Red Dawn (1984)

So I wasn't planning on watching this movie for a while. You've probably read my review of the 2012 remake of this film. I didn't want to compare the two because I hadn't seen both. But I wasn't planning on watch this movie because the remake turned out so bad I figured I had had enough of Red Dawn for a while.

But of course, movies expire on Netflix and I knew that if I didn't watch it now, I wouldn't have watched it.

The good thing is that now I can compare the two. I'll still review the film on its own merits but there are elements of the movie that made the remake make a lot more sense and those are worth mentioning.

Well in case you don't know, Red Dawn is the story of the United States being invaded by Russian and Cuban forces. A group of teenagers from a small town retreat into the mountains and make a guerilla group bent on wrecking havoc on the occupying force.

The main characters are Jed and Matt Eckert. Jed is played by Patrick Swayze and Matt is played by Charlie Sheen. They're very much the leaders of the group but there are a couple other kids in the mix.

Like in the remake, a lot of the characters get overshadowed, especially today by the big name actors Swayze and Sheen. Lea Thompson (the mom from Back to the Future) is in it and so is Jennifer Grey (Dirty Dancing and Ferris Bueller's Day Off) but they are incredibly under developed. In fact that's really the case for all of the characters, even Swayze and Sheen.

The original starts out by describing how the world has basically gone to shit. Like EVERYONE is either in revolution or collapsing except for the US. I kind of had to laugh at just the list of countries that just went to shit in this movie. But after that, the invasion happens right away. Really no introduction to the characters, just them retreating to the mountains.

And that doesn't really change throughout the movie.

There is a little bit of development as the characters react to the things happening about them but the truth is, I don't know anything about Patrick Swayze's character. I don't know anything about Charlie Sheen's except that they are brothers. Frankly, I got a lot of the other people mixed up and when they died I didn't really care that much.

Jennifer Grey and Lea Thompson are alright in the movie as there is some development with Lea Thompson and what happened to them before they join up with the Wolverines but again, not really developed. Granted I liked them a lot better than the female characters in the remake, but neither really developed as characters that much so I don't really care.

The movie is stereotypical 80s cheese. The story is very original and evidential of the Cold War era.

It also felt a little bit more glorified which is a good thing and a bad thing. They obviously didn't have the budget or effects of the remake but it felt more triumphant when they won a battle. The Wolverines felt more like an actual resistance as opposed to a symbol of hope.

In the end this is really just an action movie. And while the characters are really under developed, the movie knows what it is and gives us a comprehensive story as well as some really cool looking fight scenes considering the time this movie was made.

So how does the remake compare with the original?

Well, its funny because a lot of the scenes I didn't really understand from the remake were actually scenes taken from the original. I guess thats a good homage to the original but it kind of is evident to the comparison between the two.

Like I said before, it didn't feel like the original was really out to be anything inspiring. Sure it was evident of anti-soviet views at the time but at the end of the day, its really just an action/adventure movie.

I think the remake attempted to take some of the things that were lacking in the original and not only update them but kind of refine it a little bit. The lack of character development is a good example. Unfortunately, it feels like they may have gone a step too far. The relationship with Jed and Matt in the remake, while flushed out a little more just becomes angsty bullshit and not really something you want to see in an action movie.

Also, I mentioned that the original didn't have the budget or effects of the remake, but in actuality, its more bloody. And the good bloody, blood squibs bloody.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, watch a good action movie prior to the 90s. Watch the original Die Hard, watch Robocop, watch the Godfather. (But actually, watch those movie. They're really good, especially the Godfather)

But like I was saying, the movie is bloody. I think the rating system had to have had different guidelines because this movie was hardcore. A school gets shot up, kids die in this movie.

While the remake gave a little bit more realistic view of guerilla warfare and to give credit probably had the better battle sequences, it didn't have the grit that the original had. The remake felt like a bunch of teenagers with guns, the original felt like teenagers who had been through some shit... with guns.

Here's an example.

In both movies, there's a kid in the group who in one way or another gets a tracker put in him. Its a tracker that cannot be removed and puts the group in danger.

In the original, they flat out kill that kid. In the remake they just kind of send him away. It also had to do when this event happened and this is one of the scenes that didn't really make sense to put in the remake but you get my point. The original was a little more gritty and despite awesome effects and better battle sequences, the remake just felt a little underwhelming.

So its a weird comparison. The remake felt a little bit more personal but maybe a little bit too much and the original was the polar opposite making this more on a grander scale.

All of that being said, I did like Chris Hemsworth as Jed Eckert better. I think he's a better actor than Swayze. Give me shit for that statement but I think its true. That doesn't mean I didn't like Swayze's performances, its just for a remake, Chris Hemsworth was a fantastic choice to replace him.

But unfortunately, it puts another point in the box for the original because they kill off Hemsworth in the stupidest way possible in the remake. Not only that but it destroyed the entire movie after it happened. I thought the remake was an alright mediocre action film, until Hemsworth died, then I stopped caring.

In the original its changed up a little bit. Charlie Sheen actually dies in the last attack. And while I was bummed that he died, I thought it was a good way to die and respectful to the character.

And while we're on the subject.

Why the hell would you replace Charlie Sheen with the kid from Drake and Josh? Matt Eckert was a competent kid. Yeah he wasn't the most developed but at least he wasn't a dumbass like Josh Peck.

Again, the rest of the characters are so under developed in the original that its not worth comparing... though I liked them better than the females in the remake.

So overall, I don't really know which one I like better. I think the original is a little more impactful by reinforcing the fact that sometimes less is more. However, I think there are elements of the new movie that are done better but not taken all the way. So yeah, I think the original is probably the better film if not for the fact that it didn't have a shit ending. It was the film I thought the remake was going to be, a mediocre action film that was fun but not great.

So have you seen the original? How does it compare with the remake? Comment and discuss below.

I'll leave you with this. Though I wasn't a huge fan of his work, I think Patrick Swayze left us too early. Here's a funny clip of him dancing as a Chippendale's dancer on SNL.