another jiggle-fest

By examatrix
Written November 23, 2012
Oh fer Gawd sake. Somebody buy the director of photography a steady cam already. I don't understand why these guys think they are building excitement by rocking and rolling the camera all over. This is a movie. We are the viewers,happily outside looking in. We are not impressed by having the actors wear a camera on their heads like animal planet. Distracting to the point of being unable to avoid an epileptic seizure and worse,you can't see what's going on. Lazy filmaking. And yes, I saw the original and it had more heart. Several key elements of the story were removed in this remake, and it really dumbed the thing down in order to avoid stepping on anyones toes. Seriously, rent the Patrick Swayze version, it's easier to look at and the story is all there. And one more thing: apparently the go straight to the top and learn on the job thing is still in vogue.Since Obama ratified the concept, other amateurs have been hopping into the cat bird seat with impunity. Connor Cruise? Go home.
30 out of 50 found this helpful. Did you?

another jiggle-fest

By examatrix
Written November 23, 2012
Oh fer Gawd sake. Somebody buy the director of photography a steady cam already. I don't understand why these guys think they are building excitement by rocking and rolling the camera all over. This is a movie. We are the viewers,happily outside looking in. We are not impressed by having the actors wear a camera on their heads like animal planet. Distracting to the point of being unable to avoid an epileptic seizure and worse,you can't see what's going on. Lazy filmaking. And yes, I saw the original and it had more heart. Several key elements of the story were removed in this remake, and it really dumbed the thing down in order to avoid stepping on anyones toes. Seriously, rent the Patrick Swayze version, it's easier to look at and the story is all there. And one more thing: apparently the go straight to the top and learn on the job thing is still in vogue.Since Obama ratified the concept, other amateurs have been hopping into the cat bird seat with impunity. Connor Cruise? Go home.
30 out of 50 found this helpful. Did you?

Red Dawn

By wjmcbeth61
Written November 23, 2012
It was so-so, the premise was kind of far fetched. Why would they attack Seattle? The acting was okay but the characters never seemed to fully embrace their roles Any age would be fine
29 out of 46 found this helpful. Did you?

Red Dawn

By wjmcbeth61
Written November 23, 2012
It was so-so, the premise was kind of far fetched. Why would they attack Seattle? The acting was okay but the characters never seemed to fully embrace their roles Any age would be fine
29 out of 46 found this helpful. Did you?

Ignore the Leftwing Critics

By BrianBailey
Written November 27, 2012
Is this a great movie? No, not by a long shot but it's very enjoyable on its own terms. A good actionerr . The critics hate it based on their political agenda. There's even a scene where the occupiers are making a public appearance and saying the how the people should be grateful since they saved us from corrupt capitalists and Wall St. Exactly what we just finished hearing during the campaign just ended and OWS before that. Can't beat that class warfare and the politics of envy. Would I have preferred the producers hadn't wussed out and renamed the enemy from the Red Chinese to N Korea? Sure. It might have been even more interesting (and plausible) to make the invaders UN troops but that would have meant a longer exposition and setup. The flick may jolt some young products of our government schools but I though the movie was every bit as (im)plausible than movies like Lions for Lambs or Rendition. And a heck of a lot more action. It might even recruit future Marines. S/F
25 out of 36 found this helpful. Did you?