Avaliações de usuários

The United States gets invaded by North Korea. That pretty much sums up the ludicrousness of the film. I mean, the original had Soviet Union being the invading force, which at least played to the fears and politics of the time. This didn't have the guts to go with Russia - although they kinda did - but couldn't they haven chosen anything else but North Korea?

Not that it really matters. The whole premise is silly, but so is the movie as a whole. And the worst thing is that it tries to take itself way too seriously. The tone is grim and dark, the characters suffer, there's death and dismemberment, the whole gruesome nine yards. And throughout this whole ordeal were supposed to believe that North Korea successfully invaded the only superpower of our time. Yeah... no.

And the worst thing is that I've seen this idea done much better. I haven't seen the original film, but there's a film called Tomorrow, When the War Began, released a few years before this one, which takes place in Australia and has China as the invading force. Well, they don't explicitly specify the nation. But it's China. And yes, it's a stupid, silly film as well, but it acknowledges it. It's a teenage action-comedy and has much greater camp value because of it. The main characters are teenagers, like in this film, but the ludicrousness of the situation is turned to the film's advantage through decent writing and characters. And it still gets to have its guns akimbo action scenes and character deaths needed to sell the point that war is not actually such a hot idea.

So, to summarize, if the premise interests you, see Tomorrow, When the War Began instead. Enough said.

If you're thinking, hey wait a minute, how can the country with some of the worlds most malnorished troops, where middle class couples rent food for wedding photos, invade the us.

It's because the director couldn't use china, which was the invading country in the source material, which makes infinitely more sense, little bit ironic. Considering the premise of the movie.

XD.

And I'm mostly talking about Josh Peck... if a better actor had played his role I think the movie could have been saved.

Hemsworth was solid as usual, Josh Hutcherson wasn't bad, Friday Night Lights girls was good...although she was overly dramatic towards the end... and Isabel Lucas was a total smoke show like she usually is.

But Peck made every scene he was in seem like a horrible high school play or a really bad acting class where the students are trying to "out drama" one another.

Also, the ending of this movie was stupid as heck. At least the original movie gave us some closure and let us know the outcome of the resistance and the war.

A few of the positive reviews for this film were probably written by real people... like 13 year old boys, and frustrated, wannabe soldiers who failed the IQ test.

The rest can only have been added here by a cubicle farm of movie studio marketing drones, who really earned their pay trying to think of good things to say about this sad, career-damaging waste of time.

Josh Peck is one of the all-time worst casting calls, and should become a cautionary tale amongst casting agents.

Agent 1: 'What do you think of this guy for the main character?'

Agent 2: 'Are you trying to 'Josh Peck' this film?'

He looks about 20 years older than his older brother, and even in the most dramatic scenes - has a mopey expression on his face that makes you want to slap him. All I can imagine is that he helped fund the film, because there's no other logical reason for him playing this part.

I would have liked to be in the screening room when they showed this to the studio head. There was probably a long silence when the curtain fell, as half a dozen people were fired by text.

I'm not sure why everyone is so hard on this film.. maybe because they were comparing it to the original Red Dawn? Or maybe they were expecting too much?

I skimmed through some of the other reviews which all seemed to base their low rating 3 ideas. 1. that it's unlikely North Korea can occupy the US; 2. why they would choose to invade a small town; 3. and why a band of teenagers would make a difference.

Those reasons are irrelevant. If you think of every movie like that, there are lots of things that aren't realistic but that doesn't mean the movie can't be entertaining. For example, it's unrealistic that Bane can hijack a military plane, blow it up, and then jump out of it safely onto another plane, all in mid-flight thousands of ft above ground.

1. In the movie, they briefly mentioned that the N. Koreans had some kind of new EMP that knocked out the US' communications and equipment. Sure.. that's a far fetch but that's not the point of the movie. The US can attack and occupy other countries, so why can't N. Korea (with Russian assistance)? (N. Korea has one of the largest military in the world)

2. What city they invaded is not the point either.. they could have made it about Manhattan if that makes you happier. They mentioned that the N. Koreans invaded many parts of the country so this is just one of the places they occupied. Perhaps, this small town, USA was a geographical location that gave them some kind of vantage point for a region of the country?

3. Why can't a band of rebels (even teenagers) make a difference? It's not that unbelievable that teenagers can shoot. It's also not that unbelievable that they can organize themselves into an effective force under the right leadership (like a marine). They're not trying to say that the group will save the entire country or kill all the invaders in the town. As Chris Hemsworth stated near the beginning of the movie, it's moreso that a small group can make a nuisance for the invaders and defeat their spirit. Look at the movie Defiance, which is based on a true story. There are also elements of rebellion in other more famous movies like Gladiator, The Last Samurai, Braveheart, etc.

Overall, I really enjoyed this movie actually, despite what others say. I think many people were probably expecting something else and had high hopes and felt disappointed, but if you watch this movie without reading any reviews first or criticism, you may be entertained!

His character was so annoying, and his acting straight up sucks. This movie could have been better, without him in it.

Just by looking at him is annoying.

I don't know why there is so much hate for this movie. It's not nearly as bad as people are making it out to be. I watched this shortly after watching the 80s version, and I have to say that I enjoyed the new version much more.

This one was more briskly paced, even though the invasion starts later. They did a good job of keeping the story moving forward without getting boring at times like the original tended to be. Having said that, there is still enough character development to get to relate to the teens and what they're going through - though the original version did a better job at relaying the struggles and fears of the main characters. There is also a good balance between action and dialogue, with a few humorous scenes and also some nods to the original in the form of similar scenes done in different ways.

All in all it was an enjoyable film for what it is, and even though it had its far fetched moments, like the teens jumping down 20 foot heights more than once and just walking away from it, or the fact that the North Korean army could stage an invasion of the US (the original Chinese army version was more plausible), they didn't detract too much from the film. I would say give it a shot if you don't have unrealistic expectations given what kind of film it is, and you may be pleasantly surprised. I grew up in the 80s and think some classic films from that era should never be remade, but this one was an actual improvement over the original and I don't think it deserves all the hate it's getting.

I was not going to talk about this moving until I saw one of the actors interviewed on CNN. He talked about making it better than the original because today's audiences are more sophisticated that they were 30 years ago and need a better story and acting. Please, this movie is full of special effects and CGI, the acting is sub par and, it's just a bad, bad movie. If this movies shows anything, it's that Hollywood has no respect for audiences and just recycles an old movie, loads it with pretty faces and special effects, makes it PC and throws it out at audiences. Seems that every year, Hollywood throws out trash like this, fills it with CGI and special effects, lot's of fires and explosions and calls it "art".

A complete waste of time unless you are a male in his early teens.

if a movie could get 0 stars, that's what I would give this movie. It will be in the bargain bin at Walmart for .49 Even at this price, it's not worth the money.

I almost didn't watch this movie after reading all the bad reviews. First of all i would like to say that my family and I thoroughly enjoyed the movie from start to finish. People seem so ready to criticise remakes for some reason without giving them a chance. Whether you have seen the 1984 original or not, If your a fan of against the odds action flicks you will enjoy this, its a great popcorn movie. Some critics ( this is what they like to call themselves, although I believe they are stuck up adolescents with hardly any worldly experiences) say the violence was too toned down.. well boohoo, a great movie doesn't need to be gory and contain large amounts of gratuitous violence, to be honest some movies do this because they are bad movies and have nothing else to offer.

On another note, have any of the critics bashing this movie actually watched it from start to finish or have they just flicked through it enabling them to give their review?

Here are an few shameful comments from the movie bashers

"why would N. Korea invade a small US town..WTF?"

Duh.. they invaded most of the US... listen to the dialogue

"Where is the US Army"

This was explained in the news footage montage at the start, the US army is scattered across the world, fighting conflicts in the middle east and other parts of the world... plus,they never expected an attack on their own soil

"We couldn't stop laughing when the N. Korea military leader kept yelling "The wolverine terrorists are attacking"

Oh yeah, and I couldn't stop laughing at your comment! the plot was very simply, why couldn't you follow it? these radio transmissions came from the Korean Marine, made purposely to cause confusion... plus a little comic relief for the audience (the one's paying attention anyway)

For the people saying that the story was unbelievable, i just don't have anything to say to you retards except... it's a movie, it's make believe, it's for entertainment.

All in all a great popcorn movie, does it deserve the 10 I gave it? probably not, but a solid 8 easily, it gets the 10 the offset the unfounded 1's its been getting... what's wrong with people today

I'm sure this movie shows more or less how it looked when US forces dropped in to say hello in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 30 year old teenagers in this movie throw out mercilessly sub par dialog like "This is not their land. This is our back yard and we're going to fight for it," or "they killed our father, we have to fight or die." I'm sure that's what they said in Fallujah too when good ol' George W. sent his invading army to destroy their country. Aaameeerica, Aaameeerrrrriiiicaa!! God save them all, they do make me laugh and cry at the same time.

Enough has already been said in previous reviews about the wildly idiotic plot and lazy directing. Rather get the 1984 version. At least it had some heart in it, though the plot was just as ludicrous, playing on the strange fear of communism America has always fostered.

One more thing! Modern movies (this one being no exception) way overuse the lazy technique of compressing together various sorts of character growth sequences into a few minutes. It's very annoying and shows a lack of skill on everyones part.

This pitiful remake is nothing more than a hurried excuse to make money off of an 80′s action brand that made its money off of the pretty faces that starred in it, by doing more of the same. Oh well, we've got Chris Hemsworth and Josh Hutcherson, right? (both fine actors, by the way). But wait, hell with them, let's have a greasy-looking, stoner-faced, mumbling Josh Peck as our war-torn hero. These "pretty faces" fill out the empty space where the rest of the story about a hostile North Korean attack on American soil should be. Wait, where's the United States military? Hell with them, there's some device that shut them all down, and these kids are our last hope! Yeah, right. If you can tie an anchor to every last one of your disbeliefs and drown them in the waters of horrible cinema, then maybe you can appreciate one or two of the well- orchestrated and intense action scenes that "Red Dawn 2.0″ has to offer. Maybe you can even grow attached to some of the characters. But hell with all that, and hell with an ending. That's the reward for your investment. But hey, the studios probably made enough money for a sequel. So there's that.

Chris Hemsworth is a fkn stud!! The movie was good but drake and Josh guy just over killed his acting. I give it a 6 bc of Hemsworth.

I do not know why the other reviewers are being so harsh. I like the original as well, but this one deserved a remake. Bring it more modern and make it more appealing to the younger crowd. I thought the movie was well shot and acted. The action sequences and fight scenes were far better than the original. The drama more though out and acted. With the exception of Peck (who really wasn't that bad), he just seemed forced. They stuck close enough to the original to call it a remake, but they took a different direction on the story to provide a objective. Very well done. 8/10. Seems like everyone is just hating on the remakes for the sake of hating on a remake.

I came with somewhat high hopes, and I don't think I could have been more let down. The story is alright, since mostly follows the original and they didn't have much to write on their own. But they really screwed the pooch on this one. Acting was among the worst I have ever seen. Hemsworth is the only one that was passable, the rest disgustingly atrocious. Josh Peck is an absolute joke, It was painful to watch him, he should never have been casted. Even after filming somebody should have done something to midigate his performance. I can't speak enough to how terrible he was. The rest of the supporting cast not much better. Seems like all they could do was make dramatic faces and awkwardly spew out their lines.

This whole movie was terrible, i feel bad for anyone who is associated with this garbage, for the original movie and cast, because the new generation will likely judge their work on this ridiculous performance.

I really hope that the next time somebody decides to re-make a movie, they put some real effort into it.

Not nearly as bad as everyone makes it out to be. If it weren't for Josh Peck it would have been ten times better.

Words cannot begin to describe how awful this movie is. Not sure if it was meant to be serious or a parody that went haywire. This movie could not end soon enough and the fact that its rating is sitting at a 5 on IMDb right now just made me lose a ton of respect for the IMDb ratings.

My wife and I can't stop talking about how bad this movie was. A group of high school students terrorize an entire N. Korea army which for some reason or another took over small town USA? WTF? We couldn't stop laughing when the N. Korea military leader kept yelling "The wolverine terrorists are attacking..." yeah - watch out for those high school snipers (all 5 of them) terrorizing your artillery of tanks and thousands of troops.

I couldn't make up this movie plot and can't reasonably understand how any movie director or studio could come up with this, let alone actually release it to the public. It embarrasses the entire movie industry.

The director and studio should be banned from producing movies for life.

It seriously is SO BAD, that you actually have to see it to believe it. What ever you judged bad before- will appear brilliant compared to this crap here!