Red Dawn Remake

[Octoberist]

Nah it's more than that. Even a fun movie has to be done well.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I similarly agree on the hate because it's a remake. It was better acted than the original. It wasn't as corny as the original. I'd say the remake IS the better film, while the original is that "it's just fun" film.

 

[charl_huntress]

I agree there may be hate on the remake, but what I don't agree on is that the 80s movie is corny. The strange thing is for its time the original Red Dawn was kind of ground breaking and revolutionary, but I think you have to be a child of the cold war to actually believe that. For someone who is young and unfamiliar with that time it may seem corny, but you have know idea about the cold war (I meaning actually living through it) with Russia because you weren't even born during the cold war.

For me this new remake seems corny in premise because it's using a villian that can't even really fight us. That's like...the supreme of corniness. It's just a make believe enemy that in reality can't really fight us, but for people who saw the original there was an underlying thought that Russian might actually invade some day. Does anyone really think North Korea will really invade and dominate? Forget that we all know now that the CCCP was over-extended and could even control it's own borders. At the time, they were our biggest enemy and thoughts of turning communist were really real. I mean seriously it was real. Don't forget Reagan was president when this movie came out and STAR WARS wasn't just a movie.

It was real!

That's why this movie for me seems incredibly cornier then the awesome original.

 

[Ultimatehero]

That would make sense, but the corniness was NOT in the Russian's invading. It was through the over-the-top acting and doing things that made absolutely no sense such as yelling "AVENGE ME!!!" in a concentration camp where the father might as well have told the guards that his sons or someone American was there. Not to mention the Wolverines walked through there in BROAD DAYLIGHT without sneaking around and were even in enemy sight without being singled out. As said, the time in film was different and film is a lot grittier these days. But, it's still jarring because while the story is dark the mis-en-scene is relatively light.

And while the invading faction in the remake isn't believable, the overall grit and approach to everything else IS and far more so. Place the invaders as some other group, getting rid of this "unbelievable invading faction" and not many have a lot else to say.

As said, give the original script to John Hillcoat, make some improvements and I wouldn't be saying that it was cheesy. The script necessarily wasn't, it was the approach. But, still that approach was common back then - so I'd say it's similarly more a product of its times. But, as to which is more real - I'd say grittier and dirtier of an approach is how it would play out no matter what year it is.

 

[charl_huntress]

Over the top acting was part and parcel of 80s movies. I have no idea who Hillcoat is, but I'll take your word for it. Milius has created some classics that still stand the test of time.

Selected Credits

• The Devil's 8 (1968) - writer
• Dirty Harry (1971) - uncredited writer
• The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean (1972) - writer
• Jeremiah Johnson (1972) - writer with Edward Anhalt
• Magnum Force (1973) - writer
• Dillinger (1973) - writer, director
• The Wind and the Lion (1975) - writer, director
• Jaws (1975) - uncredited writer
• Big Wednesday (1978) - writer, director
• Apocalypse Now (1979) - writer (first draft written in 1969)
• Conan the Barbarian (1982) - writer, director
• Red Dawn (1984) - writer, director
• Farewell to the King (1989) - writer, director
• The Hunt for Red October (1990) - uncredited writer
• Flight of the Intruder (1991) - director
• Geronimo: An American Legend (1993) - writer
• Clear and Present Danger (1994) - writer
• Motorcycle Gang (1994) - director
• Rough Riders (1997) - writer, director
• Texas Rangers (2001) - wrote original drafts in 1991 and 1993

 

[Ultimatehero]

Exactly over-acting was a staple, but in a story such as this? That utterly ruined several scenes for me. The acting in the remake was far more believable, it never took me out of the story or the situation.

WRITEN BY. And forgot he also directed it, but still think with a better director it would have felt more grounded. John Hillcoat - 'The Road.'

Imagine the same script, but with a darker and dirtier palette and approach to the woods and surrounding areas with more subtle acting. That's why I'm saying the acting and mis-en-sen of the original is what made the film corny and not the script itself.

 

[Octoberist]

When did John Hillcoat work on this? I can't find any info on it.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Nobody's saying John Hillcoat worked on it. What I am saying is that the original script for the original Red Dawn, to me, isn't what made that film cheesy - it was it's lack of regard for mis-en-sen and acting regarding the situation. It was too far over the top and really light. It took me out of it. Basically the direction was flawed and while it fit with the times, with a modern eye - it seems like the burger king version of what would happen albeit still an entertaining film. With a better director, such as Hillcoat (capturing the same kinds of surroundings) it would have come off much better and perhaps have been the better film. BUT, as it stands - the remake is leagues better to me because while the remake script may not be as good everything else surrounding it is better and more realistic in exception to the invading force.

 

[charl_huntress]

Exactly over-acting was a staple, but in a story such as this? That utterly ruined several scenes for me. The acting in the remake was far more believable, it never took me out of the story or the situation.

LOL...I grew up on 80s movies....it was part and parcel. Nearly EVERY single 80s movie has a lot of over-acting...why should this movie which was made in 1984 be any different?

WRITEN BY. And forgot he also directed it, but still think with a better director it would have felt more grounded. John Hillcoat - 'The Road.'

Imagine the same script, but with a darker and dirtier palette and approach to the woods and surrounding areas with more subtle acting. That's why I'm saying the acting and mis-en-sen of the original is what made the film corny and not the script itself.

Lol.....Ummmm....okay. I never seen that movie. I watched a few minutes, but wasn't that interested...sorry.

 

[charl_huntress]

Nobody's saying John Hillcoat worked on it. What I am saying is that the original script for the original Red Dawn, to me, isn't what made that film cheesy - it was it's lack of regard for mis-en-sen and acting regarding the situation. It was too far over the top and really light. It took me out of it. Basically the direction was flawed and while it fit with the times, with a modern eye - it seems like the burger king version of what would happen albeit still an entertaining film. With a better director, such as Hillcoat (capturing the same kinds of surroundings) it would have come off much better and perhaps have been the better film. BUT, as it stands - the remake is leagues better to me because while the remake script may not be as good everything else surrounding it is better and more realistic in exception to the invading force.

You weren't even born when this movie was made so I think I can understand why your modern eye doesn't see why some like it...sorry

 

[Octoberist]

Hillcoat makes great movies but they are more like..mediations. Slow burns. The Road, if given the chance, is a very sad movie..but perhaps the most realistic post-apocylpse movies I've seen and read. It's a challenging story but it's great.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Just because you grew up in the 80s and 80s films have over-acting that doesn't mean over-acting is the staple of a good film lol. From a situation and story such as this, I'd rather not be taken out of it by over-the-top acting and rather become engrossed in the story as much as possible. But, maybe that's just me. Then 'The Road' wasn't your thing, but the film does show one thing - you can have these settings without making it look like a burger king commercial. And to me, that's why the remake is better - no over-acting and mis-en-sen that accurately represents the story.

A lot of the original script is basically a meditation. Having their parents getting killed. Having their parents in concentration camps. Becoming orphaned due to your father helping you to escape. Having to train and face a larger than life enemy for the first time. Having a parent turn in the other parents because he wanted to save the life of his son which in turn gets him killed. The loss of innocence in an American Revolution kind of setting. All of these things just seemed extremely odd with the mis-en-sen the film had. The script didn't seem to fit how it was shot or acted.

 

[charl_huntress]

Again, this film was the FIRST PG-13 film EVER. Today PG-13 encompasses something different. Milius made this as sort of teen movie, but he was limited by the time. Dismissing it because it's an 80s film and not a gritty doesn't make sense. It couldn't have been more gritty for what the film maker was trying to achieve for the time. My point is you are looking at this movie from your stand point now....without actually having a real idea of what the movies during that time period were like. You can't say it should have been. For its time Red Dawn really pushed the envelope. Again...it was the FIRST PG-13 movie. They created that rating for this movie!!!!

It was gritty for its time, but in comparison to today it can't compare so trying to compare it...again...doesn't make sense.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I'm not saying the original was bad. It's still entertaining, but could have been better. The script was better than the remake's, HOWEVER the mis-en-scene of the remake and acting has it stand out as the better film. I don't really take "it's 80s, it's cheesy" as an 'excuse,' I'm looking at both of them on equal grounds and the remake is the stronger of the two whether its fair or not "due to the times." The original shouldn't get a free pass "it was like a lot of films back then." Objectively looking at both - even if it was "the times" - to me that's what dragged the original down in comparison to the remake. While the invading force may have been more real in the original, the reaction was more real in the remake. That said remake 8/10, original 7/10.

 

[Octoberist]

Today's movies are grounded and realistic due to the trends in films (Nolan for better or for worse), the audience are more sophisticated and global thanks to the internet and business (China, and this ties into Red Dawn since it was changed); we are more aware of the past and has been done (pop culture, remakes, cliches). So movies now tend to be more realistic and 'gritty' but we've grown to be more disconnected and cynical in this rapidly changing world. It sounds cheesy, but it's probably due to 9/11 really affect our public consciousness.

 

[Octoberist]

8/10 is still kinda generous. haha.

Personally, I would give the remake a 6.5/10 if I was nice. It's a rental at best.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I'm a huge revolutionary war, tar and feather them, kind of guy lol. This film harkened back to what I love about this country - you knock us down, we'll just stand taller. So I'm looking at what film captured that essence and more what that would be like in today's world. And out of the two the remake hit those chords.

 

[charl_huntress]

LOL...find me an 80s movie that doesn't have over acting? Again, that was the acting of the time. Also, you can compare acting from any different period and see changes in the acting and actors themselves. It's called changes in society. The 80s was a lot of over-acting in comparison to today, but for the AGE it was the ACTING of that time. You don't see it as over-acting unless you are looking at from a different premise. That's my point. For the time, every movie was like that.

Sure...anything could be better, but the original Red Dawn is not a cult classic for nothing. It was a movie of the time that resonanted with a lot of the audience of that time. You saying, well in hindsight it could have been better when you weren't even alive to enjoy most of the movies of that period is like....just not right.

 

[Octoberist]

Over-the-top acting has been in movies since the dawn of cinema. Realism didn't come into play until the late 60's till now. And now realism is the 'standard' though it has its limitations.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Dude, it may have been something to you. But, as said, I'm looking at this objectively. I would NEVER give a film a free pass because of the times. I'm not going to say "oh yeah, it's an 80s film so it should get a free pass and get called the better film" when I honestly don't think it is. It comes off like a burger king commercial due to the mis-en-sen when the script is anything but, which is distracting. The original film didn't want me to cheer and holler "wolverines" while the remake does (both wars I'm unconnected by, original because I wasn't there and new because there's no threat from it other than similarly in the movies to me) So, as I said again, remake 8/10 original 7/10 to me. Sometimes the remakes can make leaps and bounds where the original faltered and to me this one did.

ET
BLADE RUNNER
THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK
THE TERMINATOR
SCARFACE
BACK TO THE FUTURE series
ORDINARY PEOPLE
RAIN MAN
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS WITH THE THIRD KIND
etc.

The crying in the original 'Red Dawn'... people complained about Tobey's crying in SM3? It just felt forced during what SHOULD have been the most raw and poignant scenes.

 

[El Hombre Gato]

The original Red Dawn was just as stupid as the remake. Let's not make excuses. The execution of the films is what sets them apart. The remake isn't gritty and realistic. It's wall-to-wall action. It's a big, dumb, action movie. And that's why it's FUN. Today's cinema is mostly CGI fests. So, it's always great to watch something more practical and old school.

 

[charl_huntress]

Here is something to remember:

At the time it was released, Red Dawn was considered the most violent film by the Guinness Book of Records and The National Coalition on Television Violence, with a rate of 134 acts of violence per hour, or 2.23 per minute.[7] The DVD Special Edition (2007) includes an on-screen "Carnage Counter" in a nod to this.[8]

 

[Ultimatehero]

The remake wasn't 100% realism, but it did feel like a harsher atmosphere than what was presented in the original. And charl, I know you absolutely hate that I have my own opinion - otherwise you wouldn't be constantly trying to sway me (unsure why this is continuing on) - but my opinion stands as do the reasons why. I don't give "it's the times" as a free pass EVER when comparing originals and remakes. If so, I could easily say the original THE FLY was groundbreaking in its time and scary, therefore just as good a film as Cronenberg's 'The Fly' since the original had cult status too when clearly I (and many) don't see that as the case.

 

[charl_huntress]

Dude, it may have been something to you. But, as said, I'm looking at this objectively. I would NEVER give a film a free pass because of the times. I'm not going to say "oh yeah, it's an 80s film so it should get a free pass and get called the better film" when I honestly don't think it is. It comes off like a burger king commercial due to the mis-en-sen when the script is anything but, which is distracting. The original film didn't want me to cheer and holler "wolverines" while the remake does (both wars I'm unconnected by, original because I wasn't there and new because there's no threat from it other than similarly in the movies to me) So, as I said again, remake 8/10 original 7/10 to me. Sometimes the remakes can make leaps and bounds where the original faltered and to me this one did.

ET
BLADE RUNNER
THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK
THE TERMINATOR
SCARFACE
BACK TO THE FUTURE series
ORDINARY PEOPLE
RAIN MAN
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS WITH THE THIRD KIND
etc.

The crying in the original 'Red Dawn'... people complained about Tobey's crying in SM3? It just felt forced during what SHOULD have been the most raw and poignant scenes.

You saying the remake is the better film is not what I call issue to. My point is you keep saying the original should have been gritter when for it time it was gritty.

And charl, I know you absolutely hate that I have my own opinion - otherwise you wouldn't be constantly trying to sway me (unsure why this is continuing on) - but my opinion stands as do the reasons why.

See above

 

[Ultimatehero]

Maybe for the time, it was. But what I'm really saying is - alright - today it would have been much better with the same script. Might not have been overly clear with saying I'd want to see what John Hillcoat a modern director approaching the same exact script. And for the rest see my THE FLY example. I'm purely stating why I see the remake as the better film, not an out-and-out critique of the original (which I gave a 7/10), and if the original was remade with the same script and darker sensibilities in today's time it may have been the better film in my eyes since the only major difference in my eyes is the mis-en-sen.