278 of 339 people found the following review helpful
Some of these reviewers need to watch the movie again!,
This review is from: Red Dawn (DVD)
I remember watching this movie when it first came out on VHS. As a kid, I thought it was a frightening movie, a possible scenario of World War III. After buying the DVD and watching it again, I must say that it still stirs emotions in me. This depiction of an attack on U.S. soil is possible, but improbable. To watch this movie and say that the events shown could NEVER happen is foolish and ignorant.
One previous reviewer asks what happened to NATO in the movie. Well, if the reviewer had paid attention, NATO had dissolved in the movie. Another IMPORTANT detail that some reviewers left out was the nuclear attack on most bases and federal headquarters. The communists did not just take all their planes and tanks and just march in. A nuclear "first-strike" was initiated to throw the U.S. completely off-balance. Powers Boothe, who plays a downed F-15 pilot, explains all of these events to the kids that are now acting as guerillas in the movie. As someone who served in the Air Force as a missle launch control officer, I got to see how strategies like the ones portrayed in this movie could work.
The whole story in this movie is about Russians and Cubans (along with Nicaraguans) invading the U.S. and how it affects the lives of some high school kids. These kids become "The Wolverines". Named after their high school mascot, they become guerillas, slowly taking out small enemy installations and equipment. They do not single-handedly destroy all the commies as some other reviewers think that was depicted! There were other guerilla units, too.
The film portrays war in a somewhat negative light, but preserves patriotism and acknowledges the legitimacy of the Second Amendment. I highly recommend buying this DVD because of that! The only blemish that it has is the sound quality. I expected better sound with Dolby Digital and DVD quality.
Tracked by 2 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 33 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Apr 5, 2007 3:48:52 PM PDT
Sorry dude, ex Army Intel here, trained in Soviet weapons in military tactics, and I can most definitely say this could NEVER have a happened. As a kid I thought this movie was cool. As an adult I can see it clearly for what it was - Reagan era propagandistic fear mongering.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 20, 2007 7:06:51 AM PDT
Did I say this could definitely happen? Please stop using your veteran experience to supplement your clear political agenda. I said events such as the ones portrayed in this movie are possible, but highly improbable. Granted, there's a ton of logistics that would have to be planned very carefully, but as an Army intel person, you have to admit that a nuclear attack would throw off conventional fighting forces. This is what happened in the movie. Again, your last sentence revealed what your true intent of your comment was: anti-Reagan, anti-Republican, anti-conservative vitriol.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2007 4:47:28 AM PDT
And the agenda has been found . . . in retaliation for the above comment you went through my reviews until you found one you disliked (one that was five years old and pages deep off the main page) negged it and left a negative comment.
I stand by my comments here 100%.
Soviet forces were a joke. There's a reason that the worst nuclear accident in the world happened on their soil. The level of incompetence and exaggeration of Soviet power was so obvious in my Army training that several soldiers commented in my classes that they were amazed at the difference between reality (what the Army showed us) versus what they had seen in the news and from our own government.
This has nothing to do vitriol or bashing a person or being anti-conservative. It's a fact - their power was exaggerated to the extreme. That you would debate it means you bought the propaganda.
All of which makes this movie rather ridiculous.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 24, 2007 2:12:56 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 25, 2007 7:09:06 AM PDT
True, I did go back and comment on one review, but I felt that you probably negged mine as it is. You shouldn't complain about it since you're high in reviewer rank anyway! I actually read many of your reviews to get a good overall picture of your beliefs, values, and opinions. Upon this analysis, my instinct was correct about you. I chose that review primarily because the subject is what I am so passionate about, and mainly you and I are exact polar opposites on the marriage issue. BTW, the review here is SIX years old, so you're throwing stones from a house of glass.
However, it's obvious that you ignored the other fictional introduction to the film...an error that many reviewers and naysayers make, which I pointed out in my review. In the movie, the attack involved more than the Soviet Union. It involved all of the Third World Socialist countries from Nicaragua to Cuba. BTW, as a former Air Force missile officer, I received intel daily on the country, and this was in a weakened Russia. If the Soviet Union was so "weak" why do we still have so many targets in the country? Makes me wonder what intelligence the Army really has...
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2007 6:53:08 AM PDT
D. Weatherhead says:
"Their power was exaggerated to the extreme"??? The Soviet Union was the only entity in the history of the United States with the ability to destroy us, utterly, in under an hour. They also somehow managed to badly beat the Germans, who probably had the best army (man for man) of the 20th century. I respected them as a formidable adversary during the 1980's, but I admit sitting in Germany with the "Big Red Machine" just across the border probably had something to do with it. Where the heck were you stationed, Traveler, for you to be so blase?
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 29, 2007 7:59:29 PM PDT
Razr Maxx says:
"As an adult I can see it clearly for what it was - Reagan era propagandistic fear mongering." - Traveler
The second one brings up the "fear mongering" language, their bias is clearly shown. As that is one of the major talking points of the Democratic Party these days.
I for one do not understand what liberals have against fear? Or more specifically, that they try to use "fear" as some sort of imaginary boogey-man persay. "Fear" is a motivator. And I would say the opposite of "fear [mongering]" in this case would be "[suicidal] naitivity". Our naitivity prior to 9/11 is what gave us the attack to begin with...the "Oh, something like that could never happen here" mentality. Well, it did.
Now true, the Soviet conventional military, in hindsight, was a joke. But their nuclear arsenal was nothing to sneeze at. And if someone didn't or doesn't fear nuclear fallout then they're not freakin' human. This is why it boggles the mind today when some people could care less if Iran gets nuclear weapons. Especially with a leader who would have no qualms in using them in a heartbeat.
But you know what I fear the most these days? A Democrat in the White House in '08. Especially B. Hussein Obama.
In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2007 1:02:46 PM PDT
Sean Mulligan says:
In reply to an earlier post on Oct 17, 2007 11:41:58 AM PDT
It is true that the primary part of the invasion was Soviet conventional forces. But you have to look at ALL the details that were involved in the storyline. The beginning of the movie displays descriptions of other details. First, conventional forces did not just comprise of USSR military; there was Cuban and Nicaraguan forces as well. Later in the movie, Powers Boothe plays a downed Air Force pilot that explains some of the big picture elements, such as the nuclear first strike. Russia may not have used massive amounts of nuclear weapons, but they did use them enough to decimate East Coast and Midwest installations and cities, according to Boothe.
However, Sean, you are wrong about Ahmadenijad. He has indeed mentioned destroying Israel several times, and he DID deny the Holocaust occurred in a speech.
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 28, 2007 11:56:52 AM PST
SANDY DOG says:
Then why was this a CIA scenario?
Posted on Nov 29, 2007 3:45:35 PM PST
Kerry C. Camp says:
Dave what I find amazing about your review is that it occurs about one month prior to September 11th when we found out how plausible a Red Dawn truly is. Nice Review.
From an unabashed, Gung-ho, flag waving American.