Red Dawn (1984) Vs. Red Dawn (2012)

Red Dawn (1984) - 3 Stars (out of four)

Red Dawn (2012) - 2.5 Stars (out of four)

First off, both Red Dawns are fanciful tales about the USA being invaded by a foreign power.  A group of local high school students led by a former jock from the high school begin an insurgency named the Wolverines, named after the local school mascot.  The insurgency gets more and more successful and gets the attention of the local commander.  The commander begins to crack down on the population.  At some point, one of the group gets a tracker on him/her which results in the death of some members.  Then, a service member from the US armed forces shows up and makes the Wolverines more effective.  An intense battle follows and most of our main characters die.  The end.

That pretty much sums up the plot for both of the movies.  The reason for the different ratings is that the 1984 version is much more coherent and dramatic.  Apparently, the new version sat on the shelf for a couple years, and it shows.  I have a feeling it suffers from post-production tinkering.  The problem is that the story doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  There are jumps in time periods and events that give the movie a very disjointed feel.  It's almost like you have to watch the first one to keep up with the second one.  Also, the director just isn't that good.  His action choreography just doesn't allow us to follow the action well.  The action, though, is much flashier and bombastic in the second one, even if it doesn't make a lot of sense.  Also, crucial plot points are not explained, they just happen.  For example, there is some new technology that is used in order to track our group by the bad guys that makes no sense and we are left scratching our heads.  We also don't see the final fate of the trackee.  The movie just looks like a hodge-podge of shots that sort of make a story.

But for me, and more crucially, is the tone of the films.  The first villains were the Soviets and Cubans at the height of the Cold War.  The newer ones are the North Koreans at a time when we are not particularly snarling at each other.  There is no feeling of urgency or reality to the newer version. We never really come out of the illusion that we are watching a movie.  Now, maybe it was because I was a lot younger in a more politically charged time against a hated enemy.  But I just didn't feel as angry in this film.  Also, the former film is a lot more brutal and vicious.  The newer version's violence is much more sterile and comic book-like.  In the original, we see several executions and murders, for lack of a better term.  The violence and emotion is much rawer, and feral, and more real.  Now, I wonder if that is just the age I grew up in.  After all, I am a child of movies like The Terminator, Aliens, The Untouchables, Jaws, Romancing the Stone.  The movies just seemed to be tougher and meaner.  Maybe because today, since movies are so expensive, they have to appeal to as many as possible, and thus are more vanilla.  The newer version reflects that.  So, in conclusion, they are both fun, but I prefer the original.