PDA

View Full Version : Movies and TV Red Dawn Remake--WTF?


J Diddy
06-05-2012, 03:50 PM
Just a simple redo with us vs. North Korea (originally China, but apparently China said no.)

Even better is it's featuring Josh from Josh and Drake.

Due 11-21-2012, it has no real trailers yet, but it does have a website.

www.reddawnmovienews.com

I think I'm going to be sick.

Frazod
06-05-2012, 03:55 PM
Yeah, they can shove this turd. China would have made sense, but North Korea? Seriously? Maybe Red Dawn III will have us getting invaded by Somalia. LMAO

whoman69
06-05-2012, 04:46 PM
all I can say is...ugh, utter fail

Cornstock
06-05-2012, 05:03 PM
I heard they were working on this quite a while ago. It must have got caught up on something. Kind of ridiculous they picked North Korea. Didn't the original have Russia, China, and all of the other communist countries together invading? N Korea couldn't invade an ant hill.

SnakeXJones
06-05-2012, 05:18 PM
Chris Hemsworth is the new Swayze... Even Stark said it

J Diddy
06-05-2012, 05:25 PM
I heard they were working on this quite a while ago. It must have got caught up on something. Kind of ridiculous they picked North Korea. Didn't the original have Russia, China, and all of the other communist countries together invading? N Korea couldn't invade an ant hill.

I'd seen something about a communist coalition, but don't know much about that. The prevailing theory that I've heard was of China and of nuclear weapons, but they haven't released much about it. I believe the movie is done as the site has viewings listed, but need some extra time to not make it look so fucking gay.

Deberg_1990
06-05-2012, 05:59 PM
Yea, this was one of the films made by MGM a few years ago and hasnt been released due to their legal problems.

If i remember right, the Original bad guy was China, but then they deciced against it and just CGI'd over everything and made them North Korean. Its most likely crap since its been complete so long and languished, but I guess Cabin in the Woods turned out pretty good and that was another lost MGM flick.

Deberg_1990
06-05-2012, 06:02 PM
Hmmm...sounds like the delay might have helped since these actors are alot bigger stars now than when they filmed it:



The film stars Chris Hemsworth (Pre-Thor), Josh Peck (Post-Drake and Josh) and Josh Hutchinson (Pre-Hunger Games)

Valiant
06-05-2012, 06:24 PM
China was an ally in the first one. Only remember that from the screaming chinaman comment.

Enemies were russia and cuba? Or some caribbean country.

Shit they should of done us vs. Most of the world scenario.

Even though most disagree, russia and china will be our biggestest allies as their economies keep developing.

Maybe if mexiccans got ahold of some alien weaponry we could have a more realistic movie then NK taking us over for a bit.

splatbass
06-05-2012, 06:58 PM
I heard they were working on this quite a while ago. It must have got caught up on something. Kind of ridiculous they picked North Korea. Didn't the original have Russia, China, and all of the other communist countries together invading? N Korea couldn't invade an ant hill.

North Korea has a standing army of over 1 million, with a reserve army of 7.7 million. They may not have the technology, but they have a hell of a lot more troops than we do.

whoman69
06-05-2012, 07:04 PM
I heard they were working on this quite a while ago. It must have got caught up on something. Kind of ridiculous they picked North Korea. Didn't the original have Russia, China, and all of the other communist countries together invading? N Korea couldn't invade an ant hill.

Take that back, you bastard

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120206131546/villains/images/8/8e/Kim_Jong-il_Team_America_World_Police.jpg

BillSelfsTrophycase
06-05-2012, 07:05 PM
North Korea has a standing army of over 1 million, with a reserve army of 7.7 million. They may not have the technology, but they have a hell of a lot more troops than we do.

With absolutely zero means to get them here. Our airforce would have 95% of that invasion force dead before lunch

crispystl420
06-05-2012, 07:08 PM
North Korea has a standing army of over 1 million, with a reserve army of 7.7 million. They may not have the technology, but they have a hell of a lot more troops than we do.

We would annihilate them in the ocean.

crispystl420
06-05-2012, 07:09 PM
With absolutely zero means to get them here. Our airforce would have 95% of that invasion force dead before lunch

Damn beat me to it

notorious
06-05-2012, 07:30 PM
North Korea has a standing army of over 1 million, with a reserve army of 7.7 million. They may not have the technology, but they have a hell of a lot more troops than we do.

No Navy, barely any air power.


Besides, if we counted up our "reserve army" in the US it would probably be around 40 million heavily armed citizens.

BillSelfsTrophycase
06-05-2012, 07:34 PM
IIRC in the original, they came up through Mexico and split the country in half

I doubt they could even get into Mexico unnoticed, but that's slightly more feasable

notorious
06-05-2012, 07:35 PM
Maybe if North Korea managed to nuke every major city and government office simultaniously they could put up a fight.

Cornstock
06-05-2012, 07:45 PM
No Navy, barely any air power.


Besides, if we counted up our "reserve army" in the US it would probably be around 40 million heavily armed citizens.

This. Conservative estimates. (pun intended)

Cornstock
06-05-2012, 07:47 PM
With absolutely zero means to get them here. Our airforce would have 95% of that invasion force dead before lunch

They plan on marching them here Mao Tse-tung style, recruiting along the way.

notorious
06-05-2012, 08:01 PM
This. Conservative estimates. (pun intended)

Clever. How's that going for you?


:D

splatbass
06-05-2012, 08:04 PM
With absolutely zero means to get them here. Our airforce would have 95% of that invasion force dead before lunch

The same would have been true of the Soviet Union in the original movie. If you bought into the original premise you should have no trouble with this one. Movies aren't real, but gullible people are. The original movie was entertaining, but fantasy. It was no more realistic than the new movie.

splatbass
06-05-2012, 08:07 PM
IIRC in the original, they came up through Mexico and split the country in half

I doubt they could even get into Mexico unnoticed, but that's slightly more feasable

No, it isn't. But people wanted a "rah rah, America is the best!!!!" movie in the 80s so they bought into it.

splatbass
06-05-2012, 08:08 PM
Maybe if North Korea managed to nuke every major city and government office simultaniously they could put up a fight.

I spend several months a year in South Korea (just returned Saturday). Take North Korea seriously, they are a threat. They may not be a threat to invade the US (the Soviet Union wasn't either), but trust me, they are a threat.

notorious
06-05-2012, 08:10 PM
I spend several months a year in South Korea (just returned Saturday). Take North Korea seriously, they are a threat. They may not be a threat to invade the US (the Soviet Union wasn't either), but trust me, they are a threat.

I agree 100%.


They just don't have the capacity to do it in a Red Dawn scenario.

notorious
06-05-2012, 08:11 PM
Are the bad guys going to drop food on a highway to spring a trap, instead of just poisoning the food?

BillSelfsTrophycase
06-05-2012, 08:16 PM
Well yeah, NO country is a real threat to invade the U.S., but among the list of candidates NK's pretty close to the bottom

Brock
06-05-2012, 08:25 PM
I spend several months a year in South Korea (just returned Saturday). Take North Korea seriously, they are a threat. They may not be a threat to invade the US (the Soviet Union wasn't either), but trust me, they are a threat.

They're a threat to South Korea. For about a week.

Munson
06-05-2012, 08:29 PM
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQRUweFfU0TsBo626uFIRs0ayWRuXyAu7fh-4vjboo9fTls9Io1wA

Wolverines!

splatbass
06-05-2012, 08:43 PM
They're a threat to South Korea. For about a week.

We can hope our technology can overcome their millions of troops. I hope to never see if you are right, especially since there is about a 30% chance I would be there when it happens (since I spend about 30% of my year there).

Unfortunately, they are also a threat to the US, both militarily and economically. Thankfully there are people who understand this and do their part to prevent it. You are welcome.

Brock
06-05-2012, 08:48 PM
We can hope our technology can overcome their millions of troops. I hope to never see if you are right, especially since there is about a 30% chance I would be there when it happens (since I spend about 30% of my year there).

Unfortunately, they are also a threat to the US, both militarily and economically. Thankfully there are people who understand this and do their part to prevent it. You are welcome.

I hope to never find out either, but they're not a significant threat to the US. Glad to hear you believe in your mission.

BillSelfsTrophycase
06-05-2012, 08:59 PM
We can hope our technology can overcome their millions of troops. I hope to never see if you are right, especially since there is about a 30% chance I would be there when it happens (since I spend about 30% of my year there).

Unfortunately, they are also a threat to the US, both militarily and economically. Thankfully there are people who understand this and do their part to prevent it. You are welcome.


No doubt they would cause a fuckton of carnage early on, but yes the technology would overcome their millions


Even more quickly if we busted out the nukes

splatbass
06-05-2012, 09:01 PM
I hope to never find out either, but they're not a significant threat to the US. Glad to hear you believe in your mission.

Even if your belief is true (it isn't) then they are at the very least an enormous economic threat to the US. What do you think an invasion of South Korea would do to our economy?

splatbass
06-05-2012, 09:06 PM
No doubt they would cause a ****ton of carnage early on, but yes the technology would overcome their millions


Even more quickly if we busted out the nukes

There are 48 million people in South Korea, 21 million in the area around Seoul. There are also many millions more nearby in Japan and China. Seoul, Tokyo, Shanghai and Beijing are among the largest cities in the world. Nukes would not be an option.

J Diddy
06-05-2012, 09:07 PM
The same would have been true of the Soviet Union in the original movie. If you bought into the original premise you should have no trouble with this one. Movies aren't real, but gullible people are. The original movie was entertaining, but fantasy. It was no more realistic than the new movie.

Judging by the few videos out there I think the premise is they nuke the poo out of us and it just leaves the middle, but I could be wrong.

BillSelfsTrophycase
06-05-2012, 09:16 PM
Judging by the few videos out there I think the premise is they nuke the poo out of us and it just leaves the middle, but I could be wrong.


That's what I never got about the original, what the hell happened to the retaliatory strike?


You can't tell me they got every single sub, silo and bomber in their first strike

Not to mention the tac nukes

splatbass
06-05-2012, 09:23 PM
That's what I never got about the original, what the hell happened to the retaliatory strike?


You can't tell me they got every single sub, silo and bomber in their first strike

Not to mention the tac nukes

Especially since most of the nukes are in silos in the middle of the country, the part not damaged by Soviet nukes in the movie.

It was an entertaining movie, but you really had to work to suspend disbelief. Everything in that movie was far-fetched. The invasion, a bunch of untrained kids outwitting the Soviet army, everything was far-fetched. I assume the new one will be the same.

Sfeihc
06-05-2012, 09:23 PM
They filmed this at least two years ago. It must be a real turd. The state of Michigan gave producers heavy incentives to film in Michigan. Gov. Snyder did away with the incentives shortly after he took office in 1/11. The libs went ape over Snyder's actions but two balanced budgets later and an improving economy in the state of Michigan have made them forget about the glam and glitz of Hollywood.

BillSelfsTrophycase
06-05-2012, 10:21 PM
http://thecampofthesaints.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/reddawn-avenge-me.jpg

Rausch
06-06-2012, 05:27 AM
Yea, this was one of the films made by MGM a few years ago and hasnt been released due to their legal problems.

If i remember right, the Original bad guy was China, but then they deciced against it and just CGI'd over everything and made them North Korean. Its most likely crap since its been complete so long and languished, but I guess Cabin in the Woods turned out pretty good and that was another lost MGM flick.

It never should have been made.

Properly done (CASTING! CASTING! CASTING!) it might have made it's money back...

J Diddy
06-07-2012, 05:04 AM
That's what I never got about the original, what the hell happened to the retaliatory strike?


You can't tell me they got every single sub, silo and bomber in their first strike

Not to mention the tac nukes

I didn't realize there were nukes used in the first one. However, I will soon find out. I was talking to my kid about this and decided to buy the original on DVD. Getting it from Amazon.

Deberg_1990
08-10-2012, 05:31 PM
They finally have a trailer out. Judge for yourself



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/k6T2Q4bBcUU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Cheater5
08-10-2012, 10:23 PM
Just...bad.:shake:

Abercrombie model-insurgents without a hair out of place fighting an invading force of...North Koreans?




North Koreans? Did they say...NORTH KOREANS? ... Invading the continental United States? Riiiiight...

This movie will make less money than ''Battleship'.

Rausch
08-10-2012, 10:35 PM
I didn't realize there were nukes used in the first one. However, I will soon find out. I was talking to my kid about this and decided to buy the original on DVD. Getting it from Amazon.

There weren't...

Rausch
08-10-2012, 10:37 PM
Just...bad.:shake:

Abercrombie model-insurgents without a hair out of place fighting an invading force of...North Koreans?




North Koreans? Did they say...NORTH KOREANS? ... Invading the continental United States? Riiiiight...

This movie will make less money than ''Battleship'.

They pussed out and changed it from the Chinese. China makes sense.

NK is a fucking joke.

Then again, when you think about it, so is Cuba or Mexico being part of an effective invasion force...

Pawnmower
08-11-2012, 12:37 PM
There weren't...

Yes, there were


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5Qc8jJ0TjSY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Bowser
08-11-2012, 01:01 PM
Bad idea notwithstanding, but PG-13, too?

Blow me, Hollywood.

Deberg_1990
08-11-2012, 02:46 PM
Bad idea notwithstanding, but PG-13, too?

Blow me, Hollywood.

Funny u mention that. I'm pretty sure the original film was the very first PG-13 rated film.
Posted via Mobile Device

Bowser
08-11-2012, 02:54 PM
Funny u mention that. I'm pretty sure the original film was the very first PG-13 rated film.
Posted via Mobile Device

No shit? I would have sworn it was R. Didn't it hold the record for most on screen deaths for a movie at that point, or something?

Whatever. I won't be seeing this turd remake, regardless.

Frazod
08-11-2012, 02:57 PM
Funny u mention that. I'm pretty sure the original film was the very first PG-13 rated film.
Posted via Mobile Device

I believe this is correct. A bit too much violence for PG, but no sexual content.

Guru
08-11-2012, 06:14 PM
Funny u mention that. I'm pretty sure the original film was the very first PG-13 rated film.
Posted via Mobile Device

I always thought it was Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom but I guess it was just one of the movies that pushed us into the PG13 rating.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America_film_rating_system

Adoption of PG-13 rating
Through the 1970s to 1984, explicit violence and gore in the films Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Poltergeist and Gremlins caused an uproar among parents over their PG rating.[12][13] Their complaints led Hollywood figure Steven Spielberg, director of Temple of Doom and producer of Gremlins, to suggest a new rating to MPAA president Jack Valenti for movies that have too much adult content to be rated PG, but not quite enough to be rated R. Spielberg's suggestion was for an intermediate rating of PG-13 or PG-14.[14] On conferring with cinema owners, Valenti and the MPAA introduced the PG-13 rating on July 1, 1984, indicating that some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. The Spielberg films were never re-rated.
The first film distributed with a PG-13 rating was Red Dawn (1984). Dreamscape and The Woman in Red were released on the same day the following week. The Flamingo Kid (1984) was the first film to receive the rating, but was not released until December 1984.[15]

Rausch
08-11-2012, 08:03 PM
Yes, there were


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5Qc8jJ0TjSY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

:facepalm:

How did I forget that fucking scene?...

notorious
08-11-2012, 10:07 PM
No, just no.

Deberg_1990
08-11-2012, 10:08 PM
I always thought it was Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom but I guess it was just one of the movies that pushed us into the PG13 rating.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America_film_rating_system

Adoption of PG-13 rating
Through the 1970s to 1984, explicit violence and gore in the films Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Poltergeist and Gremlins caused an uproar among parents over their PG rating.[12][13] Their complaints led Hollywood figure Steven Spielberg, director of Temple of Doom and producer of Gremlins, to suggest a new rating to MPAA president Jack Valenti for movies that have too much adult content to be rated PG, but not quite enough to be rated R. Spielberg's suggestion was for an intermediate rating of PG-13 or PG-14.[14] On conferring with cinema owners, Valenti and the MPAA introduced the PG-13 rating on July 1, 1984, indicating that some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. The Spielberg films were never re-rated.
The first film distributed with a PG-13 rating was Red Dawn (1984). Dreamscape and The Woman in Red were released on the same day the following week. The Flamingo Kid (1984) was the first film to receive the rating, but was not released until December 1984.[15]



Yea, it was basically Gremlins and Temple of Doom that broke the PG ratings back.

Guru
08-11-2012, 11:54 PM
Yes, there were


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5Qc8jJ0TjSY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Shit, I forgot he was in that movie.

Psyko Tek
08-12-2012, 12:12 AM
wow this looks bad

thor should have dealt with this shit sooner

Aries Walker
08-12-2012, 12:21 AM
It's Thor, Comedian, and Wonder Woman against a Bond villain. How can this be bad?

Frazod
08-12-2012, 05:34 PM
Just on principal, I won't see this. The idea of us getting attached by North Korea is absolutely fucking absurd - it would be like Rhode Island stomping New York. Had the producers not sold out to China and altered the script, I would have given it a look. That scenario is believable.

All involved can kiss my ass. I'll stick with the original.

notorious
08-12-2012, 06:38 PM
But they have a secret weapon that cancels out all of our technology!

ChiefsandO'sfan
08-14-2012, 02:43 PM
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/nGoe7BdGdlg?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Rausch
08-15-2012, 03:00 AM
This movie isn't going to work in a theatre full of people attached to cell phones and iPods.

You can't explain the mentality of a lifetime of "duck and cover" to kids you don't ever want to know what that means.

Aries Walker
08-15-2012, 03:45 AM
I'm skeptical about:
- The "let's steal that super-weapon" plotline they're adding in;
- How it works without the mid-80's Cold War paranoia already in place;
- Josh Lucas;
- The fact that remakes of 80's movies are usually atrocious.
And I'm pretty sure it will get pretty bad reviews.

However:
- I'm still looking forward to what choices these filmmakers make in adapting it to today;
- It still looks like a good action flick;
- I think we as a country could use something to stand up and cheer about;
- It looks like they're doing well in adapting some of the iconic scenes to this remake;
- I like the casting in general, and;
- Adrienne Palicki specifically.

So I'll see it.

Rausch
08-15-2012, 04:06 AM
I'm skeptical about:
- The "let's steal that super-weapon" plotline they're adding in;
- How it works without the mid-80's Cold War paranoia already in place;
- Josh Lucas;
- The fact that remakes of 80's movies are usually atrocious.
And I'm pretty sure it will get pretty bad reviews.

However:
- I'm still looking forward to what choices these filmmakers make in adapting it to today;
- It still looks like a good action flick;
- I think we as a country could use something to stand up and cheer about;
- It looks like they're doing well in adapting some of the iconic scenes to this remake;
- I like the casting in general, and;
- Adrienne Palicki specifically.

So I'll see it.

1) Movie is made with upcoming actors and original idea on old material.
2) Movie hits the skids. Movie sold from one company to another without any real advertisers willing to commit. Movie finds internets can stir interest and funding. Movie uses this to stir interest.
3) Plot of film changed due to pressure from (THE FUCKING ENEMY IN THE MOVIE) advertisers and backers to change the the "script."
4) Original "ok for an action flick" degraded (numerous cuts) to dog$3it SciFi films original level due to the fact the fucking invaders in the film employed some lawyers (read: CHINA) and they had to salvage something since there were some now-pop stars in the film...

ChiefsandO'sfan
11-21-2012, 12:38 PM
Out Today

frankotank
11-21-2012, 12:43 PM
WE GOT A BUMP OVER HERE!

http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2009/10/8/128995306107161040.jpg

heard a review today - the dude said it's better than the original....but he thought the original sucked so that's not saying much! LMAO

htismaqe
11-21-2012, 12:46 PM
Make fun of Josh "Drake and Josh" Peck all you want...

He did do this:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1082886/

Deberg_1990
11-21-2012, 12:50 PM
heh, this entire premise is just laughable in 2012. In 1984, it seemed semi-real because of the lingering threat of the USSR.

okoye35chiefs
11-21-2012, 12:50 PM
http://www.aceshowbiz.com/images/still/red-dawn04.jpg

Frazod
11-21-2012, 01:57 PM
12% at Rotten Tomatoes. LMAO

HC_Chief
11-21-2012, 10:41 PM
12% at Rotten Tomatoes. LMAO

Surprised it is that high. The commercials look dreadful.

The original was gritty; the remake looks like a Michael Bay flag-fest, with plucky 'Merican teens givin' it to tha man! Drink Mountian Dew Xtreme! You know it's "da bomb" cuz it starts with an "X"! F*#K YEAH!

Jerm
11-21-2012, 11:28 PM
It was actually better than I expected but still way prefer the original.

Shocked they were able to explain the invasion in a way that was at least in the galaxy of realism without the Cold War paranoia.

Had one good HOLY SHIT moment too.

aturnis
11-22-2012, 12:19 PM
[htismaqe;9139601]Make fun of Josh "Drake and Josh" Peck all you want...

He did do this:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1082886/[/QUOTE]

Decent movie, his acting was great.

Sfeihc
11-22-2012, 01:00 PM
There is a reason it sat in the can for three years.

Fish
11-22-2012, 03:59 PM
Needs more Lea Thompson.....

Frazod
11-22-2012, 06:36 PM
Now down to 11% at RT. Top critics rate it at 3%.

Count Zarth
11-22-2012, 06:50 PM
Jesus. LMAO

notorious
11-22-2012, 07:32 PM
Needs more Lea Thompson.....

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pJlUbAGrD24/TTYdar17DGI/AAAAAAAAAMo/yMCyyzKM45A/s1600/LeaThompson.jpg

http://www.miserableretailslave.com/howard-the-duck1.jpg

http://img001.lazygirls.info/people/lea_thompson/lea_thompson_howard_the_duck_O4qty3u.sized.jpg

Frazod
11-26-2013, 10:49 AM
This turd is streaming on Netflix now. Started watching it last night. It's even worse than I thought it would be - the acting is Star Wars I-III bad and the story is awful. I may finish it at a later time just because I hope to see many of the characters die.

ThaVirus
11-26-2013, 10:52 AM
LMAO That's as good a reason as any to finish a movie.

Frazod
11-26-2013, 10:56 AM
LMAO That's as good a reason as any to finish a movie.

The main thing I wanted to see in the new shitty Star Wars movies was Vader put his lightsaber through Jar Jar's fucking head. That would have almost made them worthwhile.

Of course Darth Lucas denied me. Bastard. :grr:

Bump
11-26-2013, 12:47 PM
just watched this on netflix, ya, that was pretty fucking bad.

big nasty kcnut
11-26-2013, 01:00 PM
The one thing about this remake that was right was it's would of been easier to invade Spokane then Colorado especially since those Russians and north Korean aircrafts don't have a landing base for refueling their planes.

The Russians if they launched their attacks would only have to leave from their Western most posts to Alaska and launch attacks on the west coast easily.

Rausch
11-26-2013, 02:03 PM
This turd is streaming on Netflix now. Started watching it last night. It's even worse than I thought it would be - the acting is Star Wars I-III bad and the story is awful. I may finish it at a later time just because I hope to see many of the characters die.

Don't bother.

Thor just gets more irritating as time goes on...

Frazod
11-26-2013, 02:04 PM
Don't bother.

Thor just gets more irritating as time goes on...

Just tell me - does he die in the end?

Rausch
11-26-2013, 04:18 PM
Just tell me - does he die in the end?

I honestly don't remember...

ThaVirus
11-26-2013, 04:19 PM
Just tell me - does he die in the end?

He does.

Frazod
11-26-2013, 05:44 PM
He does.

Good.

beach tribe
11-27-2013, 09:49 AM
I couldnt get through 15 min of it.

And I watched a subtitled French movie on Crackle. LMOA. It was called Angel-a.

Frazod
11-27-2013, 10:01 AM
I did watch the end of it last night. Horrible. Especially compared to the first one, which is a sentimental favorite. They pretty much did with the remake what the new Battlestar Galactica did - used the original as a rough outline only. Only where Battlestar Galactica made everything better, in the new Red Dawn everything is worse. Much, much worse.

I need to rewatch the original now to get the memory of this steaming pile out of my head.

Gonzo
11-27-2013, 10:03 AM
Good.

LMAO