SUCKER PUNCH SQUAD: ‘Red Dawn’ Remake Is…
by Kurt SchlichterThe script of the upcoming remake of the infamous America-conquered-by-Commies movie Red Dawn (1984) raises an intriguing question – can Hollywood actually still produce a movie where it takes America’s side? The answer is “Sort of.”

“Wolverines!”
There are some welcome ideological surprises lurking within the script’s 104 pages. Shockingly, Hollywood actually seems to accept the premise that if the Chinese and Russkies invade the United States we are justified in fighting back with hot lead instead of teach-ins and choruses of Kumbayah. But the script also displays a bit of the moral illiteracy we’ve come to expect from the Hollywoodoids – naturally, the script has to imply that we kinda brought the invasion on ourselves and that resisting tyranny somehow means becoming just as bad as the tyrants.
The re-imagining of Red Dawn will be released later this year and does very little actual re-imagining of the original’s simple plot. We first meet some all-American teenagers. They play high school football, party, and talk and look like CW series cast members – not real bright, but pretty (the pretty part in the script). For some reason, the Soviets (replaced here by the Chinese with a Russian assist) invade America and seize their hometown. Their town’s tactical significance appears to be that invading it advances the plot. Anyway, the teenagers go up into the mountains, score some of the firearms our prescient Founders ensured we’d always have the right to keep and bear despite the best efforts of those gun control-loving wusses, and launch a bloody guerrilla war against the invaders.
Sure, that sounds awesome in theory, but John Milius’s original Red Dawn was – well, let me be diplomatic – probably one of the silliest movies ever made. And I loved it. When you combine killing communists with unbelievable camp – like the teen warriors’ giggle-inducing battle cry of “Wolverines!” and Harry Dean Stanton’s memorable scene that ends with him hollering “Avenge me!” – and then add some beer, you’ve got one hell of an awesome time at the movies. In the quarter century since its release, it’s inspired a cult following. A young captain even adapted the title as the name of the Army operation that rounded up the late, unlamented Saddam Hussein.
Now, I’m not here to evaluate the aesthetic worthiness of Carl Ellsworth’s script. I’ll leave that task to someone with the expertise to properly critique its unique aesthetic qualities – like noted reviewer Hackey von Hackenheimer. I will say that Ellsworth must have sat through a few of those screenwriting seminars because you can set your watch by the predictable action beats (“Hmmm, we’re three quarters through the script, so time for Act III to begin: {*types into FinalDraft 8*} ‘MCGUFFIN ENTERS and provides motivation for climactic battle sequence.’”)
Let’s just say you won’t walk out of the theater feeling that your prior conception of what “cinema” is has been radically redefined.
—–
Of course, there’s no Patrick Swayze here. Boo. And the new Red Dawn also unforgivably omits the cry of “Avenge me!” in favor of a much lamer substitute. Those interested in specifics of the plot, such as it is, can peruse this spoiler-filled synopsis. As John Nolte memorably put it, we’re here to spot the liberal sucker punches for you, not to reveal fanboy-centric plot points like whether Boba Fett’s helmet will be dented on the right side or the left side.
The hero is Jed, probably because Hollywoodoids think everyone who lives east of the I-5 is named “Jed,” or possibly “Zachariah” or “Cletus.” Jed is a 22-year old Marine who has come home after fighting in Iraq. I guess the fact that he’s not portrayed as a raving psycho counts as something like progress. The script’s view of Iraq is ambiguous, as demonstrated by Jed’s exchange with a local hick who incoherently swings between gung ho belligerence and neo-isolationist cliches.
Returning vets do get into those kinds of conversations, but it’s usually with Blue State quarter-wits sounding off with Mother Jones talking points. Whatever – we should just be grateful Jed doesn’t launch into a speech about how Bu$hitler lied and his buddies died, or how Dick Cheney, in association with the Carlyle Group, hid WMDs in oil wells to raise Haliburton’s stock price.
There are a couple of nice scenes. Early on, the escapees get to a cabin and decide to arm themselves with the firearms stored there. The script does not see this as odd or unusual – it rightly assumes that every American should always ensure his or her ready access to weapons in order to be able to do their duty and defend their society in time of emergency. However, the cabin’s owner had failed to stockpile a sufficient amount of ammunition, and the script properly points out this major lapse. All real Americans should always be ready with adequate supplies of arms and ammunition – after all, “Bang” is the sound an American makes while maintaining this country’s freedom.
Jed trains up his guerrillas and they start killing the Chinese occupiers. That’s cool. Some might scoff at the notion that a bunch of armed rural folks could have any effect against a professional army. I would note the fact that we don’t speak with an English accent and enjoy our beer cold rather than warm and by the pint. I would also note the example of a Finnish hunter who personally took out at least 705(!) Russian soldiers, and observe that deer are harder to hit than people. Now, the training scenes are a bit perfunctory (I’d have gone for an 80s-style musical montage myself) and the “Wolverines” go from high school kids to steely-eyed killers pretty quickly – though they sure babble about their feelings a lot. A lot.
There is also a rudimentary explanation of the theory of insurgency – Ellsworth rightly does not seem to think his kids can win by literally forcing the stronger enemy to flee by inflicting damage, rather than by forcing their departure by setting conditions among the populace that make further occupation too painful to bear. Guerrillas who get in stand-up firefights with counter-insurgents tend to become dead guerrillas.
And there’s a refreshing take on the proper response to those foreigners who murder Americans – the script actually agrees that you fight back and kill them. I wish I could share the exact quote, but just seeing that sentiment on the page of a Hollywood script is a revelation. Did someone at a Rodeo Drive bistro secretly spike Ellsworth’s Pellegrino with Awesome Coolness Pills, because Hollywood needs more of that kind of clarity and old-fashioned can-do. I need a cigarette after reading something like that.
It’s not all awesome. There are a couple of throw-away lines where the Chinese invasion is explained, in part, by the massive liberal-spending binge debt we owe them. There are lots of reasons to worry about foreign debt; I’m not sure the threat of repossession is one of them. The explanation for how the wily, inscrutable Asian enemy (and the script does portray them as wily and inscrutable) pulled off the invasion is pretty lame too.

Also, there’s an unintentionally hilarious scene where the junior varsity guerrillas get a drop on some US commandos, the leader of which introduces himself as a lieutenant in the Delta Force. Ummm. Well, that bunch does not take inexperienced lieutenants. And they don’t tell outsiders they are from “Delta Force.” And pulling an AK-47 on one of those guys is a good way to get a 7.62mm suppository – if you’re lucky.
There are no real sucker punches, but there is at least a sucker tap. The script really falls down on the job toward the middle, where Jed momentarily devolves into the kind of dork who spews the type of moral equivalence that might seem profound to a pampered UC Berkeley sophomore but that is, in reality, really stupid.
He whines that because he’s using guerrilla tactics that he is now just like the jihadi scumbags he fought in Iraq. His girlfriend Toni inarticulately disagrees. This is supposed to be a moving moment, but it only served to move my lunch back up my esophagus.
The character of “Toni” should have smacked some sense into Jarhead Jed since the script didn’t have his drill sergeant around to do it.
You know, the audience is watching an uplifting and inspirational tale of shooting communists and all of a sudden this nonsense pops up. Just stop. Let’s try another example. Nazis liked oxygen. Hey, Americans like oxygen too! Ergo, Hitler and Americans are the same, right? Nimrods. The fact that we kill bad people for killing us does not make us bad too. For the perpetual sophomores out there, the test of the morality of a conflict is the cause you fight for; the tools you use are largely irrelevant. American bayonet – good. Nazi bayonet – bad. I blame the public schools for this kind of nonsense and muddled reasoning – the “critical thinking” they purport to teach is actually anything but.
Let’s clarify for those who remain unclear – the act of shooting, blowing up, bludgeoning or otherwise eliminating those who threaten and murder Americans is an unambiguously good thing. What al Qaeda terrorists, Taliban, Shiite militias, Republican Guards, Viet Cong, North Koreans, Nazis, Imperial Japanese soldiers and their ilk feel or felt deeply in their little hearts and warped minds about their various causes is irrelevant and unworthy of attention — except to the extent that understanding their thought processes facilitates defeating them. Their destruction was and is a moral necessity and unquestionably morally right; their fighting Americans was and is unquestionably morally wrong. Always. End of story.
Any questions? No? Good.
However, the script is admirably forthright on how best to deal with American traitors and collaborators. Let’s just say due process comes quickly and in pistol form. That’s refreshing. As a lawyer, I appreciate trials and such, but as someone who has known folks killed and wounded by such bastards, my perspective is different.
It’s nice to see that in Red Dawn, Hollywood is at least inching toward ideological sanity. The Americans are the good guys. The people trying to kill the Americans are the bad guys. In this way, if in no other, the new Red Dawn is just like real life.






Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
361 Comments
Wolverines!
I think we can officially say the Hollywood establishment is out of ideas when a Red Dawn remake is released!
I finally saw Red Dawn on Netflix a year or so ago, and the fun of the movie is probably 90% due to 80s charm and the awesome cheesiness of half a dozen teens wrecking the Russian army. The jihadi comparison would of course be the focal point of the movie for lefties, so in a way I guess it makes sense that someone would want to say, "Remember this crazy '80s movie you love? Ruined."
Red Dawn was corny, but it was also AWSOME!!!!1 I hope that the remake is even half as good, and of course, does good at the box office. This might send a hint to HOllywood that Americans like moves that dont make us seem like wusses, stoners, dependent upon the state, and not all women hate men. And of course, we all believe in Christian God in the end. I read somewhere that Teddy Kennedy had a priest with him at the end, and he confessed to all his misdeeds. I wonder how long that took?
Obviously, the only reason it's depicted as good to kill invaders in this remake is because it's a parable about the Iraq war. In this movie, the Chinese are actually the Americans, and the "Wolverines" are actually Iraqi insurgents. The whole movie will probably be a long, poorly-concealed sucker punch.
Hollywood is completely devoid of originality. This rancid sack of manure called a movie is completely destroying the memory of a beloved motion picture from my early teens. I'm sure the hack that wrote this steaming pile attended the James Cameron School of original screenwriting. No wonder Bollywood is kicking Hollywood in the teeth.
I see a nother problem: No Lea Thompson!! BOOOO!
yep, and look for a much more blatant admission of that somewhere near the end to make sure the slow kids didn't miss it.
Would the last Producer, Director, Writer, too leave Hollywood please turn off the lights, you know…global warming and all.
My God people, get a clue, or better yet an original thought!
Swayze's character was named Jed in the original so I don't think you can call liberal bias on that one.
What I love about the original film is how it had some actually very well thought out, intelligent military tactics side by side with pure hollywood cheese. Russian and Cubans using commerical airliners to put paratroopers in american airspace? neat. Those same occupiers know that you need to obtain certain documents from gun stores because it will tell you who in town owns what? equally neat.
a bunch of kids with no actual military training take on line troops and then special forces and mop the floor with them: Cheese!, but awesome cheese.
My personal favorite in the original was probably the bit when (I believe it was Swayze, might be wrong) after firing his AK-47 pulls a grenade and throws it over hand into the top hatch on a soviet tank from a distance of what looked like 200 meters or so. Credible? probably not. Awesome? absolutely.
Will they answer the question of how the hell a foreign power was able to seize large chunks of the US without triggering a nuclear counterattack? definitely not. but who cares?
very much looking forward to this.
Maybe the timing for this movie is no coincidence. I mean our country is being invaded from within by these radicals in Washington and who knows what else is in store from without. Look at obama giving away more and more of our security as each day passes. Maybe this movie is being re-made to give appeal to the masses, OR maybe it's being re-made to INCITE the masses into doing something stupid. With the left you always have to think in terms of ulterior motive.
bob, I'm with you all the way to the last sentence. I don't think I can watch this as I only want to remember the original. I'll never watch the new Manchurian Candidate either. I can't believe anyone thought that could be improved upon.
Like you said, the best part about the original was not that the teens had to be "trained" by a combat vet, but that just doing what kids in the heartland do while growing up gave them some survival and hunting skills which could be honed into guerilla tactics.
I also liked the point toward the end where the Cuban pondered about the "revolutionaries" now having become the force used to crush the insurgency. I guess the Soviets had already removed the history of eastern Europe, post-WWII when he was schooled.
It's obvious by looking at the IMDB of this film that what we have here are relatively "new" and not firmly established filmmakers that might actually skew INDY if not for having MGM as their distributor.
In other words, maybe it's possible that this film will actually be motivated by good story-telling, filmmakers who just want to make a great film and actors who aren't trying to ingratiate themselves with status quo Hollywood. It would be interested to find out if the writers had to "shift" their script a bit after MGM took them on…now that could possibly be a real sucker punch.
I wouldn´t be surprised, not at all. But apparently it is not in the script. To be fair, what Mr Schlichter told us doesn´t sound too bad.
The summer that this movie came out, I was working at a design firm that had a female emigre from (then) West Germany. I loved the movie; she, being a "progressive", pacifist Social Democrat hated it (based only on the reviews in the liberal media – she didn't see it). President Reagan frightened her. I'm sure that this woman is still a bien pensant pacifist "global citizen" in spite of the fact that Reagan's policies, along with the support of then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, lead to the eventual downfall of the odious Soviet and eastern European Communist regimes and the reunification of her home country, Germany.
I won't be seeing this…there are just somethings you should leave alone…Gone With the Wind, Casablanca….and Red Dawn. The only way I'd be willing to see this is if they put Bruce Campbell in it…maybe the Delta Force guy.
Otherwise, thank you but no….I will keep Red Dawn and The Outsiders and Rumblefish just the way they are thank you very much…and Hollywood can do whatever it likes.
The only time I watch Red Dawn now is with a rifftrax. Take into context of the 80's. The Soviets were having a hard time in Afghanistan, a couple of Olympics were boycotted, the wall was still up and the Mongolian hunting lessons were being taught.
It was a 80's Cold War movie with an homage to the 50's Cold War B-flick, "Invasion U.S.A." No more, no less and making a remake of a remake is just a waste.
"can Hollywood actually still produce a movie where it takes America’s side? The answer is “Sort of.” " – You lost me at 'sort of'. Yawn.
I pray that by the time this script hits the screen we have a picture that demonstrates to young minds and current and future enemies why perpetually screwing with the USA is a very unhealthy idea.
It's sad that this really does sound far better than expected, but is still far, far worse than I'm willing to sit through. Just the part about Jed comparing himself to Jihadis is enough to get me to walk out.
the late, unlamented Saddam Hussein.
———————–
Well, I think that Code Pink and their ilk light a candle for him every now and then.
Another movie not worth my time and money.
Good grief. Why don't they just remake 16 Candles, Breakfast Club, St. Elmo's Fire and Pretty in Pink while they're at it.
I don't think the idea behind these remakes is to improve on the original, as much as to simply milk the existing paying fan base of the original.
Go to imdb.com and type in one of your favorite movies. If the movie is over five years old, and has a forum for it, some maroon will inevitably post that there "needs" to be a remake of it.
The original Red Dawn was the awesomest lame movie ever made.
I'm just surprised that it isn't a movie about a group of Berkeley students defending themselves from hordes of Red-Staters, led by Sarah Palin, shouting "Wal Mart!".
There's a truck stop in central Texas where I noticed a pile of Red Dawn DVDs at the counter. That's what America's heartland is all about. As long as there's a trucker with one hand pressing "play" to start Red Dawn, and a Glock 9mm at his side, America is safe.
My guess is because it's too comical believing the Russians could pull it off. Especially after Afghanistan and the on going issues in the Caucus.
How about if the Wolverines are made up of Hooters waitresses?
Mr. Schlicter,
Thanks for the analysis. I was wondering if you had read John Milius' thoughts on this… John Milius on Red Dawn remake
Yeah…see I'm a girl…so um, no thanks.
Name's Ash……Housewares. Shop Smart…..Shop S-Mart!
Just as long as he has his BOOOOM Stick…… hehehehe
I think they would call that a documentary. (btw….. I am being sarcastic. We all know the hollywood version of a documentary has no truth to it, but they believe it)
The original Red Dawn was unrealistic in many ways but at least it somewhat made sense at the time from a geopolitical perspective. This re-make makes no sense whatsoever. Why would China invade its best customer and, in the process, ruin its own economy? The only way communism will ever take over America is from within.
They just might, now that John Hughes died. I think he owned the rights to the scripts and concepts and wouldn't sell them.
part of the appeal of the original can only be understood when its placed in context with the dreck that was being released at the time… Reds, Wargames, The Day After, etc… Red Dawn finally took the patriotic Americans side in a conflict with the Bolsheviks. everything else coming out at the time was uniformly sympathetic to the "no nukes" or "better red than dead" crowd.
here's a message to all the gun banners and commie bastards out there that they should have learned from Red Dawn… don't mess with Colorado!
Well, the director is definitely going to reflect current Hollywood, since he's involved with the Bourne series, and Lions for Lambs. I'll give it a try, though, since he's been a stunt coordinator.
alot of truckers are Teamsters. they vote democRAT. it's the small businessman with a couple of handguns and a couple of rifles who will save this country.
Hmmm, like the run-down, but enough to get me to the theatre? Thinkin' no. Caddyshack 2 doesn't exist, ditto Blues Brothers 2000, no matter what IMDb says. Still putting the Red Dawn remake in that category. http://www.modernconservative.com/metablog_single...
John Milius, no hack- sought both military and political advice on 'Red Dawn'…
And he got it from the late Gen Al Haig. It was Haig who came up with the Soviet battle plan; to come in from the north, drop paratroopers on the Continental divide to seize the high ground and divide the country in half.
Using Cuban troops as occupiers- and administrators- was inspired; also Haig's input. Ultimately, the film had very realistic underpinnings- so the end of the day Hollywood patois not only didn't hurt- but gave it the mythic quality it ahs rightly assumed as the greatest conservative action adventure of the period. And, too a film that was UNIVERSALLY hated by the left wing media.
By their lousy standard we would have to say it was the 'best one-star film in movie history'…
I remember a conservative columnist (George Will, I think) remarking when the original was released that had the script been about Marxist El Salvadoran teenagers fighting against American invaders, it would have been up for Academy Awards.
The timing is right for a movie like "Red Dawn", PC warts and all. Like the early 80's hangover from the malaise of the Jimmuh Carter years, our Appeaser-in-Chief's continuous fumbling on the international stage, in conjunction with his ham-handed attempts to transform us into a Euro-weenie Nanny State is beginning to put Americans in the dumps. Nothing revives American imagination faster than the depiction of Americans opening a can of whuppass on Commie keesters.
in the original there was a limited nuclear exchange first…
Milius is a little cranky in his old age…
And rightfully protective of his work. How you can redo 'Red Dawn' without it being an anti-commie diatribe is hard to figure- and one supposes it won't have the NRA slogan 'Cold dead hands' bumper sticker while a Soviet trooper pries the gun from- what else- a cold, dead hand.
THAT's John Milius…
"HOOTERS!!!!!"
Well I liked the original, John Milius can write and direct a good yarn. Its funny that you mentioned the The Moose ( Big Deer) Hunter from the Russo-Finnish War of 30 Nov 1939 to 13 March 1940 known as "The Winter War" Simo Hayha passed away in 2002 at the age of 96. A small man just 5'3" tall. The common Deer rifles at Americans shoot, is a Bolt action Remington 700 or Winchester M70 and more times than not a 3 x to 9 x Scope would be mounted on the rifle and it would be chambered for either a .30-06 or a 270. There are other guns and cartridges, these two are just the most popular and common, You can say the same of the 308 Winchester. The left just poo poos the Idea of any kind of armed resistance. As a matter of course. The Soviet Union had a heck of a time in Finland, They threw a million men into the fight and as one Soviet General would say later, gained just enough ground to bury the dead. Only the Soviet Union and there leadership could show such a disregard for there own. And you would see it repeated in the War to come. The last time America was invaded and it was a real Threat, was The British in 1812. Yea there was the Poncho Via thing. Britain did not fair to well, it that War. To Baltimore Teenagers saw to it, when they sniped the British Field Commander out side of Town, he had just sacked Washington. Those two bullets counted a lot. It would be something the Chinese would not be able to do even if they wanted to, The Nation is to big and to spread out, its not Poland. As for Russia going along with something like that, not a chance, We are a traditional Ally going back to the founding of the Nation, if anything China would try to grab a big chunk of Siberia for the Oil and other Resources there, and for living space. To wage war and to occupy a Nation such as the United States, You would first have to have control of the Air, and at sea, on and below the wave, The U.S Air Force and the U.S Navy would not roll over. With out Control of the Air and Sea, it would fail, Just like Germany operation Sea Lion, they could not get control of the Air or Sea and never attempted. The PRAN would have a very short life, and one of the first strikes we would do, is take out Three Gorges Dam. You would flood a third of the country with one strike and guess what the game would be over before it even started. And the Chinese know it.
You're lost as in you believe that Hollywood DOES take America's side (in such overrated movies as Avatar and Hurt Locker) or you just don't agree with a "sort of" answer to the point you don't want to read the rest of the article, and see why it's a "sort of"?
omg…boys.
Come on now! If we don't support at least a pretty pro-American movie, they WILL STOP MAKING THEM! Red Dawn was hugely pro-US to the point the left thought it was Reagan propaganda and blasted it as warmongering. As long as this is pretty close to the original, it can only instill in teenagers the same thoughts and feelings we had in the 1980s. everyone of the right should buy tickets and support it- if not we will only be left with vampire movies!
Its not that is how do you keep your supply ships afloat? You would not need a Nuclear Counter Attack persay. All you would have to do is send four B-2's with the proper conventional guided munitions and the first opening strike is the Three Gorges Dam, You take that out and you pretty much would flood a third of the Country and its were a lot of there Industry is located. And with that sort of a problem from the start and the losses at sea in the first 48 hours, It would be a failure at the start never mind about the SSBN's I have a problem with remakes very few are any good.
Sorry, but REAL American truckers pack .45s :p
One tiny irony nobody has picked up on … in the original Red Dawn the Chinese were on our side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIMH50X0F-4
I'd never trust a teamster union dope with anything. I got my own guns…..
Milius' take on this script was dead-on — even to this day, a Russian invasion seems more palpable than one executed by the Chinese.
If Hollywood had any balls, the remake would center around Islamic antagonists, but I won't hold my breath.
Yeah it was a lame cheesy movie but I loved it. Seeing High school kids throwing lead around and ambushing enemies of America wanted me to go out and join the Army….. oh yeah I forgot… I was in the Army already doing all that stuff in Germany….lol.
There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. – Edmund Burke
Hollywood just can't help themselves. Of course they'll draw a moral equivalency between the U.S. defending itself and the invaders. That's just what they did in the movie "The Kingdom". A fine film that actually took America's side in the war against terrorism. That is until the end, where they had the temerity to draw a moral equivalency between us and the terrorists with that wimpy ending. After all they have the foreign markets to think about!
They already remade "Casablanca". The title was "Barb Wire".
This re-make makes no sense whatsoever.
———————
Well, you can't expect big, brave, in-your-face Hollywood to go with, say, jihadists, now can you? I mean, edginess DOES have it's limits and neo-Nazis and snake-handlers have just about been exhausted.
If Hollywood had any balls, the remake would center around Islamic antagonists, but I won't hold my breath.
————————-
Well, Hollywood's bravery does have it's limits, especially when dealing with a segment of the populations who will fight back. Besides, they have a pedophile prophet of their own to rally around so they feel a kinship.
Chinese invaders, huh? Sounds racist to me. Besides, China already owns us lock, stock and barrel. Why would they waste time and money invading us? I wont be spending coin in this drek.
Liberalism is laziness, and Hollywood is rife with it. It is no wonder they are doing more remakes than originals, poorly done remakes at that, because one has to develop their mind to have an original thought. See first sentence about liberalism being lazy.
Well, since there doesn't appear to be any real leftist sucker punch, I'll see it. After all, as someone else said above – if we don't go to the movies that are pro-American (even if there is a little moral equivalency thrown in) then they will definitely stop making them and all we will get are more Green Zones.
Let's go enmasse to this film and let's make it a lot of money so they know what WE like – Americans doing good, Americans as the heroes.
They can update them with the "F" word and an explosion every 10 seconds.
I want to see an unabashedly pro-American war movie. I will not settle for anything less. And until hollywood pulls their collective heads out of their rear ends, I will not be going to see ANY military movie produced by today's hollywood. Stop throwing money at these dolts. It's like rewarding a child for bad behavior.
Keep in mind the Chinese have tens of millions of young men that have no hope of ever finding a female to mary and settle down with children. The one child policy has left the country devoid of females. Young men have a tendency to get into trouble if they cant direct their energy into productive ventures. The central party can not aford to have all these keyed up males sitting around with nothing to keep them occupied it might lead to a reform movement at home. Better to give them rifles and send them off to a foreign land to capture it or die trying. Dont think the Chinese could not capture large portions of the US. Hard? Yes but not impossible.
Hey, you've got to leave some projects for 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014…
Seriously, I hope not.
I am tired of hollywood ripping off movies of the past. I am an experienced miovie watcher and they can't just rehash movies of the past and put them out there like they are something new and have me buy into it. No real artist of any era would do this and still call it art. It is not just the lack of creativity it is the lack of believable talent. In hollywood image is everything but modern hollywood does not understand this fact. Their image among the American people is ripped right out of almost any movie, the bad guy, the guy you want to see get it in the end. It is impossible to watch a movie where you are hoping the so called hero gets it.
You see, movies are what you want them to be in most cases. It really doesn't matter what message they are trying to relay movies will provoke emotions in you that are relative to who you are and what you believe. Saving the planet is a big issue in hollywood today. So why don't they do their part by not making or remaking bad movies, with no talent, or an unbelievable plot, or heros that you want to hate?
[...] the original post here: SUCKER PUNCH SQUAD: ‘Red Dawn’ Remake Is… This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
I'd prefer the Turner Diaries or perhaps a group of conservative kids surrounding Hollywood and taking no prisoners.
exactly right. and its 30 million "extra" men. the more that die, the better for the central committee. it's a win-win for the chicoms. conquer the USA and eliminate much of the surplus of men. if the producers of the new version are smart, they'll work that sort of cynical calculation into the movie, since helps sell the story.
Red Dawn was when I fell in Love with Lea Thompson.
I'll decide later whether to add this to my boycott list. ABC, NBC, CBS and NYT, LAT are already on it as are most Hollywood movies. I enjoy some of them but refuse to feed the bear which only encourages more.
.
This remake will be produced by the same leftists who produce all of the other filth in Hollywood. By going to see "conservative" or "pro-American" films you are just putting money into Hollywood's pocket, which will be used to produce even more left-wing trash. Just boycott Hollywood altogether, or at least wait until it comes out at Redbox.
Thanks for your reference to the Winter War, which long ago vanished down the Progressive memory hole. I went to the link, and noted with approval that a hunter becomes a good shot the same way a violinist gets to Carnegie Hall. His life would make an interesting movie.
"This is my BOOMSTICK!"
~ Major Campbell, Delta Force
usually the same maroon out there that's the first to say "There oughta be a law against [insert basic freedom here]" whenever another pseudo study is released.
In this version, the liberals rejoice with the coming of collectivism. And bad guys will be the US military, the middle class, and the Christians and Jews.
It took Chuck Norris to do that.. "Invasion USA"
Would have been interesting if it had a Reality-TV production crew embedded with the young "Wolverines" in this remake…hahaha.
"Reagan's policies, along with the support of then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, lead to the eventual downfall of the odious Soviet and eastern European Communist regimes"
LOL. Only in the deluded hagiographies written by conservative think-tank robots. In the real world, Mikhail Gorbachev led the movement in the Soviet Union towards glasnost, which was an admission at the time that their way of government had failed. Reagan ran the national debt to the nines buying absurd missile defense systems that would never work, and made incredibly embarrassing gaffes about bombing the Soviet Union, and probably dragged the process out by keeping the extremists in the Soviet Union on edge. This same process is currently used to keep the government of most Middle-Eastern countries moving towards the most extremist posture possible whenever a reckless Republican is in office by constantly maintaining a confrontational posture and refusing to maintain even a modicum of civility on the world stage.
I love how conservatives are constantly rewriting the history of their biggest failures. You really aren't fooling anyone except the easily-gulled. Like the schmucks who are going to go watch this juvenile d*ck-waving extravaganza of a movie but who would never DREAM of signing up to actually serve in combat.
That would be, just about the entire Republican Party. Gawd you guys are pathetic.
Red Dawn gave us Patrick Swayze, enuf said.
WOLVERINES!!!
Actually, "Red Dawn" was my favorite film of 1984. I saw it in the same theater three times in a row and by the fourth time I made an appearance at the ticket counter, the manager just let me in for free.
All through high school, I would randomly yell out "Wolverines!" Hanging out with my friends, at the mall, I would randomly yell out, "Wolverines!" When I picked up my diploma, and even though our mascot is the Viking …. I yelled out "Wolverines!"
I even wanted my own vanity plate, "WLVRNS"….but never got it. (sigh)
How do I feel about the remake? Why do we need one? What was wrong with the original?
As I understood it, the government of Mexico was overthrown & replaced by The Mexican Equivalent of the Sandinistas; THEY invaded (either to distract from internal issues or to 'win back lost territories') & Russians helped them…the smaller allies (Cuba, Nicaragua) & second/third tier Sov Units were tasked with the internal security while the Mexicans (with their larger population) and first tier Sov units were 'at the front'–at the time I got the impression that the US President was Jimmy Carter-on-sterioids.
chirping crickets….
No doubt. Bring her on!
After hearing Obama's new nuclear policy, I can see how we wouldn't!
correct on all of the above…
The foreign policy in the film, while a stretch, no doubt- was very well thought out and totally possible…
The movie I was really looking forward to seeing was "Sole Survivor"! Based on Marcus Lutrell's amazing and harrowing adventures in Afghanistan. A TRUE American hero (along with his squad members who sacrificed their lives!) It was announced a few years ago, shortly after the book came out that it was going to be made into a film by Peter Berg ( the same guy who wimped out on "The Kingdom" ending). But since then I haven't seen or heard anything about it. It's as if the movie project vanished into thin air! Could it be that Hollywoood can't find the backing or have the stomach to do a REAL American hero(eos) story in the fight against global terrorism!? More proof that their idealogy trumps green! They turn out every anti-American Iraq war film they can think of and lose a ton of money in the process, yet continue to do so. And here is a true American hero(es) story that would do "The Blind Side" type business at the box office and they can't find a way to make it!?
How 'bout a "Wolverines" tattoo????
I disagree that Red Dawn was silly. Sure, it had a couple of outrageous and silly moments—on the surface together with the political context—, but it was a real and straight-forward story, no dead weight, a great ride, and at its core a universal dream of heroism coupled with teenage herd instinct, something that was easy to identify with. As for the rest: Very good article.
Can I give you ten thumbs up?
I cringe to think of them ruining this movie!
"It's kind of strange, isn't it? How the mountains pay us no attention at all. You laugh or you cry… The wind just keeps on blowing." — Jed Eckert
I've seen both, Barb before Casa, and Casablanca is still better than Barb, although she is easier on the eyes than Bogie.
Hmmm…..wouldn't this be the same as Emeril Lagasse deciding to run around and start torching all his own restaurants? Where is the logical sense in this storyline?
Obviously Islamic terrorists are too stupid, cowardice and unorganized to succeed with an invasion of the U.S., but since we're playing make belief here anyway, why not have a Muslim nation as the invaders for shits and giggles?
Btw, I'm asking a rhetorical question.
As I think of it… I think that what was most important about the story was the character arc as each of the kids had to process the need to kill the enemy… whoever the enemy was. A combat vet would probably have already thought that through. Which also may explain the moment of potential lameness when the hero is trying to process that he's now an insurgent. "Story" demands some sort of internal struggle, just as a necessary story telling element, so if you've got someone who isn't trying to get his mind around the need to fight, where do you find that struggle? It's not impossible that someone who was a soldier and who was a combat vet would have that lack of clarity, but would a person with that experience who had the clarity for effective leadership have it? I'm not surprised that would sound "off."
Because really… the only people confused about the morality of being a guerrilla fighter, or insurgent, or even for that matter a terrorist… a spy or saboteur… Lets just say that most people who have given it any thought at all understand that any of those people could be a hero and any of those people could be a villain. The defining element isn't *tactics* and it doesn't take an unusual amount of thought or moral clarity to understand that distinction.
I think Red Dawn is an underrated movie. I only saw it about 10 years ago – with low expectations – and it was much better than I had been led to expect. Considering what it sets out to do, it also has lots of good scenes and no bad ones, an excellent cast and its heart is in the right place. Forget the Cold War background and it makes a great timeless adventure story.
Regarding the remake, I´m trying to keep an open mind. John Milius understandably wasn´t happy about it but his main objection was interesting: "There’s only one example in 4,000 years of Chinese territorial adventurism, and that was in 1979, when they invaded Vietnam, and to put it mildly they got their [butts] handed to them,“ said Milius, noting that China built a wall to separate itself from invaders. “Why would China want us? They sell us stuff. We’re a market. I would have done it about Mexico."
Given Hollywood's track record of increasingly embracing left-wing, kook fringe, conspiratorial political radicalism; I do not trust Hollywood to remake a movie where Americans are not portrayed as the arrogant, warmongering racists and imperialist thugs that Hollywood loves to portray them as. I'm afraid at this point after decades of despicable liberal abuse, slander, and mistreatment, a Hollywood remake of a movie, albeit an over the top one that is somewhat, mostly, or "surprisingly" patriotic isn't good enough. The only way Hollywood can get me in the theater is to make an even more unapologetic, completely politically incorrect, unabashedly patriotic, pro-American film. Nothing else will I pay to see.
I mean, seriously, dude. You are soooo right. If only Reagan had taken the advice of our far-sighted friends and decommissioned all nukes and avoided the useless military build-up in the early 1980's, then we'd totally be at peace with the Soviet Union right this very instance. Gorby rawks!!
"Will they answer the question of how the hell a foreign power was able to seize large chunks of the US without triggering a nuclear counterattack? "
No one will even ask that question now that Obama is president.
I remember someone came, but I thought that was toward the end.
An Air Force pilot played by Powers Boothe, IIRC, there to provide context on how the war was going outside of their little area as well as to give them some military guidance on how to conduct an insurgency so their continued success was a bit more plausible.
I did like the scene when the Wolverines captured him, though:
Lea Thompson: What's the capital of Texas?
Powers Boothe: Austin
Lea Thompson: Wrong, it's Houston!
You must be logged in to post a comment.