Blogging some of my past movie reviews from Facebook.  As you will see, I am the rare individual who liked the “Red Dawn” remake.  ++++++

WOLVERIIIIIIIIIIIIINES!!!!

I’m sure I’m in a very small minority here, but I was quite happy with this year’s remake of “Red Dawn.” (Man, you should see the HATE for this movie over at imdb.com.) I’d cheerfully give it an 8 out of 10.

It’s not “Citizen Kane.” The plot and characters are thin, and maybe not every member of the cast is the next Anthony Hopkins. And of course no film can really recapture the heart and (possibly pathological) violent escapism of the classic 1984 original. But it was still a good movie with decent amounts of tension, action and fun nods to the original. And Chris Hemsworth does just fine as an actor.

QUESTION. I have precisely zero experience with all things military, and I’m querying those who do. Let’s say one first-world or second-world country invades another, and there are no factors such as racial, ethnic, or religious hatred – and the invader has a professional military (as with Russia or North Korea). Wouldn’t they try NOT to just randomly kill civilians? (This was a centerpiece of the 80’s original – the Soviet antagonists shoot up a high school.) It just seems to me that an invader would want to coerce and subdue an invaded populace. If they just start shooting people willy-nilly, doesn’t that make it more likely the populace would either flee or fight back?

That just always bugged me. Do I analyze things too much?