Badmovies.org Forum

Yes, I'd like to talk about a film I saw over 20 years ago.  This film was a first for the rating it recieved.  It was a military flick that launched Patrick Swayze into stardom.  Yes, I am talking about none other than Red Dawn.  What do I find so bad about this film?  Is it the violence?  Nope.  Is it the frequent death scenes?  Hardly.  What I find so bad about this film is that it greatly overexaggerates certain facts.  And here are the facts that is misconstrues.

 :thumbdown:  Extreme weaknesses in the US Military.  The last time any foreign military force penetrated deeply into US territory was back in the 1700s during the Revolutionary war.  Since then, we have developed one of the most powerful and advanced military forces in the world.  Yet in this film, they allow the combined Cuban and Soviet forces penetrate deeply into Texas and worst off, are unable to route them out.  Now I know what you're thinking.  "But Wyre, what about Pearl Harbor?"  Pearl Harbor isn't anywhere in the contiguous Mainland.  Pearl Harbor is on the Hawaiian islands which are over 2,000 miles from the US Mainland.  Pearl Harbor was nothing more than a US outpost.  I'm talking the US Mainland here.  "What about 9-11?"  That was a terrorist action, not a military action.  No country supported 9-11.  9-11 was the work of Al-Quaida, not a foreign military.  Any film which greatly over exaggerates the weaknesses in the US military by any foreign power on Earth is in my view a bad film.

 :bouncegiggle: The invader's target.  Texas of all places.  Now why would the combined Soviet and Cuban forces invade Texas?  Texas has a great number of military bases and a significant military presence.  I seriously doubted that the Soviet Union back then would have invested any resources into invading a hard target like Texas.  And Cuba's weak military force would have been all but wiped out by Texas's military presence.  Texas also  has very few nuclear missile launch sites so invading it would have done little to weaken the US's nuclear arsenal.  Now if you ask me any foreign military who would invade Texas would be suicidal.  Invading Texas served no purpose.

The film takes place in Colorado, not Texas.

And I'm not completely sure 'overexaggerates" is actually a word.

*cough* War of 1812, Mexican/American War, Spanish/American War *cough*

sorry, I forgot to hyphenate it.

Thank you. I was going to mention that myself, but someone got there ahead of me. :teddyr:

Do you actually have a point, Wee Willy?

You post about what you find to be wrong with a film, yet everyone of the facts you use to dismiss the film are simply wrong.

Is this more of a case of the idiot calling the movie stupid?


Let's take a look at your mistaken hypothesis of an invasion in Texas:


1) If it is the clusterf**k of military strength you claim it to be (I actually don't know), then why would it not be a good idea to attack there?

Attacks to the weaker periphery of any force results in fewer gains for the losses incurred and drawn out stalemates.

General Sherman did not defeat the Confederate forces by staying to the bounderies. He cut a swath of terror right into the heart of the South; effectively demoralizing and disrupting his enemy.

An attack to the heart of a military force will effectively disrupt that force. Attacks to the weaker forces will result in those forces becoming stronger as the element of surprise is certainly gone.


2) Nuclear weapons arsenal?

Nobody the government would consider important lives in those areas.

If you are an enemy force, then what's the point of the nuclear strikes as the enemy is in the backyard and the targets would obviously have been moved under such an organized attack. What would have been left would be civilian targets and the rest of the world due to fallout. A nuclear response to such an invasion would have been a unlikely response, so the nuclear arsenals are not primary targets.


Next time that you decide to pop in and annoy us Wee Willy (as we are minding our own business and not stalking a little troll like you), take a moment to pull your head out of your ass so the next time you speak, pointless sh*t won't be flying out your mouth.

Would've been a very short movie if the US stopped the invaders cold in their tracks. .


Then you are admiting to a bias that prevents you from enjoying a movie, AND, expect people to take your (lopsided) review of it seriously.


1) You have to start somewhere.
2) Texas's military presence is fairly irrelevant, since in that situation, the military would be largely distracted with taking care of their own families (yes, arguable point, but that's the way I see it).
3) The idea of a surprize invasion is to capture military assets to use as your own. Can't do that starting your invasion out in BFE.
4) Texas has oil, you know, the stuff that, when you run out of it, it tends to halt your invasion, as it has in more than one major invasion throughout history.
5) Would be useful as a route for additional forign forces in the case the US gains air superiority, units could travel across the border from Mexico.
6) Lots of livestock, lakes, farms and hunting grounds can be used to feed troops.
7) A big part of their invasion, IIRC, was to split the country up the middle. If that is correct, then Texas is a very GOOD place to start an invasion.


Just how does one use a nuclear arsenal to stop an invading force that has thouroughly invaded your mainland? The "shoot yourself in th foot" method?

A big part of what the movie was about was that nuclear weapons are irrelevant: To use them ensures one's own demise, therefore that are not going to be used. Add that to the overall path of the invasion (figuratively, not literally), and you can't really use nukes without taking out some of your own people/forces.

It's been a while since I've seen it, but doesn't Powers Boothe's character explain that there was a limited nuclear exchange and then explain why it wasn't a total barrage?

I'm going with the flow on this one:  Red Dawn is top notch Reagan era war movie material.  It was intended to thrill audiences in the middle of a heavy anti-Soviet period in American history.  It has a ridiculous pro-NRA message and everything about it is pure awesome.  If you want to rag on it because it under estimates the American war machine of the time, you might as well point out how completely outrageous it is that a band of teenagers could stage complicated guerilla attacks on a highly organized, well trained, well armed and not to mention huge army.

Welcome aboard RapscallionJones!

WyreWizard is our resident troll.  He likes to post topics that will get a lot of responses and seems to prefer to see how people will oppose his opinions.  I'm not certain that this is one of his better efforts, however.  He has had a few classics in the past.

Thanks.

Every forum has one.  So logic and reason have no place in this thread, I take it?

It seems you totally miss the point.  I don't mean using a nuclear arsenal against an enemy in your homegrounds, I meant for the enemy to try and WEAKEN the US nuclear power.  You see, Red Dawn never made it clear why the combined Soviet and Cuban forces invaded the US in the first place so we are only left with speculation.  And since Snivelly pointed out my error, I'll say this.  Colorado isn't a very sensible target either.  Because Colorado is smack dab in the middle of the US inside of heavily guarded borders.  If this move had any basis in reality, anti aircraft missiles would definitely shot down those troop planes before they reached their target.  Any foreign power that dares send a large number of planes into US borders is definitely committing and act of war and the US would respond appropriately.

Now if Red Dawn were reality, it would have been the US which fell into oblivion, not the Soviet Union.

:Back up a tanker truck to an olympic-size swimming pool and pours its cargo in, thousands of gallons of beer!  Turns to Andrew and says "Dive in!"

 :teddyr: :teddyr: :teddyr: :teddyr: :teddyr: :teddyr: :teddyr:

Oh, my side hurts.  That's REALLY funny.


Once again, your downfall - fantasy vs reality.  Hard to tell sometimes, I know.

I don't mean to feed the troll, and I really don't mean to come off sounding like a troll myself, but I personally hated Red Dawn.

I honestly don't remember much about it, having only seen it in its entirety once in the theater when it first came out.  My entire recollection of the plot is that it involves a Cuban/Soviet invasion/occupation that is opposed by a band of teenagers including Patrick Swayze.  I don't really know why I don't like it, but I do know that I walked out of that movie theater feeling cheated and swearing that I would never voluntarily watch that movie again.  :hatred:

At that time I did not know who Swayze was, but as time has gone by it turns out that he hasn't made any movies that I did like (of those I've seen: "The Outsiders", "Red Dawn", "Dirty Dancing", "Road House", "Next of Kin", part of "Ghost", "Point Break").  ("Road House (1989)" is watchable, but I wouldn't say I like it.)  :thumbdown:

Now that that's off my chest, I must say that WyreWizard does not seem to be a very effective troll.  But I'm probably desensitized from hanging out on talk.origins.  :wink:

  WW- Why?...I know,YOU know,WE ALL know, that you do this because it gives you some kinda hard on. But what exactly is the nature of your perversion? This is not an insult...and I'm not trying to be a wise ass...I really am wondering about your motives. I post here because it's fun. I enjoy exchanging views and just general gabbing. You seem to enjoy abuse.Am I wrong?  :question:

I didn't miss any point. You're a moron; I got that on the first reading.

Maybe we need to hang up a sign for Wee Willy which reads Don't Feed the Troll. :teddyr:

I am not defending or recommending the movie; I did not like it either. It is just that Wee Willy's reasoning is, as always, preposterous and nothing but baiting.

Apparently he does this, as someone mentioned, to get a hard-on. I would like to add that once he gets his hard-on, he probably finishes it off by giving himself oral gratification*.

*No kids, don't make me spell that out.

Good...

...that's my job. :tongueout:

QUOTE:  "cough* War of 1812, Mexican/American War, Spanish/American War *cough*"

I'm certainly  not taking up for WireWizard, but as a teacher of U S History, let me clarify here -

Only in the War of 1812 was the U S invaded.  The British sailed up the Potomac and burned Washington DC, then tried to sieze Baltimore but were turned back at Ft. McHenry (hello, Star-Spangled Banner!).  Then they tried to invade both New York and New Orleans in the last year of the war and were decisively defeated by Thomas MacDonough at the Battle of Plattsburg, and then by the far-better-known Andrew Jackson at New Orleans.

In the Mexican American War, there was an "incident" on the North bank of the Rio Grande - the territory ceded by Santa Anna after his capture at San Jacinto, but that cession was never recognized by the Mexican government.  Still, the Republic of Texas claimed the Rio Grande as the border, and when the U S annexed Texas 10 years later they inherited that claim and posted troops on the river for the sole purpose of provoking an incident.  As soon as there were shots fired, Pres. Polk got his declaration of war ("American blood has been shed on American soil by a foreign agressor" he said, although Congressman Abraham Lincoln of Illinois commented that the President of Mexico could have made the same claim with equal justice).  America then invaded Mexico, whipped Santa Anna's army at Buena Vista, and Gen. Winfield Scott led an amphibious invasion at Vera Cruz with 11,000 men, who then marched overland and siezed Mexico City.  THAT is how we got California, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Nevade into the Union. It was one of our least justified but best fought wars!

As far as the Spanish American War goes,  there were Zero incursions into U S territory.  The USS Maine blew up and sunk in Havana Bay, we declared war on Spain, whipped them in six months, and acquired a nice little empire for ourselves.  It lasted just long enough to make Teddy Roosevelt a national hero and set him on his path to the Presidency . . .


sorry, but it's summer and I miss lecturing!

We don't.

Hyperridiculous

I never cared for it either, I watched it one evening at a friend's insistance, only to have to watch it again in government class the next week, and was even quized on it. Basically I wasted my own time watching it, which enabled me to sleep through it in calss. I remember it being way boring, and way drawn out. Didn't like it, but not for the retarded reasons the OP tried to point out. . .

Also, I remember getting points docked for not spelling "Swazye" right (mis-spelled again, didn't I). I always knew my school was retarded, , , ,

Aw c'mon, RCMerchant.  I like you and I like the rest of you.  I enjoy having these little debates and the bunch of you are the best debaters I have come across.  If you think my enjoyment of debates is a perversion, then you're free to think that.  It doesn't make me like you any less.  Yer clearly a very educated person RCMerchant.  I wouldn't doubt it if you had a Master's degree in some field.  You know I enjoy tearing apart movies for their flawed views of reality and you all tell me the reality flaws are mostly artistic licences.  Now, I'm having a backyard barbecue this weekend and yer all invited, drink provided of course.














[/quote]

That's not debating, that's just proving that you are incapable of reviewing a film honestly. I suppose you don't like the Terminator or Alien movies because it depicts humans as being vulnerable? Setting up a bunch of straw-man arguements to try and drive your points home doesn't help, but rather makes it look as if you EXPECT a thrashing to ensue.

 :drink:  Here ghouck, have a bottle of Quik and a package of twinkies on me.  No, I'm not giving reviews of films, I'm just stating my opinion of them.  If you've seen my movie posts before, you know I give my opinion of movies I like and ones I don't.  In all honestly, I have never seen a film without any reality errors.  I'm not just talking SciFi, horror, fantasy and comedy flicks.  I'm also talking about romances, mysteries, dramas and the like.

Anyways ghouck, your opinion is greatly appreciated  :teddyr:  Feel free to take a slice or two of pepperoni pizza.

What are some movies you like?

I will not dignify that with a response.

You said you love to debate, , and I don't see how what you are doing can be considered debating. .


So you must not like ANY movies, since reality errors seems to be a big hang-up for you. .

You actually eat that crap? weird. . .

It's "taco day", and the tacos here are much better than the pizza.

Here have a Frankenstein Pez dispenser, a dozen Pez packets and a bottle of Coke to wash it all down.  Now I'll admit I don't watch a whole lot of movies since I am usually turned off to them by their trailers.  I don't go to the theaters very often.  Most times, I go to take a date there or my nephew and nieces.

But some movies I have liked:  Rosemary's Baby, Breakfast at Tiffany's, Dirty Harry, All Star Wars films, Bridges of Madison County, Minority Report, Logan's Run, Xanadu, Battle Beyond the Stars, just to name a few.

Do you like these movies because you feel there are no mistakes in them or do you like them despite the mistakes?

Alaska. I did spend 3+ years stationed in central Texas, , couldn't find a decent Mexican or Tex-Mex restaraunt to save my life. We used to joke about how Taco Bell was the best restaraunt in town, and when people would say "But that's not authentic mexican", We'd say "What do you think those people making your tacos are, Czeckloslovakian?".

We did often eat at this one hole-in-the-wall called "mission taco" or something like that. 3 Tacos for $1.00, or 5 Burritos for $2.00. They were small, but good. I leaned inside to see how they made them so cheap, and I kid you not, the ingredients came out of a giant caulking-gun looking thing, about 2 foot long and about 6 inches in diameter. I watched a guy fill 100 taco shells in about 40 seconds with it. I always wondered why sometimes the meat was on top and the lettuce/tomatoes/onions were on bottom.  It was really good at the end of a night of drinking, I used to wolf down a couple dozen on a good night.

Still, I know 4 restaraunts in Alaska that make WAY better fijitas than anywhere I found in Texas, even after almost 3 years of trying to find the best.

BTW, it wasn't Taco Day, , it was some weird roast-beef/gravy/mashed potato thing, , weird. . I'm kinda bummed. .

The latter is my answer.  I have seen Rosemary's Baby hundreds of times.  I feel that is Mia Farrow's best performance.  It has too few reality flaws for me to write a post on.  The one thing I disagree with is the fact it's labeled as a horror flick.   It looks more like a thriller to me.

Again, thank you for your question.   :teddyr:

Odd that you use the term 'dignify', as there is nothing dignified about you or anything you have ever written.

How can something that makes jokes about the deaths of real people even begin to fathom the term 'dignify'?

I don't know why the others bother to reply to you as though you were a thinking, feeling person, as that is beyond your capabilities.


You know what gives me a hard-on Wee Willy?

Abusing pussies like you; and it is getting real hard just thinking about it.

Go ahead; bend over, if you dare.

Let's not resort of personal insults.  He may have done so before, but I do not equate WyreWizard with someone who is just plain insulting.  What he does is post opinions that are completely opposite of many, then add reasons why (which are also the complete opposite of many).

Nah, he just comes on to bait.

Besides, everything I have said is probably the most complimentary thing his sparkling personality has earned him lately.