Red Dawn (2012)
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
SirNedKingsly
Well-Known Member
@Valon - my friends and I did that too after 9/11 - then we joined up to "do our part" lol
Anyways - this is shaping up to be the the remake to see - Robocop is looking cheesier and cheesier (an this coming from an initial supporter of it) and I'm not thrilled about the other remake rumors that are milling about.
Lets hope it doesn't disappoint.
Sent from my iPhone5 using mind control!
Anyways - this is shaping up to be the the remake to see - Robocop is looking cheesier and cheesier (an this coming from an initial supporter of it) and I'm not thrilled about the other remake rumors that are milling about.
Lets hope it doesn't disappoint.
Sent from my iPhone5 using mind control!
Solo4114
Master Member
Also the very 1st PG-13 movie!
Kevin
You guys sure about that? I haven't dug out my DVD of it in some time, but I could've sworn it was rated R. It was fairly violent as I recall. The scene with the soldier being shot with arrows, the "one man vs. a gunship" sequence, drinking a deer's blood...I just remember it being bloodier than a PG-13 film today would be. Then again, maybe that's just the haze of memory talking...
SSgt Burton
Sr Member
Motion Picture Association of America film rating system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yeah Red Dawn was ultra violent. In fact at the time it was released, it was considered the most violent film of all time.
Go figure. :unsure
Kevin
Last edited:
Back then movie ratings didn't exactly mean too much. I mean, look at Ghostbusters. That movie was rated PG, and had smoking, drinking (sometimes while driving), mild cursing, that whole dream scene with Ray getting molested by a ghost, Dana telling Peter "I want you inside me", etc, etc.
I'm pretty sure Ghostbusters would have earned an R rating if released by today's standards.
EDIT: I just realized, both the PG-13 rating and Ghostbusters "released" in 1984. So, did Ghostbusters release earlier that year, before the PG-13 rating was introduced? Or did the MPAA just not think Ghostbusters was diserving of a PG-13 rating?
I'm pretty sure Ghostbusters would have earned an R rating if released by today's standards.
EDIT: I just realized, both the PG-13 rating and Ghostbusters "released" in 1984. So, did Ghostbusters release earlier that year, before the PG-13 rating was introduced? Or did the MPAA just not think Ghostbusters was diserving of a PG-13 rating?
Solo4114
Master Member
Weird. I wonder if subsquent video-releases saw it reclassified or something? Oh well. If they can maintain the same level of violence as they do in, say, the original film or in your average Sons of Anarchy episode, I'd be satisfied. But guerilla warfare ain't touch football and shouldn't be portrayed as such.
ghostryder
Legendary Member
Every time I see this trailer I just want to punch the writer. This movie is so idiotic that it could never happen in a million years. At least Russians invading, though farfetched, was plausible at the time because of our fears of it. So let's ignore the U.S. and Canadian military for the moment, since the writers apparently did. Go to any gun shop or gun show in the U.S. (or look at the gun show off thread) and North Korean paratroopers (ooooh....) would have a hard time gaining a foothold in the U.S. to allow them to land heavy armor. Heck Ted Nugent would probably take out half of them himself!
Call of Duty MW2 had an equally farfetched plot, but at least their's made sense. Having the Russians get U.S. satellite tech that allows them to spoof our satellites and mask an invasion.
North Koreans though? Might as well have Sudan invade!
Call of Duty MW2 had an equally farfetched plot, but at least their's made sense. Having the Russians get U.S. satellite tech that allows them to spoof our satellites and mask an invasion.
North Koreans though? Might as well have Sudan invade!
JD
Master Member
I saw it and enjoyed it. Chris Hemsworth is impressive as ever, although it's not much of a stretch and his character is pretty one note.
People are picking a part plot points (North Koreans, etc) and I think they're too concerned with minor details and forgetting that these are movies and are all pretty out there as far as that goes.
If you're looking to kill a couple of hours and don't mind a popcorn flick with some great fight/battle choregraphy, lots of violence and pretty mindless entertainment - this is worth the tickets. If you expect a thoughtful, intensive look into the possibility of another nation invading the US... well, you might want to wait.
People are picking a part plot points (North Koreans, etc) and I think they're too concerned with minor details and forgetting that these are movies and are all pretty out there as far as that goes.
If you're looking to kill a couple of hours and don't mind a popcorn flick with some great fight/battle choregraphy, lots of violence and pretty mindless entertainment - this is worth the tickets. If you expect a thoughtful, intensive look into the possibility of another nation invading the US... well, you might want to wait.
I might watch it when it comes on tv. A friend saw it and he said that Independence Day, War of the Worlds, and Battle Los Angeles had more convincing invasion scenarios.
:lol Yeah they would be effed in Texas and the South :lol
So many rednecks so little North Koreans! :lol
So many rednecks so little North Koreans! :lol
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
In Casablanca, Rick tells the Nazi Germans there are certain parts of NY he wouldn't advise them trying to invade.
Lflank
Well-Known Member
I'm 52, and I thought the original sucked, and so does the remake.
In both, the premise was idiotic, the acting was wooden, the story was contrived, and all the preaching just made it silly. It's just fantasy porn for armchair warriors.
Saw a pre-screening, The middle of the States are Free America, the East and West Coast are occupied.
They explain how the North Koreans would have access to get in the states with out a fight......
It was a fun movie......
I didn't see the original though!
Lflank
Well-Known Member
It's been that way since the dawn of time. Don't sweat it.
There are two types of old people. Those who complain about the future and those who try to pass on what they know in the hopes that it will be better. You'll find a majority of the folks here actually fall into the latter category IMO.
Every generation says "kids today are the worst ever". It's what our parents said about us. It's what we will say about our kids. It's what the first caveman said about his kids, and what future Mars colonists will say about theirs.
(shrug)
I'm a bit younger but my crew loved it when it came out.
Yes it is a B movie. They did base the scenario on some exotic CIA thinking
at the time, so they did try to do homework. They did try to make hardware look right, hence the redressed helicopters as Hinds.
As to the armchair warrior bit, sure, but not all. My cop buddy loves it to this day. And there are fans of the film in the military because there are film fans in the military.....
I think what I love now about the first film, was it spit in the eye of political correctness back then. I remember there was actually people complaining about it being a bad influence. Even this new one they wimped out big time and dropped China as the invader.
Similar threads
