RED DAWN (2012): A Review

Red Dawn has received a remarkable amount of bad criticism, and my message to you is: “Don’t let it put you off”.

It’s certainly not worth a rating of just 13% from Rotten Tomatoes and a 1-star rating from the Guardian.

Yes, this new remake is cheesy, unrealistic, and at times downright absurd. But what else would you expect from a movie about a group of American teenagers who try and defend their hometown from a North Korean invasion? It literally has ‘cheese’ stamped all over it.

Expecting any less is like watching P.S I Love You in the belief that it’s going to be full of Green Street-like violence.

I’m not saying that Red Dawn is the action movie of the year, not by any means. All I’m saying is don’t dismiss this movie based on all of the negative reviews, make up your own conclusion.

But just in case you do need a bit of guidance, let me share with you my experience of Red Dawn.

I’ll start with the positives, the first being Chris Hemsworth (right). He plays Jed Eckert, an off duty marine who not only leads the group, but teaches them how to fight. I like Hemsworth in nearly every film he’s been in (particularly Thor and The Avengers), and his acting is first class yet again. He plays the hard-hitting marine with real conviction, and is without a doubt the highlight of the movie.

I also like Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Supernatural, The Possession) as Tanner, and Brett Cullen as Jed’s father, Tom Eckert. Both play strong, respectable characters.

However, there are a number of characters that are not necessarily likeable. This is mainly down to the fact that there isn’t much character building within the film except from between the leading few. That said Jed’s naïve and reckless brother Matt Eckert (Josh Peck), isn’t exactly one of my favourites either. Throughout the film his impulsive, inconsiderate behaviour is so frustrating and irritating, which isn’t thrown a lifeline from Peck’s acting. Yes, Peck was lovable and fun as Josh Nichols in Drake and Josh, but I don’t think he has the ability to perform at this level. I also couldn’t help notice him constantly pulling an obscure smirk, which was very unusual during sad situations.

The action scenes are definitely over-the-top and laughable at times, but no more so than Die Hard or The Expendables. There are explosions from start to finish, and teenagers firing guns better than military professionals, but that’s the whole point of it.

I read a review on IMDB saying that Red Dawn was: “A complete waste of time unless you are a male in his early teens”. This film is geared towards young males, but I think anyone who is laidback and after cheap thrills could enjoy this movie. I definitely wouldn't call it a waste of time. I don’t recommend going to see it at the cinema, but it’s fun, action packed and worth turning to if seen on TV.

Additional info:

Although a remake of the 1984 film of the same name, Red Dawn holds striking similarities to an Australian film called Tomorrow, When The War Began which was released in 2010. Both have an almost identical storyline, but TWTWB had a significantly lower budget (an estimated 25m AUD compared to Red Dawns 65m USD) and still received better reviews, with Rotten Tomatoes rating it at 64%. 

IN THE FLESH: A Review

There is nothing I love to watch more than flesh eating, muscle tearing zombies.

So when I heard that a new three-part zombie drama was starting on BBC Three, I just had to have a look.

But In The Flesh is a little different to your average brain biting flick.

Set four years after the outbreak, In The Flesh follows the life of zombie teenager Kieran Walker (Luke Newberry), who is treated, rehabilitated and then released back into society, along with many others. This causes uproar within Kieran’s local community, and a number of villagers set out to rid society of the “rotters”.

What I like about In The Flesh is that it’s creative and unique, and injects fresh air into the undead realm. It’s also produced in such a way that it appeals to a wide audience, with its drama meets zombie approach. It focuses on the relationships between characters, whilst also including spells of gory action.

Admittedly though, as boyish as it sounds, part of me is hoping that the “rotters” will turn evil again and we will get to witness a zombie apocalypse. I doubt it will take this approach, but I wouldn't rule it out. After getting a brief glimpse at next week’s episode, it does seem like things will start to heat up.

Overall, I’d say In The Flesh is worth a watch. I doubt I’d see out a whole series consisting of 20+ episodes, but as it’s only a three-part drama, there’s no harm in seeing how it ends. It does, after all, fall under the ‘zombie’ subcategory!

You can watch In The Flesh on Sundays at 10pm on BBC Three, or catch up here on iPlayer.

VIKINGS: A Review

Game of Thrones returns to our screens on March 31^st for the season 3 première, and it can’t come quick enough!

But if you find yourself bursting with anticipation, fear not, there may be something to ease you through this month’s wait - Vikings.

Hitting US screens every Sunday night on the History channel (meaning Monday in the UK with a little help from the web), Vikings is centred around the legendary Ragnar Lothbrok (Travis Fimmel) who wants to sail to unknown lands against the wishes of his Viking ruler, Jarl Haraldson (Gabriel Byrne) . Without giving too much away, I think we all know what he tries to do next…

Before watching the first episode, ‘Rites of Passage’, I was a little sceptical, thinking to myself: “This is either going to be really good, or really bad”.

But after watching it, I found myself wanting more, not because it was so great, but because in just 40 minutes it was hard to gauge a solid opinion. Perhaps a double-bill would have been more persuasive.

That said, from what I saw the show does have potential.

The acting is first-class and not cheesy as some might think.  Travis Fimmel was excellent in The Baytown Outlaws, and he plays Ragnar with real conviction. The well respected Gabriel Byrne (The Usual Suspects, Stigmata, End of Days) unsurprisingly plays a great villain, and it is also worth noting Swedish actor Gustaf Skarsgård's performance as Ragnar’s eccentric friend Floki. 

What I also like is that all of the main characters are likeable yet tough. Even Ragnar’s wife Lagertha (Katheryn Winnick) can put up a fight, never mind his bullish brother Rollo (Clive Standen). This allows the audience to really engage with the characters, and is one aspect of the show which really stood out to me; it’s not always the plot which makes the series, but the characters.

When it comes to the cinematography, it isn't as visually stunning as Game of Thrones at this stage, but it is still well executed. The action scenes are violent, brutal and gory, and wouldn't seem out of place in the Spartacus series. There are also some fantastic shots of the Irish landscape.

Overall Vikings is well worth a watch, and from the looks of things, it’s only going to get better. 

So if you’ve got a spare hour, why not give it a go? You’ve got nothing to lose… except a few bags of crisps and a couple bars of chocolate!