I just watched "Red Dawn" the movie!

[Buxtehude]

I saw this movie when it first came out. It seem so far fetched then. How times have changed.

Tagline: In our time, no foreign army has ever occupied American soil. Until now. (more)

Plot Outline: It is the dawn of World War III. In mid-western America, a group of teenagers bands together to defend their town, and their country, from invading Soviet forces. (more) (view trailer)

User Comments: It's Only A Movie... (more)Or is it?

User Rating: ******____ 5.6/10 (7,302 votes) Vote Here

Cast overview, first billed only:
Patrick Swayze .... Jed Eckert
C. Thomas Howell .... Robert Morris
Lea Thompson .... Erica
Charlie Sheen .... Matt Eckert
Darren Dalton .... Daryl Bates
Jennifer Grey .... Toni
Brad Savage .... Danny
Doug Toby .... Aardvark
Ben Johnson .... Mr. Mason
Harry Dean Stanton .... Tom Eckert
Ron O'Neal .... Colonel Ernesto Bella
William Smith .... Col. Strelnikov
Vladek Sheybal .... General Bratchenko
Powers Boothe .... Lt. Col. Andrew Tanner
Frank McRae .... Mr. Teasdale

[devilgrrl]

1. How times have changed?

Times haven't changed - that movie is still farfetched and still sucks!

[Buxtehude]

6. and some will always

Live in a fantasy land. I didn't post this for a movie review!

[onehandle]

2. Freepers and other McVeigh types love that movie.

It was a crappy premise then and has not aged any better.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kestrel91316]

34. Hey, now, I loved that movie for it's pure escapism, and I'M as far from

a freeper as you can get.

I happen to like Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen.

[wicket]

42. Same here!

n/t

[theboss]

75. After that movie, I wanted the Soviets to invade us

I thought it would be fun. My friends and I in the woods with guns fighting the Russkies.

Granted, I still don't know which end of the gun the bullets come out. But I would have totally made out with Jenifer Grey.

[Selatius]

3. Change the occupying Soviet gov't to a totalitarian US gov't and...

you have something that would faintly resemble what would happen if the US government invoked the Homeland Security Act and imposed martial law. I'm sure most folks in the countryside wouldn't do much, but try driving tanks and placing soldiers in a place like Berkeley and other liberal enclaves, and you'll have yourself a real war.

[TheDebbieDee]

4. I liked the movie and............

the theme song is one of my most favorite, EVER!

[asjr]

9. DebbieDee, I liked it also. It was

entertaining and that is what I want from a movie. I can believe the scenario happening today. And I am sure I am much older than you.

[Buxtehude]

11. Age has nothing to do with it

You couldn't forsee a second revolution? You think everything is just fine?

[asjr]

18. I am not quite sure how you interpreted my reply

to DebbieDee. I was just stating the fact that I enjoyed the movie. And as far as age is concerned the only way it matters is that I have lived through WW11, Korea, Vietnam, other skirmishes and today I am living with the kind of government that would allow the situation of Red Dawn to happen. I know my country has been sold up the creek by a regime that took us into Iraq on LIES! So, no, everything is not fine.

[cigsandcoffee]

5. I don't think the Soviets will be invading anytime soon....

[Buxtehude]

7. No I don't either

the movie is not to be taken literally, however after viewing responses to this thread I'm not so sure.

[walldude]

10. Why? Because most people see this movie as

the propaganda crap it is? Remember when this was released we were still in the cold war, the movie was designed to boost anti-soviet sentiment in America. On top of that the movie is just not that good...

Oh and Welcome to DU :toast:

[Deja Q]

12. Anti-communist. Focused on the Soviets because China, a big nation then,

was getting more and more of our manufacturing industry.

Funny how China is continually ignored when every other 'big' communist nation isn't...

[walldude]

21. Sorry, I stand corrected...

;) :toast:

[leveymg]

31. China had a walk-on role. Powers Boothe plays a U.S. pilot who's

been shot down over Colorado. He stumbles upon a band of high school kids who have fled into the Rocky Mountains after Soviet paratroopers occupied their little town. The boys, who have been cut off for months from all news, ask the pilot how the war with the Soviets is going elsewhere in the world. Powers tells them that China has Russia pinned down on its southeastern border. "They have 600 million screaming Chinamen coming at them in human wave assaults."

To that, one of the kids responds, "But, I thought there were a billion Chinese?"

Powers takes a swig of whiskey, throws the last drops of the bottle into the fire, which flares momentarily.

"There used to be". Cut to the next scene.

The kids with a little adult guidance end up blowing up Soviet supply convoys with claymore mines (IEDS).

That line was classic John Millius, who also wrote the screenplay to "Apocalypse Now". Very dark, but not without its moments of sick wit. Also, a useful primer on how to fight a guerilla war in a rural environment.

[Buxtehude]

37. The scene that struck me was at the end

Patrick Swazye is carrying Charlie Sheen, and the Cuban gets the drop on them, they lock eyes, and then the Cuban lets them escape.
The Cuban knew they had lost, and the insurgents (us) had won.

[BlueAlert]

64. I always interpreted the scene as...

the Cuban has sympathy for the insurgents, since its repeated over and over in the movie that the Cuban himself used to be an insurgent.

[Buxtehude]

67. True, their was that mutual admiration

like going full circle.
After seeing some of the posts here, I wonder how civilization would react under similar circumstances.

[Raydawg1234]

39. China isn't really a "true" communist nation anymore.

They are heading in the free market direction.

[Greyhound]

46. I'm afraid you're in for a shock. They've been playing nice while

we've dismantled our means of production and shipped it, along with trillions of dollars in capital, over there. The second they no longer need us, you find out how "capitalist" they really are.

The Chinese have not survived for ~6 thousand years by thinking in terms of next quarter, or next year, or even next decade. They think in terms of generations, and that's why they'll still be here, oppressing their people, long after were a whispered legend from a banned past.

[MGD]

52. yeah, what you said. nt

[Buxtehude]

15. You can save your sarcasm

for someone else.
I posted this to make you think. Not for a critical analysis. Yes the premise of the movie is rather far fetched it was then and with the present state of the Soviet Union it is highly unlikely that it could happen precisely as it did in the movie.
But if you think for one minute that a take over by this or any other government of our constitutional rights is beyond the realm of possibility then you, my friend are living in a fantasy world. "then they came for me, and there was no one left"
Maybe what some folks are saying about this place is true.
I'll not bother you with my opinions again.
Sleep well!

[walldude]

24. I wasn't being sarcastic... and I agree

that a takeover is possible, it's already happened. Not by invasion, but by a slow erosion of liberties and an apathetic public. We aren't fighting ideologies or country's or even terrorists. We are fighting ExxonMobile, Shell, IBM, Wal-Mart. Read Armed Madhouse by Greg Palast.

[Buxtehude]

25. I'm gonna have to get my hair suit off

excuse me.LOL

[Greyhound]

47. And "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John Perkins

If you are not aware of just how heinous this nation became after WWII, it will shock you. Every single fucked up region on the planet is fucked up because of us.

[northzax]

49. really?

do tell. please explain how sub-saharan africa is fucked up because of the US. Or North Korea. or Russia (ooh, please do explain how Russia, Ukraine and Central Asia are our fault, this should be a good one!)

in fact, I can make the exact opposite arguement, every region that isn't completely fucked up is our fault as well. why no credit for South Korea, Japan, all the asian Tigers in SE Asia (save Vietman, Cambodia and Laos, of course) Chile, Argentina (recovering again, slowly) Costa Rica, Western Europe...I could keep going.

in hindsight, would you rather have been a client state of the US, or of the Soviet Union? Who's had a better 50 years, South Korea or North Korea?

[Greyhound]

55. Yes.

Don't take my word for it (as if...), check it out for yourself. He has sourced all of the facts he asserts, and it is a first-person account of actual events by the perpetrator's agent.

[northzax]

57. I've read it

Mr. Perkins doesn't seem to mention how his activities drove the people of North Korea to abject poverty and starvation, while the people of South Korea, demographically the same in 1950 seem to have thrived. I don't recall reading about Kazakhstan, Chechnya, Mongolia, Tibet, the DRC, Rwanda, Cuba, or many others, completely outside the US capitalist sphere of influence. I must have missed that chapter, or is it in the second edition? Perkins is, frankly, a little light on the incriminating details of the Carter Administration (much of it takes place in the late 70's, remember) Sure, the international aid system has made some mistakes, and there has certainly been some profiteering, but there have also been some wonderful successes (smallpox, polio, Guinea Worm, serious reductions in childhood mortality and maternal death, education, sanitation, clean water...etc...Yes, there are more deaths in poverty than in 1950, but that's because frankly, people live longer, there are more people. it's a smaller percentage, and it needs to keep decreasing. But honestly, in almost the entire world, people are better off today than they were 50 years ago.

Again, a simple question: let's pretend you were a pregnant woman in 1989, and you get a choice, US sphere or Soviet Sphere (since that was basically the choices) you don't get to pick which country, only which sphere of influence to have your child in. knowing what we know now, 17 years later, which do you pick? and why?

[Greyhound]

59. False premise. Shame on you.

Accompanied by an outright lie. To wit: "But honestly, in almost the entire world, people are better off today than they were 50 years ago." A more honest statement would be that a few people are better off, the majority are much worse off, and a tiny number of families and corporations have become unimaginably wealthy from the rampant corruption that our system promotes.

He "a little light on the incriminating details of the Carter Administration", because, if you had read it carefully you might have noticed who founded, runs, and profits from this arrangement, are the same people that brought Carter down, and subsequently installed raygun.

For the sake of argument let's look at Korea, Why did the US decide to back the thoroughly corrupt rulers that were so heinous and incompetent that their own people rose up to overthrow them? To try to draw comparisons today is disingenuous at best, try looking at Korea up to the end of WWII.

[northzax]

63. ok then. I pose you a simple question

very simple. (and, by the way, Korea was one country up until the end of WWII, occupied by Japan, as you no doubt know, so I don't know what you're talking about there) it wasn't the US that was propping up the government there, it was Japan. And then, of course, this makes it the perfect arguement. In the past 50 years, which side of the DMZ is doing better? if you had to choose one to be born in today, would you pick North Korea or South Korea?

answer that, right now, would you rather be born a random citizen in South Korea or a random citizen in North Korea, if you were being born on July 12, 2006? That's the dividing line, pick one. North or South? a country used an abused by the US, or one used and abused by the Soviet Union and China? Who is, in your opinion, better off after 50 years?

As to your first point. Sorry, but the average person in the world is, in fact, better off today than in 1950. In that time frame, the global life expectancy has risen from 48 years to 68 years. oh yes, the average person who is 'worse off' lives 50% longer. no offense, but that ain't bad. Name one country in which life expectancy for a child born in 2006 is lower than one born in 1950? name one country that suffers from smallpox outbreaks, or polio outbreaks? name one country with less electricity production than in 1950. one country with worse sanitation systems. one country with worse medical care (not less medical care, worse medical care, you know my father's brother died in the US, in 1943, of STREP THROAT? when's the last time that happened in the US? suffer from Tuberculosis lately? Yellow Fever? Dengue Fever?

your romantic notion of how life actually was in 1950 is quaint, to be sure, but pathetically misguided. Sure, in the US, the average upper middle class, suburban white man was better off in 1950 than 2006. but what about the rural poor? Blacks in the South? women? you really want to go back to that idyllic time? bring it on then, I'm a well educated, well connected white male, the world would have been my oyster, since I wouldn't have had to compete with all those pesky women, and god forbid, the colored folk. How would you be doing?

and let's not talk about life outside the US at that time, we were actually the best off in the world, since the scarring of war barely touched us (and you might recall that was one of the few wars we didn't actually start) Europe, Japan, China, North Africa and the Soviet Union were wastelands, SouthEast Asia, Africa and Latin America were mired in poverty that you can't actually imagine (go read T.E. Lawrence's description of the slums of Cairo during WWI, and then tell me people aren't better off) but I'm willing to listen, please, do tell me one country in which the average person, randomly dropped into society, is worse off today than 50 years ago. You may, of course, pick an easy one currently embroiled in a war, if you would like. but then I'll pick the countries that were embroiled in wars in 1950 and we can compare.

So you have two assignments, if you actually can accomplish them: first off, do you want to be born on June 12, 2006 in North Korea or South Korea and why you picked that one. Or why it is somehow not a good example of the difference in meddling between the US and others. I'd accept a decent response to that.

Second, please explain why, in your opinion, the residents of a certain country (you can even pick the country, it's that easy, but if you pick one in a war, I'll know you have nothing to say on the topic) In fact, I'll change that. Please pick a country in one of the following areas and, using reasonable metrics (life expectancy, access to education, voting rights, property rights, access to medical care, etc) explain why the average citizen in that country is worse off in 2006 than in 1950. You may choose from Sub-Saharan Africa, Central or South America, the Caribbean, South-East Asia, Europe or Central Asia. Pick a country and use an average citizen as a proxy for the average global citizen, to prove your thesis that the average global citizen is worse off, as a general rule, today than in 1950. Don't forget to cite your evidence!

but, of course, you can't actually do this, I don't think. So I will accept an essay (perferably with citations and peer reviewed, but that's probably beyond the scope of possibility for this thesis) explaining how the average global person is worse off today than in 1950. If, of course, you list that, don't forget to answer the Korea Divide question, inquiring minds want to know!

[Greyhound]

66. Continually pushing a false premise won't get you anywhere.

It is not an either/or choice. I have no illusions of what life was like prior to 1950, but your implied assertion that we have made the advances that we have because of amerikan capitalism is a red herring worthy of any AM talk-radio host.

Since you are in an assigning mood, I'll accept as soon as you come up with my regular hourly rate of $145.00 (hell, I'll even drop it in the interest of education, make it an even $100). As with all of these rhetorical debates, the outcome depends on what you choose to look at. You say we live longer, and that may well be true, on average, but just take a gander south of our border at what are now the Maquiladoras, and compare them to what they were like prior to NAFTA. It was horrible then, it is far worse now. Do they live longer? I don't know and until the check clears I'm not going to investigate it, maybe they do and maybe they don't, but I do know from speaking with those that live it, that they are much more miserable.

Do you believe that Fidel Castro took control of Cuba all by himself? Of course not, it was the unconscionable mistreatment of the people by the ruling class that caused them to think that Castro couldn't be worse.

I'm sure you also believe that the railroad barons brought civilization and prosperity to the west, and were therefore justified in their murder and theft, too.

[northzax]

74. so, a brief summary of your point would be:

"I don't agree with your statistics and metrics, in fact, I know that, contrary to all evidence presented, you are wrong and I am right, but frankly, I don't want to do any work to disprove your statistics and metrics. I don't need evidence, or data, or statistics, I'm too important to sully my mind with such details like facts, and I'm way too expensive for that anyway." good summation?

if not, what did I miss? and why does this sound so familiar?

[ngant17]

26. it was an attempt to smear Danny Ortega

This movie was Reagan-inspired propaganda, no unlike what the B-grade actor did for the Air Force in WWII, but without any rhyme or reason to it. For the lunatic fringe only.

This was put out during the Iran-Contra scandal, if I recall. Someone wanted to justify all the Reagan-Bush war crimes in Central America, the genocide of innocents, and this was the best propaganda they could come up with.

[Buxtehude]

29. Shame on em then! n/t

[SnowGoose]

13. To me the movie is illuminating when the setting is changed

to say... Iraq.

What I get out of the movie is this: "we" good, patriotic Americans would never, lay down and submit to an occupying army, *regardless* of what UN resolutions were passed. The more conservative of my friends ate that movie up. "Hell yea," they'd say, "We'd take up arms and run a guerilla insurgency." And there you go... why would we expect anyone else in the world to do differently?

Seeing a few people's reaction to this movie back in the day formed part of the background of why so many people like me protested before this invasion, warning of a bloody and protracted occupation.

[Buxtehude]

17. You weren't the only one to protest! n/t

[hobbit709]

14. Forward to today

Switch locales to Iraq and we're the Soviets

[baldguy]

43. bingo

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Interesting responses folks

now let's see how to rewrite it for me to help him drive the point home

Tagline: Our time, the United States Government has been taken over in a coup, supported by a Supreme Court

Oh never mind, when is American Idol? The theme of invasion at the time was the USSR, that WAS the enemy, and yes it WAS a propaganda flick, but for god sakes, the THEME itself is not that far fetched... now what seems far fetched increasingly in this country is people doing anything about it... and be willing to stand up and be counted.

[Buxtehude]

20. Now someone understands! n/t

[ProfessorGAC]

51. It Wasn't Necessar y To Rewrite It

Your rewrite is a completely different topic. The movie Red Dawn involved an instantaneous change of life as we knew it. That isn't the same point as that which you made. You're making a completely valid point, that has nothing to do with the movie Red Dawn.
The Professor

[Greyhound]

56. I was the target audience when it came out and I enjoyed it for what it

was, visual junk-food.

The premise of an armed invasion succeeding in this country was and still is absurd, from the strategic view-point alone it is impossible, 3000 miles across, 2000 miles wide, every terrain and climate possible, 49 national guards and 200,000,000 insanely violent inhabitants armed with over 100,000,000 privet firearms.
It makes D-Day look like a training exercise. :nuke:

[ikri]

Try to find a film called Harrison Bergeron

It's an adaptation of a Kurt Vonnegut story.

From IMDB.org

Bruce Pittman's intelligent and modest TV adaptation of Kurt Vonnegut's short story is a wonderful and much under-appreciated piece of high sci-fi. Films of this kind are rarely made, simply because there's not much potential audience for low-budget science fiction - most people are in sci-fi mainly for special effects and impressive battles. Harrison Bergeron, though, is one of those few adaptations made of real philosophical sci-fi, the kind that creates an image of the future as a reflection of our own reality. And it succeeds quite well in delivering its message, and for what it is it could be enjoyed by almost everyone - though I doubt it could have done well in the theaters.

The film revolves around two wonderful lead actors - one is Sean Astin, who recently gained success and fame as Sam Gamgee in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy. The other is the wonderful British actor Christopher Plummer, remembered by sci-fi buffs as the Klingon General Chang from Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country. Brilliant comedian Eugene Levy gives an eerily funny performance as the President. The story is of a future America in which equality is achieved by discouraging exceptional talent or intelligence and creating forced mediocrity. Harrison (Sean Astin) is one of the exceptional few whose intelligence surfaces despite the government's best efforts and is therefore given the chance to work for the government. There he discovers the timeless Orwellian truth of Fascist regimes - all are equal, but some are more equal than others. Astin's interplay with Clummer (the classic 'Big Brother') is wonderful, and the ending is beautiful. The script does an excellent job of expanding Vonnegut's very short story into a 100 minute film.

Harrison Bergeron is well worth watching - if you can get your hands on it. As far as I know there isn't a DVD available, but the VHS can be ordered on Amazon and the movie plays occasionally on television. If you're interested in science fiction literature of authors like Vonnegut, Philip K. Dick, or Isaac Asimov, this wonderful little think-piece is a good purchase.

[Cocoa]

19. they should translate it into Arabic

Substitute the Americans for the Russians, maybe the Israelis for the Cubans.

perfect pro-insurgent propaganda. :bounce:

[Up2Late]

22. If you want to see a movie that REALLY feels weird now, check out...

...Escape From New York!

I saw some of that about 3 years after 9/11 happened, and the scene, near the beginning, when Kirt Russel lands a Glider on the top of one of the World Trade Center Buildings...

That felt really weird.

[roamer65]

33. The old TV series "Amerika"

seems eerily more closer to reality for me these days. Chop out the "Soviet domination" of the UN force in the series and replace it with a general UN force and it gets spooky. I can see a scenario where the US fractures so badly it goes into civil war and requires intervention from a large UN peacekeeping force.

[Buxtehude]

38. It seems more likely today

than it did then.

[sleipnir]

23. Replace America with Iraq and Soviets with US troops, very appropriate

I think the reason that John Milius (who is a Republican) gave back in 80's for directing and writing the film was to show the horrors of war and its effect on kids/teenagers and what perhaps sparks an "insurgent" force. He placed the events in America not to sensationalize or shock people into action, but to allow them a more physiologically accessible place to enter into the themes of the movie.

I think it is a very powerful movie and aside from a few moments, it's pretty damn scary and realistic to what goes on around the world each and every day. Especially now in Iraq. The scene with the kid who betrays the unit by becoming a Soviet spy and the reaction of the kids is horrifyingly real and we see the exact thing in Iraq this day.

[arwalden]

27. Actually... It Still Seems Far-Fetched.

<< It seem so far fetched then. How times have changed. >>

Really? What about the "times" do you think has changed so much, that this movie now seems more realistic or even slightly plausible to you? :shrug:

[Buxtehude]

28. Not to be taken literally

There are many things that have happened since this President has taken office. The secrets, the Military, 9/11, Immigration problems, Insecure borders and ports, airline systems that have changed very little since 9/11, Katrina, bird flu, the rising cost of gasoline, okay the last few are far fetched.
I've answered you, now you tell me what makes this less of an inevitability? Are you confident it couldn't happen, as much now as when this movie was released?

[arwalden]

30. That's Really Not A Very Good Answer

You've just provided me with a list of hot-button topics... but that doesn't explain why you believe that such a far-fetch story like the one in Red Dawn is at all likely (or "inevitable" as you say).

Although the things you mentioned are areas of national concern or partisan political disagreement, I fail to see how any of those things (either individually or combined) could lead to an "inevitable" military invasion of the United States.

Katrina? Bird flu? :shrug: :eyes:

[Buxtehude]

32. You are evading my question.

My answer stated that the movie was not to be taken literally however the premise of losing our rights one by one to be taken over by a police or military state looms more and more in our future.
Wether by force or coercion we are losing our freedoms as Americans or are you happy with the way things are going?
What makes you think we are on the right track and that what I'm saying can not happen here?

[arwalden]

41. Absurd.

<< What makes you think we are on the right track and that what I'm saying can not happen here? >>

What makes YOU think that this is what *I* think? What have I said that gives you the indication that I "think we are on the right track"?? :eyes:

[Buxtehude]

68. Looks like we're done here.

Have a nice day. :)

[ProfessorGAC]

50. That's Not What Happens In The Movie

In the movie, the rights are usurped all at once. So, your analogy is completely absurd. There is no comparison, whether taken literally or not.
The Professor

[Buxtehude]

69. Use your imagination n/t

[Cleita]

35. I think they should do an updated version.

This time though instead of the enemy coming from overseas, they should infiltrate bit by bit instead until one day we realize we have been invaded by the pod people. Oops that's another movie isn't it?

[Buxtehude]

36. How about

Invaded by the 'God people'.

[LSK]

62. yeah thats called "They Live" with Roddy Piper

[Buxtehude]

71. Interesting

that was on the other day too. Nice analogy.
I didn't watch all of it either.

[Selatius]

76. That was a fun movie to watch.

In a way, the propaganda we see today is almost as subtle as wearing sunglasses to read the real messages.

[symbolman]

40. No kidding, it was a JOKE then

right up there with that movie where they whole town doesn't let kids dance, "FootLoose".. that was a bad time for movies, all the beancounters who'd just graduated from College and Biz School, while all the Liberal ARts were being shut down, were on COCAINE and completely out of their immature, dorky gourds..

I thought it was Satire, until about a third of the way into the movie I realized they were SERIOUS.

It was okay tho, as I worked in a Nuthouse then so it didn't seem so farfetched as some of the stuff I was hearing from the Veterans who'd been scared insane by Nam..

Always thought that they should have made "FootLoose" and "Red Dawn" into one blockbuster movie, might not have been so bizzarre :)

OH, and let's not forget that someone wanting, "Our precious Bodily Fluids" was considered a JOKE and Insane then too.. then the Corporations got a hold of the idea, and decided that our OFF hours were no longer OURS..

[datasuspect]

44. reagan era war porn

favorite line (patrick swayze whining): BECAUSE WE LIVE HEEEERE!!!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

45. Ah, so you see the parallels between Wolverines and Iraq insurgency. -nt

[Buxtehude]

73. Not really

I had visions of us being the insurgents. Now I'm not certain about US.

[Selatius]

78. I could see a dissident movement forming if Bush declares martial law

Is that what you are aiming at?

[lectrobyte]

48. Any movie with Harry Dean Stanton in it is worth watching... Avenge Me!

and I can appreciate in an ironical way how we are referring to the "insurgents" as
"Wolverines"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Red_Dawn

Soldiers entered two sites (codenamed Wolverine 1 and Wolverine 2) outside the village of ad-Dawr but failed initially to find Saddam. A subsequent cordon and search operation found the fugitive leader hiding in a so-called "spider hole" at a small mud-walled compound...

[stanwyck]

53. Unless the Mystery Science Theatre

aliens are available to spew their one liners, I'm not watching that movie again.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

54. It's not a movie that I like

The acting wasn't just bad, it was baaaaaad.

The whole wolverines/insurgency comparison may be interesting to some, but the movie just seemed to be an excess of the Reagan era 'the Commies are coming to get us' attitude.

[enigma000]

58. I really liked the beginning of that movie.

I used to laugh as the Soviet invaders parachuted into town and started killing those stupid Americans. The first 30 minutes was one long ass-kicking. I liked the scene with those same Americans locked in a Guantanamo type “detention camp” - payback for stealing the land in the first place.

Usually stopped watching after the Wolverines started fighting back……………

[bryant69]

60. Many people on the left and the right are looking forward to reenacting

it. More on the right I'd say, though.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[LSK]

61. now go rent another 80s flick about insurgency: V

You dont see that one play much nowadays.

[Buxtehude]

70. Dish network, didn't have to rent it.

[The Gunslinger]

65. WOLVERINES!!!! nt

[Buxtehude]

72. This is interesting

I made this innocuous post here and the answers I've received have really made me wonder. What if this happened here, Now!

I doubt that we'd survive as a civilization.

I knew what the movie was when it came out, there are very few people I ever thought I could hate, Reagan was one.

I just wanted to express myself on how I thought it seemed more feasible today, under current conditions. Not the identical scenario just that our rights are being slowly taken away and one day we could find ourselves looking through barbed wire at our love ones, because a repressive government has put them there.

In my original post, I said I thought it sounded absurd when I saw it the first time. The second time I said it made me think. I had hoped thats what it would inspire you to do. I was wrong, for the most part.

Oh well, it's still a free country, for the time being, we're all entitled to our opinion.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1597018&mesg_id=1597018

[theboss]

77. How is it possibly more realistic now?

Considering that there isn't a Soviet Union any longer.