allies? And being overrun so quickly?) Still, there WAS still a threat of some kind between the two superpowers. Seeing people my age forced to flee, and then fight back for their freedom was something I'd never seen before - usually teenagers were characters in sex comedies. I suppose that's why this movie stuck so much in my mind, and I'd imagine myself in such a situation, fighting and killing those damned bloodthirsty commies!
Seeing the movie again was very interesting. The action scenes are still good, the movie travels at a swift pace, the cinematography is impressive. I also saw signs that writer/director Milius, though right-wing in real life, wasn't taking everything seriously here. Witness the scene where a tank pulls up to a small gas station and we hear "ding-ding!"
While watching, though, I was struck by my change of viewing, due to the end of the cold war. Did I really feel any kind of fear or threat? Of course, times are different now. But still...quite interesting to see how different your feelings are fifteen years later.
It makes you wonder: In 15 years, how will we react to the politics of action movies in the late 90s, with our enemies now being Arab terrorist. Could we be thinking differently in 2014? Quite possible.
I do remember liking it as a teenager, though I also remember that I did find the premise a bit hard to swallow. (America placed in such a vulnerable position and without any real allies? And being overrun so quickly?) Still, there WAS still a threat of some kind between the two superpowers. Seeing people my age forced to flee, and then fight back for their freedom was something I'd never seen before - usually teenagers were characters in sex comedies. I suppose that's why this movie stuck so much in my mind, and I'd imagine myself in such a situation, fighting and killing those damned bloodthirsty commies!
Seeing the movie again was very interesting. The action scenes are still good, the movie travels at a swift pace, the cinematography is impressive. I also saw signs that writer/director Milius, though right-wing in real life, wasn't taking everything seriously here. Witness the scene where a tank pulls up to a small gas station and we hear "ding-ding!"
While watching, though, I was struck by my change of viewing, due to the end of the cold war. Did I really feel any kind of fear or threat? Of course, times are different now. But still...quite interesting to see how different your feelings are fifteen years later.
It makes you wonder: In 15 years, how will we react to the politics of action movies in the late 90s, with our enemies now being Arab terrorist. Could we be thinking differently in 2014? Quite possible.
The problem with people/critics now days, is they take themselves way too serious. Just grab some popcorn and relax! And yes, those of us that grew up during the cold war sometimes took our patriotism to the limit even with good old fashioned corny action flics.
- brianehill
- Mar 22, 2020
- Permalink
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?
"Red Dawn" (from 1984) is a solid entry in the war movie genre. It's a genre I'm not a big fan of, but one which can provide a needed break of mindless action in between all those talkative dramas and rom coms out there. It's well made and offers a plausible fictional scenario for the action. Good scenery abounds as well. I thought that it was well acted and had emotion and depth, not becoming too shallow or hokey, though the dialogue is sparse. It's not earth shattering though, as war is war, and there are only so many ways to tell that story. But I would recommend this film if you are looking for something of this persuasion. I do not see this as a political piece or propaganda for any side at all. I see it as a film about humans and what they sometimes do. My rating 7/10.
- ThomasColquith
- Nov 26, 2021
- Permalink
- markymark70
- Jan 15, 2009
- Permalink
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!
Somebody called this "possibly the worst film of all time" which is ridiculous. I've seen Red Dawn numerous times & although the film is very flawed, it's just asinine to think this might even 'possibly' be the 'worst film of all time'. By contemporary standards it's pure fargin' ART compared to say, Fantastic 4. In it's own time...how 'bout Dirty Dancing? But, "OF ALL TIME"!?!?! You can't just throw a statement like that around when there's garbage like Day of the Dead 2: Contagium out there. Red Dawn at least has a certain amount of entertainment value in it's well executed vicariously cathartic vengeance theme (suckers me in every time)....AND you can laugh at all the little goofs like Colonel Bella expressing his previous allegiance to insurgents in such countries as "ANGOLIA", or the main premise of a modern day ground attack on this country...until you start thinking about how many of our troops are currently really far away....hmmm....
Plus, this is a definitive 80's flick (like Weird Science or ET)...and Patrick Cheeezy, C. Thomas Howell, Lea Thompson & Powers Boothe provide memorable presences....if not performances.
Although director John Milius appears to have rested on his dubious laurels through much of the production, I still feel that this film, over time, has achieved iconic placement in the grand scheme of things. It belongs in the time capsule, faults and all.
WOLVERINES!
Plus, this is a definitive 80's flick (like Weird Science or ET)...and Patrick Cheeezy, C. Thomas Howell, Lea Thompson & Powers Boothe provide memorable presences....if not performances.
Although director John Milius appears to have rested on his dubious laurels through much of the production, I still feel that this film, over time, has achieved iconic placement in the grand scheme of things. It belongs in the time capsule, faults and all.
WOLVERINES!
- anangrygerbil
- Mar 26, 2008
- Permalink
When this movie came out, critics slammed it for the "silliness of its alarmist concept." But now...people see that it is not. As of the date I write this, Russia is invading Ukraine, and many are calling the invasion "a real life Red Dawn."
This movie is a lot better, and a bit more haunting and inspiring, than the critics say. The cast, the effects, the script, the camera work, the sets, the props...everything about this film is professional, to the point, and well made. This movie makes us ask the bitter question, "What if this happened in my town? What would I do?" In all honesty, I'm afraid that most people's answers would be, "I'd give in. I'd surrender. I'd obey my new rulers."
Next time you see or hear something about Red Dawn's "alarmist concept," think of Ukraine. Think of all its civilians are going through. And then you'll realize that this movie is, in reality, a warning of how our futures - talking to everyone here - could go if we're not careful and prepared.
This movie is a lot better, and a bit more haunting and inspiring, than the critics say. The cast, the effects, the script, the camera work, the sets, the props...everything about this film is professional, to the point, and well made. This movie makes us ask the bitter question, "What if this happened in my town? What would I do?" In all honesty, I'm afraid that most people's answers would be, "I'd give in. I'd surrender. I'd obey my new rulers."
Next time you see or hear something about Red Dawn's "alarmist concept," think of Ukraine. Think of all its civilians are going through. And then you'll realize that this movie is, in reality, a warning of how our futures - talking to everyone here - could go if we're not careful and prepared.
- sjwestbrooks
- Mar 4, 2022
- Permalink
Political paranoia time. This obviously very memorable 80s product of the Cold War puts forth a chilling "what if" scenario. In this case, the Cold War has a different outcome, and legions of Russians, Nicaraguans, and Cubans aggressively invade the U.S. of A. However, a small band of high school students in Colorado are able to head for the hills. While they are in seclusion, they begin to use whatever supplies and weapons they've acquired, and rise up righteous to kick tons of evil Commie ass.
If you can lay aside your personal political beliefs, this does function as an interesting, sometimes believable action thriller that forces people to answer a serious question. If your own country were invaded like this, would YOU be able to rise to the challenge? It's because the premise touches people in that way that makes it a compelling enough entertainment. Obviously, the war and violence here are not glorified, but are treated as something unavoidable. Our band of heroes do have quite a bit of success, but they're also not infallible, and aren't experienced soldiers despite whatever training they might have had.
Many of the bad guys are pretty one dimensional, but not all of them. One of the most intriguing characters is a Cuban colonel (Ron "Superfly" O'Neal) who has his doubts about the whole conflict, and who yearns to be back home with his beloved.
Action scenes and stunts are well executed by Terry Leonard, and the movie does manage to have some fairly punchy gore despite a PG-13 rating. At its best, "Red Dawn" is vivid, disconcerting, and rousing, perfectly punctuated by Basil Poledouris' soaring score.
The kids are played by Patrick Swayze, Charlie Sheen, Lea Thompson, C. Thomas Howell, Jennifer Grey, and others, and they do alright, but the older generation is particularly strong: Ben Johnson, Lane Smith, Harry Dean Stanton, Frank McRae, Roy Jenson, etc. "Red Dawn" does hit its stride upon the introduction of the Powers Boothe character, and then the top dog villain played by the eternally bad ass William Smith (who speaks fluent Russian).
"Red Dawn" is the kind of film that can engender purely personal responses. Still, it's undeniable that it truly does hit a nerve. It would make a fine double feature with "Invasion U.S.A.", a Chuck Norris vehicle from the following year.
Directed by John Milius, who also receives screenplay credit with Kevin Reynolds.
Seven out of 10.
If you can lay aside your personal political beliefs, this does function as an interesting, sometimes believable action thriller that forces people to answer a serious question. If your own country were invaded like this, would YOU be able to rise to the challenge? It's because the premise touches people in that way that makes it a compelling enough entertainment. Obviously, the war and violence here are not glorified, but are treated as something unavoidable. Our band of heroes do have quite a bit of success, but they're also not infallible, and aren't experienced soldiers despite whatever training they might have had.
Many of the bad guys are pretty one dimensional, but not all of them. One of the most intriguing characters is a Cuban colonel (Ron "Superfly" O'Neal) who has his doubts about the whole conflict, and who yearns to be back home with his beloved.
Action scenes and stunts are well executed by Terry Leonard, and the movie does manage to have some fairly punchy gore despite a PG-13 rating. At its best, "Red Dawn" is vivid, disconcerting, and rousing, perfectly punctuated by Basil Poledouris' soaring score.
The kids are played by Patrick Swayze, Charlie Sheen, Lea Thompson, C. Thomas Howell, Jennifer Grey, and others, and they do alright, but the older generation is particularly strong: Ben Johnson, Lane Smith, Harry Dean Stanton, Frank McRae, Roy Jenson, etc. "Red Dawn" does hit its stride upon the introduction of the Powers Boothe character, and then the top dog villain played by the eternally bad ass William Smith (who speaks fluent Russian).
"Red Dawn" is the kind of film that can engender purely personal responses. Still, it's undeniable that it truly does hit a nerve. It would make a fine double feature with "Invasion U.S.A.", a Chuck Norris vehicle from the following year.
Directed by John Milius, who also receives screenplay credit with Kevin Reynolds.
Seven out of 10.
- Hey_Sweden
- May 21, 2017
- Permalink
i am appauled that this move is rated so very very high. This movie seems like it never ends. I and friends rented this as a joke movie to be made fun of...but it was just awful. At the beginning we laughed well enough but as the movie wore on we grew tired and the last hour and thirty minutes was sheer hell. it was just boring and bad and stupid...based on this movie the gross incompetence of the Soviet forces leads me to believe that there was no training for Soviet soldiers. ITs really quite ludicrous and bad and only worth renting/buying if you wish to be ripped off and have time wasted.
- plaid ideals
- Dec 3, 2001
- Permalink
*********************Spoiler Alert************************
Much of the technical criticism mentioned by others of "Red Dawn" is justified. The notion that a group of untrained teenagers could take on even a poorly motivated army like Cuba's or the now-extinct Soviet Union's is not credible. The best part of the movie is watching the teenagers struggle with the morality of guerrilla warfare. I give it a 6 out of 10.
But "Red Dawn" is well worth watching for one reason. It represents one of the last movies Hollywood put out that did not look like a joint venture between the Democrat National Committee and Code Pink.
Even in 1984 the "blockbuster" mentality was already changing the face of Hollywood. Every year lefty movie studio moguls churn out brain-destroying fare such as "Syriana", "Brokeback Mountain", "W", "Rendition", "Stop Loss", "Che", "Good Night and Good Luck", and "Redacted" by the truckload. All of these movies were wildly popular with critics, and not a few won major awards. All of them (not coincidentally) flopped at the box office. If it were not for blockbuster movies like "Spiderman", the "Star Wars" series, "Transformers", and the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy riding to the rescue like the cavalry, Hollywood would require a Federal bailout of epic proportions (pun semi-intended).
But in 1984 there was still some independent thinking to be had in Hollywood. If nothing else, "Red Dawn" is interesting to contrast with "The Day After", another move that came out at roughly the same time. The latter is memorable for the anti-American paranoia that was rising in power and influence and would soon swamp Hollywood.
Much of the technical criticism mentioned by others of "Red Dawn" is justified. The notion that a group of untrained teenagers could take on even a poorly motivated army like Cuba's or the now-extinct Soviet Union's is not credible. The best part of the movie is watching the teenagers struggle with the morality of guerrilla warfare. I give it a 6 out of 10.
But "Red Dawn" is well worth watching for one reason. It represents one of the last movies Hollywood put out that did not look like a joint venture between the Democrat National Committee and Code Pink.
Even in 1984 the "blockbuster" mentality was already changing the face of Hollywood. Every year lefty movie studio moguls churn out brain-destroying fare such as "Syriana", "Brokeback Mountain", "W", "Rendition", "Stop Loss", "Che", "Good Night and Good Luck", and "Redacted" by the truckload. All of these movies were wildly popular with critics, and not a few won major awards. All of them (not coincidentally) flopped at the box office. If it were not for blockbuster movies like "Spiderman", the "Star Wars" series, "Transformers", and the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy riding to the rescue like the cavalry, Hollywood would require a Federal bailout of epic proportions (pun semi-intended).
But in 1984 there was still some independent thinking to be had in Hollywood. If nothing else, "Red Dawn" is interesting to contrast with "The Day After", another move that came out at roughly the same time. The latter is memorable for the anti-American paranoia that was rising in power and influence and would soon swamp Hollywood.
- withhold_name
- Aug 8, 2009
- Permalink
"Red Dawn" does a good job setting up its somewhat fantastical scenario but it's very much a product of its time and might not ring the same way it did when it was first released. I still feel like has a certain amount of appeal, but if you love this movie it's mostly the nostalgia talking. When the United States is invaded by the Soviet Union and its Cuban and Nicaraguan allies, the Americans are overwhelmed. While this Third World War rages, our story begins to take place. A small group of high school students arm themselves, hide in the woods and resist the invaders with guerrilla warfare, assembling underneath the name of their high school mascot, the Wolverines.
The special effects are good and to someone that would be genuinely fearful of an invasion by the soviets this could be a dream come true or a really frightening scenario. I enjoyed the fact that the film gets into its premise right away, telling anyone that doesn't buy the premise to promptly leave the theatre or stop complaining about the events that are taking place. The film also does a good job portraying the long passage of time and the changes that happen to the characters as they become more accustomed to guerilla warfare. Where the film doesn't work is in the emotional growth and towards the end where our heroes make decisions that feel out of character and downright stupid. While I was able to buy the premise fully, I did find that this story doesn't feel as fleshed out as it should be. I'm leaning more towards "video game-like" than "epic" when choosing what word to define the storyline, despite the fact that there is a full-blown war going on.
If you can suspend your disbelief (and the film does take the time to set itself up as a possible scenario so it shouldn't be too hard) and put yourself in the mentality of the red scare you will get a kick out of this, though you might leave wanting more when it comes to the story and characters. (On VHS, November 21, 2012)
The special effects are good and to someone that would be genuinely fearful of an invasion by the soviets this could be a dream come true or a really frightening scenario. I enjoyed the fact that the film gets into its premise right away, telling anyone that doesn't buy the premise to promptly leave the theatre or stop complaining about the events that are taking place. The film also does a good job portraying the long passage of time and the changes that happen to the characters as they become more accustomed to guerilla warfare. Where the film doesn't work is in the emotional growth and towards the end where our heroes make decisions that feel out of character and downright stupid. While I was able to buy the premise fully, I did find that this story doesn't feel as fleshed out as it should be. I'm leaning more towards "video game-like" than "epic" when choosing what word to define the storyline, despite the fact that there is a full-blown war going on.
If you can suspend your disbelief (and the film does take the time to set itself up as a possible scenario so it shouldn't be too hard) and put yourself in the mentality of the red scare you will get a kick out of this, though you might leave wanting more when it comes to the story and characters. (On VHS, November 21, 2012)
- squirrel_burst
- Apr 21, 2015
- Permalink
Easy to watch, easy story to follow, don't need to pay much attention and thus entertaining in a modern era when most kids just want a quick fix on phones. Watched it when I was a kid and still love it now. When Hollywood tries to make a re-make you always know the idea and concepts behind the original film are were there and right. The 80s churned out these type of entertaining films one after another. People knew what they were doing to bring audiences in. Don't expect any character development and it's very 1980s A-Team in its special effects and explosions. Yet still great to watch. Swayze RIP.
- stevenclay-79316
- Apr 23, 2024
- Permalink
This film is a staccato of absurd cliches that even Hollywood should be ashamed of. It appears as though towards the end of the cold war, 'Red Dawn' was made to sum up all the stereotypes concerning Russians and Americans, thereby honoring the main contributor to these: Hollywood patriotic cinema. The ridiculous plot might appear amusing nowadays but will always evoke a certain disgust to those with a minimum knowledge of 20th century history.
- earlgray10000
- Jan 23, 2002
- Permalink
Not feeling the negative reviews on here. I'm 51 and remember watching this when it came out with my buddies. Scariest thing you could imagine that first scene. After that the movie is just ... well .... Cool! The kids kick butt throughout the movie and the acting is fine. No Oscars but fine. Thoroughly entertaining and I'm watching it right now as I type this for about the 25th time. Sure it played better in the 80s when Russia was a daily threat but newsflash folks: you can say that about any movie. Everything reflects the time in which it was made. Watch the movie. You'll enjoy it.
By the time Powers Booth's Air Force Lt. Col. Andy Tanner is found near his crashed jet fighter plane, and then begins helping a band of teenage rebels fighting against an insanely unanticipated World War III, it seems like John Milius is finally directing the film he wanted to make all along...
Which is basically an old-fashion war picture, in this case beginning with a high school's perspective of being attacking by commandos, destroying and ultimately taking over the rural small town...
Because Milius, unlike his APOCALYPSE NOW co-writer Francis Ford Coppola's THE OUTSIDERS and RUMBLE FISH, never seems entirely game with RED DAWN being a movie about kids... with a bombastic, farfetched twist of Russia taking over America, and much of the actual war... of course involving nuclear weapons... we only hear about from one of many monologues by Powers Booth...
Who's a hypnotic oratory performer and yet, other than leader Patrick Swayze... who seems around twenty-seven (or brother Charlie Sheen, barely important after the plot's underway)... we lose touch with the other youthful side-characters, while almost equally focusing on comparably dull enemy leaders Ron O'Neal and William Smith...
And RED DAWN nearly becomes even more of a violent body count flick than Walter Hill's SOUTHERN COMFORT... where Booth himself survives after practically everyone else is gone...
And frankly, too many people wind up dead (as unimportant ones survive)... while only Swayze's future DIRTY DANCING partner Jennifer Grey and token gung-ho nutjob C. Thomas Howell really stand out in this controversially maligned vehicle, negatively considered right wing, being that Russia's an actual physical threat (perhaps spooking Hollywood liberals that the ongoing Cold War may get thawed out)...
But that's where THE WIND AND THE LION auteur Milius (with stock grownup actors Frank McCrea, Ben Johnson and Harry Dean Stanton) genuinely feels at home... with nostalgic themes of modernized Americana... while RED DAWN succeeds as an entertaining war-genre throwback yet somewhat fails as what should be more strategically character-driven...
Overall paling to a terrific opening scene, where enemy paratroopers land outside a classroom, making everything else feel like a hectic outdoors survival guide...
But with Swayze in a surprisingly effective/literally commanding role within creatively-shot sequences of nifty guerilla warfare, it's a pretty decent way to spend two-hours, the 1980's way.
Which is basically an old-fashion war picture, in this case beginning with a high school's perspective of being attacking by commandos, destroying and ultimately taking over the rural small town...
Because Milius, unlike his APOCALYPSE NOW co-writer Francis Ford Coppola's THE OUTSIDERS and RUMBLE FISH, never seems entirely game with RED DAWN being a movie about kids... with a bombastic, farfetched twist of Russia taking over America, and much of the actual war... of course involving nuclear weapons... we only hear about from one of many monologues by Powers Booth...
Who's a hypnotic oratory performer and yet, other than leader Patrick Swayze... who seems around twenty-seven (or brother Charlie Sheen, barely important after the plot's underway)... we lose touch with the other youthful side-characters, while almost equally focusing on comparably dull enemy leaders Ron O'Neal and William Smith...
And RED DAWN nearly becomes even more of a violent body count flick than Walter Hill's SOUTHERN COMFORT... where Booth himself survives after practically everyone else is gone...
And frankly, too many people wind up dead (as unimportant ones survive)... while only Swayze's future DIRTY DANCING partner Jennifer Grey and token gung-ho nutjob C. Thomas Howell really stand out in this controversially maligned vehicle, negatively considered right wing, being that Russia's an actual physical threat (perhaps spooking Hollywood liberals that the ongoing Cold War may get thawed out)...
But that's where THE WIND AND THE LION auteur Milius (with stock grownup actors Frank McCrea, Ben Johnson and Harry Dean Stanton) genuinely feels at home... with nostalgic themes of modernized Americana... while RED DAWN succeeds as an entertaining war-genre throwback yet somewhat fails as what should be more strategically character-driven...
Overall paling to a terrific opening scene, where enemy paratroopers land outside a classroom, making everything else feel like a hectic outdoors survival guide...
But with Swayze in a surprisingly effective/literally commanding role within creatively-shot sequences of nifty guerilla warfare, it's a pretty decent way to spend two-hours, the 1980's way.
- TheFearmakers
- Aug 12, 2023
- Permalink
- peter-bruck
- Apr 11, 2009
- Permalink
As propaganda artists go John Milius is up there with Eisenstein and Riefenstahl. In terms of right wing paranoia in the eighties this film is not only the perfect showcase specimen, it is also full of desirable teenage heart throb actors making the paranoia so much more relatable to the average movie goer.
Technically speaking the film is a testament to a perfectionistic preoccupation with the Soviet union as the enemy. Rarely will you see a film from the eighties with actual Soviet weaponry (usually you'll see Chinese copies, such as in Rambo) or this attention to detail. And as far as the plot is concerned, it might seem ridiculous today given that we know perfectly well that the Soviet Union was collapsing from within at the time the film was made, however this film is based on contemporary strategic analysis from various US defence and intelligence institutions.
One often overlooked aspect of this film, as well as Milius' other efforts, is that while the film is certainly pro war, pro guns and masculine to the point of being kitsch is that war is realistically portrayed as having human costs. psychological trauma, death and suffering is integral to the story, and never glossed over.
While this film is far from my own political views, it's truly a masterpiece and deserves attention as a diorama of a prolific world view in the eighties.
Technically speaking the film is a testament to a perfectionistic preoccupation with the Soviet union as the enemy. Rarely will you see a film from the eighties with actual Soviet weaponry (usually you'll see Chinese copies, such as in Rambo) or this attention to detail. And as far as the plot is concerned, it might seem ridiculous today given that we know perfectly well that the Soviet Union was collapsing from within at the time the film was made, however this film is based on contemporary strategic analysis from various US defence and intelligence institutions.
One often overlooked aspect of this film, as well as Milius' other efforts, is that while the film is certainly pro war, pro guns and masculine to the point of being kitsch is that war is realistically portrayed as having human costs. psychological trauma, death and suffering is integral to the story, and never glossed over.
While this film is far from my own political views, it's truly a masterpiece and deserves attention as a diorama of a prolific world view in the eighties.
I recall when this movie came out, and it generated a small level of fear within the 1980's. I wasn't afraid as much as it instilled the same feeling I had when I watched "First Blood" which was "hey, it's pretty cool to be a survivalist" I never saw this movie in its entirety back in 1984 because I was very young. So, it didn't have the political resonance it has now.
The idea is that there is a food shortage (2022, thanks Brandon). And other countries sees the weakness of its leadership. So it decides to invade. Now, it's pretty obvious no country would ever invade the United States now. Since most Americans are armed to the teeth. We're so bored we shoot at each other. But, I think the conceit was that teenagers took matters in their own hands and pushed back.
Director John Milius, has gone on record and said that he wanted this film to be about the futility of war. It really is. Some of the "villains" in this flick were conflicted themselves of their actions. Even though they were brutal in their measures, they were still human. Which is what a portion of this film depicts.
The idea that this was a jingoistic take on America is quite silly. I think the picture actually is fair when it comes to the actions of an invading force. I would imagine Americans came in the same way as in Iraq. Or, in this case, shades of Vietnam. It was if we are seeing war through the eyes of the Viet Cong now (the teens being the Cong).
I felt that the resolution is very lackluster. Not taking a stance on either side as the events that unfold do seem...unnecessary. One imagines what the world would be post- World War 3.
I never felt this film to be fear mongering. Only a fantasized version of what an invasion on American soil would look like. It's not meant to be taken seriously. With lines like "Avenge me!!!" You can only start to giggle at these moments.
The most interesting storyline would be from Robert's (C. Thomas Howell) character. He is a mousy child starting out to a cold blooded killer. He seems to be closer to what the audience in 1984 would've cheered for. His embrace of war is what we imagine ourselves to be after you lose everyone and everything you cared for. And, in that, seems the most developed.
Shoehorning the brother relationship between Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen seemed a bit forced, but still effective.
A fun watch, with light debate on war and nothing else. Not a bad weekend watch.
The idea is that there is a food shortage (2022, thanks Brandon). And other countries sees the weakness of its leadership. So it decides to invade. Now, it's pretty obvious no country would ever invade the United States now. Since most Americans are armed to the teeth. We're so bored we shoot at each other. But, I think the conceit was that teenagers took matters in their own hands and pushed back.
Director John Milius, has gone on record and said that he wanted this film to be about the futility of war. It really is. Some of the "villains" in this flick were conflicted themselves of their actions. Even though they were brutal in their measures, they were still human. Which is what a portion of this film depicts.
The idea that this was a jingoistic take on America is quite silly. I think the picture actually is fair when it comes to the actions of an invading force. I would imagine Americans came in the same way as in Iraq. Or, in this case, shades of Vietnam. It was if we are seeing war through the eyes of the Viet Cong now (the teens being the Cong).
I felt that the resolution is very lackluster. Not taking a stance on either side as the events that unfold do seem...unnecessary. One imagines what the world would be post- World War 3.
I never felt this film to be fear mongering. Only a fantasized version of what an invasion on American soil would look like. It's not meant to be taken seriously. With lines like "Avenge me!!!" You can only start to giggle at these moments.
The most interesting storyline would be from Robert's (C. Thomas Howell) character. He is a mousy child starting out to a cold blooded killer. He seems to be closer to what the audience in 1984 would've cheered for. His embrace of war is what we imagine ourselves to be after you lose everyone and everything you cared for. And, in that, seems the most developed.
Shoehorning the brother relationship between Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen seemed a bit forced, but still effective.
A fun watch, with light debate on war and nothing else. Not a bad weekend watch.
Evil communists attacking good Americans, who fight heroically until the very end.How obvious that this is a Cold War propaganda movie.And, as propaganda movies go, it's quite a bad one.How sad to see that Charlie Sheen, an actor who can do so much more, is to be found in movies like this one.I'm amazed at the fact that some people can take this movie seriously; any thinking person would realize how ridiculous this movie is. Definitely not recommended, unless you want to see how silly some people can be.
- Jonas Kyratzes
- Jan 20, 2002
- Permalink