User Score
4.5 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 103 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 43 out of 103
  2. Negative: 46 out of 103

Review this movie

  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 25, 2012
    3
    I love the original Patrick Swayze version of Red Dawn, it was one of the best 80's movies that we certainly don't have time for a reboot. The new version starring a Hunger Games star and an Avengers star is pretty much says it. After a long period of delays since MGM (the movie's former company) headed for turbulance. And even bankruptcy, they should've released it when Sony acquired the rights to the troubled studio. Red Dawn is nearly half as bad as the floppy reboot Total Recall, so I thought it was gonna be called "Crap Dawn" or "Turkey Dawn." Jennifer Grey (the original Dirty Dancer) could send a message to the late Patrick Swayze that the director who is responsible for the remake is making a fool out of himself making a stupid idea to remake Red Dawn. I already got the movie on VHS, sadly I retired the tape and wait for the Blu-Ray release. Reboots are nothing more than con artists and so does the Red Dawn reboot. A terrible, indulgent, and as Joe Biden said in the Democratic debate that I've never heard that "Malarkey" word, but it's incredible. Expand
  2. Nov 24, 2012
    2
    "Oh how the mighty have fallen." That is a phrase that you will repeat quite a bit if you've watched the original Red Dawn and maybe even played the video game Homefront before watching this. The movie is a gigantic rush job, which is a shame, as I'm pretty sure the original writer seems to have made the trio of American invasion movies/game, as the style is distinctly that of the original. The only problem? The execution. While the style it is done in has little differences, the script is a mess, spending no time developing female characters and constantly juggling ridiculous dialogue with a horrid plot, Much like Homefront, the original villain seemed to have been the Chinese. However, it seems to have been changed at the last second to avoid controversy. The writing is also a mess, and the action is like that of having a string puppet show involving a cowboy and a waving inflatable-arm tubeman duking it out. Do not watch this mess of a movie, and avoid it at all costs. Expand
  3. Nov 22, 2012
    0
    It's a little hard to get drawn into a movie when the main villain is a country that can barely has enough of anything in their own fridge, let alone invade another country.
  4. Nov 24, 2012
    0
    Absolutely disgusting. Nothing short of a pathetic excuse of a remake that does not live up to it's original. Patrick Swayze would roll in his grave if he knew how much of a disgrace this movie was. The plot makes very little sense, and is overly patriotic. It is almost like they gathered inspiration from the awful video game Homefront. Do not waste your money.
  5. Dec 10, 2012
    7
    I still have a difficult time believing that people listen to critics. I have an even harder time believing they get paid for what they do. This was a good action movie. It's as if they were expecting a thriller. I was also looking through user reviews and had to laugh at the illiteracy of most of the negative scorers. Are children rating? I can't trust an individual's opinion if he/she seems incompetent. Anyways, dairy for the tangent. Good action movie. If you haven't seen it, just remember......ACTION MOVIE. NOT PHILOSOPHICAL. Expand
  6. Nov 28, 2012
    4
    This remake of the 1984 film has shifted the villains from Russia to North Korea. (It was shot several years ago with Chinese villains, but times have changed and so did the flags and uniforms in post production.). Pre-Thor Chris Hensworth and pre-Hunger Games Josh Hutcherson lead the cast of young people who take on the hostile foreign invaders. Their pluck and guerilla tactics are amazingly slick and successful for such an untrained group, but there's not much about this film that's realistic. Some of the action is good, but much of it is blurred and choppy Expand
  7. Nov 25, 2012
    4
    Makes audiences nostalgic
  8. Dec 8, 2012
    1
    Worst movie I have seen. Bad acting, bad plot, bad directing, and so on. Please do not waste your hard earned money or your precious time on this garbage. It's BAD!
  9. Nov 22, 2012
    6
    It's certainly not as bad as the pro critics would suggest. As a tribute to the first film, it's decent, but it lacks the charm of the original. Hemsworth is not nearly as magnetic as Swayze. But it's a dumb fun action flick that keeps the blood pumping, so I'd give is a modest recommendation to those who are into this sort of thing.
  10. Nov 25, 2012
    0
    Aside from the fact that Hollywood caved to Chinese pressure, and altered the antagonists from China to North Korea - Ironic in the extreme because this movie is about Americans standing up to communists - this movie is pure garbage. How the hell would North Korea invade America? With what Navy? This is just simple tripe and typical of the crap Hollywood produces.
  11. Feb 20, 2013
    0
    North Korea attacks The U.S. A. This is the point where you should stop considering watching this teen fantasy movie! Some untrained kids from the local town later form a resistance group, and fight back the highly trained and fanaticized N.K. soldiers! Honestly I can not say how dumb that is...
  12. Jan 1, 2013
    10
    epic
  13. Nov 27, 2012
    3
    The worst remake movies i seen is The Stepfather (2009). and Psycho (1998). Planet of the Apes (2001). The Wicker Man (2006). Red Dawn (2012) , And wait for more bad remakes movies Carrie 2013 and . Robocop 2013.
  14. wap
    Nov 26, 2012
    0
    Wow! I can't believe someone actually likes this movie. We are all unique and different. This was by far the worst movie i have ever seen. Who ask them to remake this movie? The script was equally bad as the acting.
  15. Jan 28, 2013
    10
    People say that this movie sucks, I really don't know why they say that, you watch a movie to have fun, this movie, Red dawn, combines everything that teens like to become an amazing movie, great characters, story and sfx, ill be watching this movie as one of my favorites, always.
  16. Mar 9, 2013
    3
    Another pointless remake that should have never been made. The 1984 version has a story that's compelling because you have kids that are put through the worst circumstances, that ends up bringing two brothers together. In this one all the kids look like they just got out of the shower while just being in a bloody battle and you just don't care about the brothers relationship at all.
  17. Apr 5, 2013
    9
    ReviewZone212 put it best, most people says this movie sucks. Well those people can suck it, this movie was AWESOME. Great action, great cast and for the most part of it funny and intriguing dialogue, my only gripe was that there wasn't really a great portrayal of a plot.
  18. Feb 23, 2013
    7
    This movie has a lot of action, and that's a good thing. So, they may have deviated from the original a bit, and that's fine. The acting is ok at best. Listen, I have watched BattleShip twice. I think the acting in that movie totally SUCKS. (Rihanna, acting, really?) The actors in this movie are far better. Go in thinking action movie, for about 2hrs, give or take, and you will be satisfied. Anything else, and you will probably be disappointed. i will recommend this movie on that condition. Expand
  19. man
    Dec 22, 2012
    5
    Went and saw this two days ago and I have to say, it wasn't terrible like many critics and audiences alike have been suggesting. However, it had so much more potential. I now realize why this movie was shelved for three years, because it was probably not looked greatly upon. The only good thing this film had to offer was the action pretty much. Other than that, the acting was stale and the storyline felt rushed and was quite a mess. Instead of Russians invading, it was originally planned to be the Chinese, but we obviously couldn't do that. So it was changed to North Korea invading. Like I said, the action was cool and entertaining for the most part, but it's just typical guns and explosion action. Obviously, Chris Hemsworth did this film only because he wasn't quite as big a star at the time and probably had nothing else to work on. It's definitely not his fault the film turned out the way it did. And as for Josh Peck, it always seems like he's being miscast in so many movies such as this. He works as goofball like he did in "Drake and Josh" so many years ago, but this was not the right movie to put him in at all! I never thought Josh Hutcherson was a very good actor, but he was technically in this just to be in it. And last but not least, the ending: There wasn't really an ending at all as a matter of fact. It didn't really conclude at all and we were just left sitting there with nothing in the end. All-in-all, this film was sadly just wasted potential. Expand
  20. Apr 6, 2013
    3
    O.k. so in this version of Red Dawn in lieu of an actual powerful, adversarial nation like during the Cold War the United States is instead invaded by a country with less then half the GDP of the poorest US State and roughly the population of Texas. This vast gulf in military power and funding is offset slightly by having China and Russia help out North Korea; which doesn't make much of a difference since the US Military has more equipment then the next 13 largest militaries...combined, and most of them are our allies. Of course they could get few actual Koreans to act in this movie, so the "North Korean" army looks more like the "Peoples Republic of Greater Asia", which in retrospect would have made a much more realistic storyline. Beyond the horrible plot that serves as a perfect example of the kind of paranoia that's driving our nation to bankruptcy spending untold billions on a gigantic military, the movie does do two things rather well. First, the comparison between the Wolverines and the insurgents fighting the US and the North Korean invasion force proclaiming that it wants to "save" America make the movie an excellent walk in "the other sides" shoes, essentially saying: "this is what it feels like to Iraq, Afghanistan, etc." The second thing which it does well are explosions. They are done very well. Expand
  21. Apr 23, 2013
    3
    Remakes are all the style now as if Hollywood has run out of things to say so here is Red Dawn, a modern day remake of a 70s cold war paranoia picture. Back then the idea Russia could descend the world into darkness was very real and now its the same with North Korea, oh wait, no it isn't. The film follows a group of survivors of a full scale invasion of suburban America by the North Koreans (I am honestly not joking). This group must band together and start a campaign of guerrilla warfare to take back their neighborhood and their country. (yet again, I am not joking) I really should have hated Red Dawn more than I eventually did. Don't get me wrong, I still pretty much loathed it. The cast is filled with miscast actors or just plain dreadful ones but it also has a few pretty great ones. For instance Chris Hemsworth is the right kind of charming/brooding to play former soldier Jed although Josh Peck is just horrendous as his hot headed (which he plays as constipated) brother Matt. Adrianne Palicki seems to be making a thing of the whole action woman thing but has had to wait a good 2 years for her two action films to be released after being held back for years. However she entertains as tomboy Toni although Isabel Lucas irritates and infuriates as her sister Erica. A pre Hunger Games Josh Hutcherson is in the film but I honestly cannot say anything about him because his presence isn't memorable. The main problem is that there is a borderline decent film hidden beneath the bad acting and illogical story that was changed as not to irritate the Chinese (the Chinese that were never going to see the film in the first place) as if they hadn't heard of a story before. The main draw of Red Dawn is the fact it is directed by Dan Bradley, a stunt coordinator who understands what makes good action as he has proven in the Bourne films he has worked on. The action is never short of fantastic from the opening invasion to the final showdown in a taken over police station. Its visceral and honestly some of my favorite action in a while, its that good. It's shocking that a film with this caliber of effects and stunts is let down by an idiotic plot change late into production and some woefully bad acting. Expand
  22. Feb 19, 2013
    6
    Enjoyable action film. Didn't have close to the storyline of the original, but enjoyable to watch. If you are looking for a remake of the original, this is not it. If you are looking for an action flick, have at it.
  23. Jan 18, 2013
    7
    Sorry critics. I try to see what people are finding so bad about this film, but there is too many things I like here that should be highlighted. For one thing, this movie pays much more respect the the "man in uniform" than "Act of Valor" ever attempted to have. The action is awesome, and we have reasons to care for the characters here. Unlike "Battleship", this movie develops all of its characters. No, I have never seen the original "Red Dawn", and i'm not gonna let that affect my review. This movie stands alone as something entirely different. The point is, I recommend it. I feel that it is very underrated. Collapse
  24. Mar 4, 2013
    8
    I'ts just a movie! I don't know why some people try to compare a movie like this with some chance of happening in the real world. As far as I know, movies are made do entertain people, to make people get out of their boring routine.
  25. Dec 10, 2012
    6
    Though it's not as bad as the critics make it out to be, there's no question Red Dawn is a silly, over-the-top, wannabe-bad ass sort of film. But despite all that, it's actually kind of fun.
  26. Jan 15, 2013
    1
    How racist is this movie? Really! It is a 2012 re-make of a Reagan-era film however it seems that race relations and stereotypes are still quite Reagan-era. The two Hispanic kids don't even get lines and die off, the Black kids are portrayed as traitors and also die off, and well the only ones who live in this barrage of racial stereotypes are the white kids. Also how can we even think that North Korea one of the poorest nations in the world could ever invade the United States? One of the worst films of the year! Expand
  27. Mar 3, 2013
    2
    Shallow plot, shallow characters, shallow action and a horrible ending. They just took a hugeass dump on the original while creating one of the worst action flicks Ive seen in a long time. Hell, even Bourne Legacy was better than this pile of excrement. I felt sorry for the cast who had to put up with the cheap SFX, generic script and boring, uninspiring sequences that shouts below mediocrity. This should've been a made for TV movie from the start. Hell, had they retained the China vs U.S premise instead of this ridiculous North Korea vs U.S one it might've been a bit better. Because totally...the North Korean Army uses Hummers as part of their arsenal and are perfectly groomed like Korean pop stars. Avoid at all costs. Expand
  28. Apr 14, 2013
    8
    Like "War of the Worlds", with aliens replaced by North Korea. This is a truly awesome movie with an original story, great action, and lots of twists and turns that make this movie impossible to turn off. Awesome, truly awesome.
  29. Dec 6, 2012
    5
    Oh! This picture has failed to reach my upmost desires and expectation in a film of such topic. During the picture, i felt the desire to bash my skull into my adversaries while denouncing the queen herself! I declare this film treachery against England and her royalty. BAN THIS PICTURE AT ONCE! But...... Oh did i enjoy the appearance of "Josh". the lovely individual whom played Josh on Drake and Josh. Expand
  30. Mar 2, 2013
    0
    what the hell i just watched this is terrible as Dark knight rises and Amazing spider man 3. For heaven shake people should not made this sort of war porn movies.
Metascore

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 33 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 33
  2. Negative: 18 out of 33
  1. Reviewed by: Peter Bradshaw
    Mar 15, 2013
    20
    This has to be the year's most pointless remake: a boring and badly acted reboot of John Milius's gung-ho red-scare actioner from 1984.
  2. Reviewed by: Neil Smith
    Mar 11, 2013
    40
    The doltish, messy and frequently incoherent result bears all the hallmarks of a botched and compromised endeavour.
  3. Reviewed by: Nick de Semlyen
    Mar 11, 2013
    20
    Long-delayed. Arguably not long enough.