Escape from New York was set in 1997. As this date approached, it became increasingly clear that negative predictions would not come true, so the sequel released in 1996 was moved to 2013. Now that he is behind us, an alternative future can only be seen with a smile. But the more interesting to find out what were the predictions of John Carpenter.
The main character again becomes the Snake Plissken, and most likely this is the case when the actor partially has to play himself. Kurt Russell is known for the fact that many cult films with his participation at the time deafeningly failed at the box office. Escape from Los Angeles, by the way, also failed, although it is not considered a cult. That is, both on the screen and in reality, the actor was exhausted, so he portrayed the masculine criminal very reliably. Well, but Russell's fee was as much as ten million dollars, which is a lot to this day. It is the Snake, who is wandering around Los Angeles this time, saves this movie from very bad aftertaste, because without it the film would not have a single chance.
The point is not only that the future shown is too uncertain (the US will never allow such a president to come to power). The scenario itself is unreliable, which is torn apart by numerous contradictions. Plissken gets in touch on the radio, although at first there was a hint of its absence; at first we are told that there are no routes from Los Angeles, and then it turns out that from there it seems possible to leave to another country; the inhabitants of the metropolis are shown either free or with a military dictatorship. And the main question, which does not give rest (especially in the final) – where do the islanders have so many weapons, if they are cut off from the rest of the world not the first day? In addition, the world, which is shown no longer to be criminal, but post-apocalyptic, is terribly unreliable due to very cheap special effects. A budget of fifty million, you say? A year earlier in Japan came the film "Hamera: Defender of the Universe", and even there, despite very small costs, everything looked three times more plausible.
The post-apocalyptic itself seems completely inappropriate in this case. I can’t believe that’s what’s going on in Escape from New York. Against the backdrop of action movies that soared to the peak of popularity in the 1990s, Escape from Los Angeles looks expensive but faint misunderstanding.
5 out of 10
The collaboration between Carpenter and Russell continues
In the distant future, Kurt Russell escaped from New York. Released in 1981, the action movie became something breakthrough in the depiction of future world events, but 15 years later it was Los Angeles’ turn. It turned out an exact copy of the first tape. The film finds a pretext for the sequel, adjusts the plot to further the plot to release the Snake again on the criminal streets of the abandoned city.
The pretext is actually simple: find and return what the government needs, time is limited, the main character is consumables. It's the same as New York. Let Los Angeles, but in fact just changed the name of the area, as it has not changed at all. Desolation among the concrete jungle, chaos, different layers of society – the picture reveals what impressed in the first film, only the motives added different.
Well, the brutal hero Snake, who just because of his past and track record merges with the crowd, performs the task. The film is full of interesting classes of citizens, demonstrates the confrontation of gangs and introduces the main king of the ghetto. But the repeatability of the original shines from all angles. Finding a goal does not mean saving, so we watch the good part of the timekeeping for Russell’s attempts, failures, new familiar and sophisticated elements of the criminal genius show.
As secondary roles, Steve Buscemi pleasantly surprises, who got not an unambiguous character, but such a native one for us. Pam Grier also showed off in the frame, evoking a collaboration with Tarantino in memory. And in fact, Los Angeles is a battlefield where you have to make sacrifices to achieve your goal. It is bad that there were no new ideas, and the old scenario, rewritten under the new framework, does not justify itself.
Computer graphics are also lame, demonstrating the creators' error. If there was less graphics in New York, then it did not stand out chromakey, but Los Angeles decided to cram military helicopters, and a satellite guidance system, and even a wave for surfing - it looks ridiculous. Kurt Russell is still cool and brutal, and the atmosphere of the past era conquers with nostalgia, the VHS era and the presentation of militants as something special.
Escape from Los Angeles is weaker than Escape from New York, secondary, lack of new ideas. But as an action movie with a brutal protagonist who demonstrates one of the variants of our future, the picture is iconic and dynamic.
Throughout his long career, director and screenwriter John Carpenter has to prove to producers that he knows what he’s doing and that his stories have enough perspective to appeal to the widest possible audience. Not the easiest was the way to the screens and for the film “Escape from New York”, inspired by the famous Watergate scandal. Reluctant to fund what they thought was an unnecessarily hard tape, studio executives gave Carpenter a firm refusal, not realizing what was actually slipping out of their hands. With the iconic Halloween slasher, Carpenter still got his way and, with the help of independent producers, managed to implement the idea of Escape from New York to the extent he wanted. The adventures of the brave criminal Snake Plisskin have repeatedly paid for themselves at the box office at home and have achieved special recognition abroad, thereby once again glorifying its creator, continuing the battle for his name and reputation. And it is not surprising that after such a significant box office and artistic result, it was conceived to continue the story of Plisskin in the sequel, which was supposed to appear at the box office without a long break. However, the script written by Coleman Luck fell into the real production heat, because of which the continuation of the cult “Escape from New York” was postponed indefinitely. And only when in the city of Los Angeles there was an earthquake that struck the whole of America, John Carpenter, Kurt Russell and producer Debra Hill gathered in close company again, in order to build a slightly different narrative on the basis of what happened than Luck conceived, and weave the anxiety that arose after the disaster into the next adventure of the Snake Plisskin. Called “Escape from Los Angeles”, the film gained a very decent budget of $ 50 million, which was in no way in comparison with what was allocated for the original, and nevertheless the time gap between the release of the series was too large, and the audience was in no hurry to give the work Carpenter attention despite all the love and respect for “Escape from New York”. However, despite the box office failure, the continuation of Plisskin’s eternal escape is still capable of generating interest despite numerous artistic problems.
So, the plot of the film explains to us that on August 23, 2000 near Los Angeles there was a large-scale earthquake, due to which part of the continent went under water, and the City of Angels turned into an island, which is now not so easy to reach. Official authorities at the same time did not seek to help people who were held hostage, because according to politicians, Los Angeles has long been turned into a place of sin, which must be isolated from civilized society. One of the most vehement opponents of the bridges and communications leading to the city separated from the rest of America was a candidate for President of the United States (Cliff Robertson), who after a while managed to get the most important post in the country. And the new President decided not to miss the opportunity to celebrate in history, embarking on a radical rethinking of civil liberties, depriving people of a minimum right to express themselves. In turn, Los Angeles became a symbol of the so-called new order, in which from now on was located another huge prison, living under the laws of the infamous Manhattan, from which it is almost impossible to escape.
The main part of the events of the film unfolds long 13 years after the President took office and did not want to leave him, protecting himself with special constitutional amendments. Feeling the strength to decide the fate of almost the entire planet, the head of state received in his hands a crushing weapon capable of turning off an electrical impulse anywhere on Earth. And since no country in the world can counter this system with anything as devastating, the President has come to be considered the most powerful man alive. However, his ambitions are not at all shared by the rebel daughter Utopia (E. J. Langer), who stole the system control panel from her father and went to the heart of Los Angeles, where she was kindly sheltered by the local resistance leader Cuervo Jones (Georges Corrafas), who thinks himself no different than Che Guevara of the near future. Disheartened by the decision of his daughter, the President is not going to give up and forces the newly arrested Snake Plisskin (Russell) to recall the old days and go to the lair of crime to return the priceless relic. According to tradition, no one offers Plisskin time for reasoning, and he has only a few hours to complete the mission, after which something very bad can happen. So Plisskin again goes on a mission, well aware that the conversation with the President is not over.
Despite the fact that “Escape from Los Angeles” was filmed in the 90s, John Carpenter desperately refuses to keep up with the times, which did not reflect in the best way on his relationship with the younger generation of viewers. The considerable production budget of the sequel does not really allow the creators to distinguish this chapter from the original. Carpenter seems to be deliberately slowing down technical progress, in connection with which the spectator tempted by expensive spectacular productions, who has already had time to get acquainted with Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park, is very difficult to tempt. Of course, the old-fashioned work can be justified by nostalgia, but Carpenter still had a sufficient budget at his disposal to use it directly for its intended purpose and not play the sad games that only fans of the old Escape from New York appreciated. And even computer effects, among other things, animating the disgusting quality of the tsunami wave, could not add visual freshness to the picture. In this regard, it is not surprising that most of the potential audience preferred completely different films, and not interested in the return of the Snake Plisskin, which exactly repeats the same thing that did a decade and a half ago.
However, despite the unimpressive effects and scenery, as well as the existing secondary plot, “Escape from Los Angeles” is still interesting for its ironic satire, which released its edge in the direction of American democracy, which is far from as liberal as it would seem. Carpenter, with an undisguised grin, looks at the institution of the President, the secret services subordinate to him and the ministries governing the country. Of course, the director exaggerates the situation, in part turning his story into a farce, but it was quite funny to watch America in the near future, where manipulation flourishes and civil rights and freedoms are purely nominal. Not a single trace remains of the infectious gloom of Escape from New York, but a similar artistic approach can be adopted. The world is changing, and although Plisskin’s adventures are somewhat monotonous, on the example of the situation surrounding him, we see that only people of action and unbending will remain in value in any case, and only they are able to somehow influence the course of social processes. In this regard, for all its imperfection, Carpenter's film is still worthy of attention.
6 out of 10
Escape from New York I don’t think it’s a movie, it’s definitely good, but nothing more. I watched it and more than once, but for some reason I did not touch the sequel, well, the time has come and how damn controversial this film is.
The plot doesn't make sense. The plot is completely taken from the original, just everywhere there are the cherished words “again” and “again”. New York changed to Los Angeles. However, in addition to this, there are a lot of holes in the storyline. The original film of 1984 was a completely finished picture - the fates of all the characters were brought to a logical conclusion, the ending left a pleasant aftertaste of intrigue. What do we got here? There are characters just for fun, for example, one of the characters in the film is needed only to ride Snake on the surfboard (what is it like at all?). And here's the second minus - goodbye to the gloom and noiriness of the first film! At first, everything is true in the spirit of the original, but at some point the creators were lazy to maintain a gloomy tone and decided to stuff all sorts of nonsense. The third disadvantage is the special effects, I don't know how they looked in '96, but now it looks bad, disgusting work with chromakey.
Now for the pluses. First of all, Kurt Russell - he's great as Pliskin! In some places even better than in the first part, it smells like pathos, a chic actor! The second plus is to put an action that was in places, and in places was not bad, as then there is nothing more to say. Well, you can pull the film an extra score due to the same satire that, despite wild self-repeats in relation to the first film, still drags.
Well, that's it. You can see if you like Kurt Russell, or if you are a fan of the first part and are willing to accept that the second part is worse, much worse.
6 out of 10
Someone treats the continuation of the New York escape as a freelance remake, someone sees an independent film. Escape from Los Angeles combines both of these properties. The year 1996, since the release of the original was sixteen years, exactly the same, jumped and since the events that occurred in the first part. The plot, situations, and even some dialogues bear a striking resemblance to the first tape. The changes are only in some aspects: the other leaders, the city and the change of government. In a funny (in a good sense) way, Carpenter plays the sense of déjà vu, adds to what is happening the right humor and even greater thirst for life to the main character, who has not reduced the ardour over the past time.
The first escape, although it is a cult movie, but its work and the world are not as detailed as in the sequel. Los Angeles is more multifunctional: all sorts of markets, entertainment venues, gangs and crazy plastic surgeons - which are here the replacement of the zombie-like savages of the New York streets (by the way, the infamous Bruce Campbell is the chief among mad doctors).
Open and not so closed spaces create the illusion that the differences between cities are just like in real life. In this regard, both parts look quite diametrical, even with a slight similarity. But this is the sequel, speaking in places the voice of the past. In addition to the locations, the battle scenes became much more, there were action chases and flights on the analogue of hang glider and even one of the most spectacular moments – swimming on a surfboard.
The acting and the selection of charasmatic characters, with the addition of superior to the first film. The only thing that is a little not honed at the time of the release of 1996 — special effects and not so juicy musical accompaniment. Computer effects and scenery are not perfect, but they calmly take execution, atmosphere and elaboration. As far as the creators were able, so much and gave, the result is still worthy. The movie is certainly A-class, but it is not the best representative of it, especially against the background of other fantastic works such as the deadened Terminator 2: Judgment Day and Jurassic Park. Well, the music, if not better than his older brother, then one scorching composition Rob Zombie and the band White Zombie (The One) with a high degree of probability will not leave fans of the Escape universe indifferent, and the remade motifs of the first part are still catchy.
Anyway, Escape from Los Angeles, one of the best phenomena of the nineties that happened in the world of fantastic cinema.
10 out of 10
1996. 15 years have passed since the release of the good Escape from New York, and technological progress did not stand still. The budget is $50 million, against $6 million of the original budget. It’s only been about a year since the release of one of Carpenter’s best films, In the Mouth of Madness, and the seemingly famous director can still produce a high-quality film. Kurt Russell is here. Sadly, all these factors create only a deceptive impression before viewing.
It’s not enough to just wrap Russell in a leather leather and give him a bigger gun, so that the toughness and brutality of his character is comparable to what we saw in New York. These qualities looked organic. Here they are plausible, literally imposed on the viewer. Then Plissken is shown dressed in the specified leather leather under a pathos track, then all the ladies in the slums of L. A. stare at him, then he famously shoots the extra behind his back, somehow feeling the vile intentions of him. Such attempts to smear the screen with the coolness of the Snake look, I am not afraid of this word, wretched. What is the secret of the Plissken model of New York? General severity and uncompromising environment, which can be deadly for anyone. It was his actions in those conditions that the character became for the viewer the way we know him, and not thanks to clothes, languid glances of female characters and other side tinsel.
Why are there so many unneeded characters? Why Valeria Golino's character? To show that the snake has feelings, too? God, he doesn't care. Especially those he knows for a few minutes. He can bring the world to the brink of nuclear war without hesitation. Who's gonna believe he's grieving over the death of a random lady? The nameless bandit who appropriated the Snake's jacket - why is he? To wear it a little and be multiplied by zero? Very, very necessary guy for the plot, yeah. Or the same shot extra with Nazi patches here just to slightly stretch the timing.
Technically, the film has serious flaws. Notice the high-rise collapse in the briefing at the very beginning - and match this episode to the size of the budget. And these shoals are almost the whole movie. A significant portion of the 50 million went, it seems, to pay actors.
The actors deserve credit. Overall, we did. In addition to the girl who played the role of the daughter of the President, because he disgustingly overplayed, and several other actors – “the scenery”.
The secondary story is like a thorn in the eye. Again, the same lines, again a female character - Plissken's potential passion is removed from the film by a faceless extra (and it is removed quite primitively and ridiculously), again a wound to the leg, again betrays the one on whom the Snake has just begun to count, again the same scheme of reprisal over the antagonist. Over the past 15 years, it has been possible to develop enough new moves.
If in the original realism tried to follow to a certain extent, then it spit on the high bell tower. What are just surfing with a shot leg and shelling bad guys with hang gliders?
What good is it, anyway? Not bad modernized on the motif of the 90s title track "New York". Kurt Russell, Steve Buscemi, Valeria Golino (even with all the uselessness of her character). More or less fitting ending in the spirit of the original.
As a fan of John Carpenter, I was disappointed. Trying to play on the well-known title and participation of several famous actors - that's all.
4 out of 10
In 1981, John Carpenter’s Escape from New York was released, which became successful at the box office and at the moment acquired a cult status (in my opinion, quite deservedly). After 15 years, Escape from Los Angeles was released, which failed at the box office and met a sea of negative criticism in its address. Is it deserved? The answer is obvious: Yes
The United States of America in 2013, a brutal totalitarian dictatorship. As a result of natural disasters, Los Angeles turned into an island where all elements undesirable to the government are sent. The Snake Plissken, who made the impossible “Escape from New York” at the time, was again needed by the authorities to perform a task with which no one else can cope – it is necessary to return the daughter of the President, who stole a sample of a secret weapon of mass destruction. Snakes must complete the mission in 10 hours, otherwise a deadly virus introduced into their bloodstream will begin to act.
“Escape from New York” was a rather realistic statement on the topic of our future, which was expressed through the prism of the gloomy prison city of New York. This was created due to the rather realistically built scenery and generally surroundings. What about Escape from Los Angeles? Well, there's an interesting thought, and it jumps out of the mouth of one girl in this film, they say, in prison, much freer than in the rest of the world, where strict laws reign. However, does this idea develop further as the film progresses? Nope. Can the film offer a realistic environment? Not either. Everything looks too fake and computerized, as a result of which the entire atmosphere is lost.
Could the movie be as good as an attraction? Again, no. The action is not impressive and performed at a low level, there are no memorable action scenes at all. And in many ways, the action failed due to bad special effects. Separately about them. They're disgusting. Sometimes I felt like I was watching some cartoon with shitty graphics. Take the scene where Plisskin reaches Los Angeles in a mini-submarine. The scene almost completely copies the identical scene from the first film, only there the main character moved not under water, but through the air. And if in “Escape from New York” she looked spectacular, in the second film she is cartoonish and ridiculous. The budget of Escape from LA is almost 8 times larger than the first film. Plus, the film itself is boring and uninteresting just because of the falsity.
The film in some places almost completely copies the events of the previous film, and copies very ineptly.
The Plisskin snake performed by Kurt Russell is perhaps one of the few bright spots of this film. Plisskin hasn’t lost all his charisma and brutality since the first film, thanks to Kurt Russell, who played well. I also liked the girl Taslim performed by Valeria Golino. Very interesting character, but it is not enough in the film. But Steve Buscemi was clearly overplaying. Bushemi clearly played a comic role and he failed. His character was more annoying than funny.
Escape from Los Angeles is clearly an unnecessary sequel to the 1981 cult film. The main problem with the film is that it is fake in almost everything. If the creators had put in more effort, if they hadn’t made this film just to pump money out of the fans, but had put their soul into the film, things could have gone differently. I don’t doubt that “Escape from LA” has good moments, but they are lost in all the shortcomings of this “masterpiece”. Plisskin and Taslima also failed to pull the film.
There is only one decent man there: the Serpent Plissken, and he, if you tell the truth, is a bandit.
Totalitarian USA. People are slaughtered sheep surrounded by police dogs. The island city of Los Angeles is a cesspool inhabited by bandits, prostitutes and other waste products of society. In space, over this whole holiday of life, a system of military satellites capable of throwing humanity back to ancient centuries, and only the Snake Plissken can return the only remote control of hellish machines that fell into the hands of terrorists. This is the wrong story, the film is completely different.
The snake roams the rotting world, amusing itself with basketball, surfing and hang-glidering. This is the true story.
Apparently, by 1996, John Carpenter became completely uninterested in the prosaic fact that there are still some viewers there who, according to the plan of the film companies, should go to theaters and pay for tickets, paying off the budget and making a profit. “Escape from Los Angeles” is filmed so emphatically disregarding all social and cinematic norms that financial failure seems like a well-deserved cup of honor.
To summarize the claims, the public decided that the wrong director slipped her some wrong action movie. Little, sluggish, tight. Shooting is all picture, blood is not enough, the guts are not out. No juicy realism, no glorious Tarantine buffoonery. The snake Plissken, barely turning around, puts another scoundrel on the move; "Maybe this is such a satirical fake?" the viewer thinks, waiting to see the director's explanatory winks. But no: in scenes in which Rodriguez-machete would flash two eyes at the speed of a nervous tic, Carpenter remains completely dispassionate. “Well, then it’s just bullshit,” concludes the viewer, accustomed to a clear system of vectors and disoriented by Carpenter’s crowded base.
Carpenter tried to tease everyone by sticking his own ass-turned ideals under his nose. To the liberals, the scoundrel-president (George Bush?), to the socialists, the scoundrel-terrorist (Che Guevara!), to the believers, to theocratic America, to the libertarians, to the scum-populated Los Angeles, the last abode of freedom; to the public, without a clearly articulated civic position, the middle finger showed to them with a sixth sense. However, the film is not a rock concert, and what passes from the stage in the stadium, from the screen in the cinema did not go. Deceived and offended viewers puffed up, voted against and flew away, leaving Paramount to calculate the losses from its short-sightedness.
In fact, Carpenter created a magical prism, looking at which from different angles you can see a completely different movie. Depending on the accent of perception, “Escape from Los Angeles” – and fiction, and antisocial drama, and action movie; even the western here is more than in modern cone-drawings like “Trains to Yuma”, and not only because of “Bangkok rules”. Without bothering with the term “target audience” and not noticing the difference between “blockbuster” and “author’s cinema”, Carpenter made, if I may so say, a hyperfiction film.
The director’s fault lies in the fact that he did not hang labels and pointers, leaving the viewer to understand everything himself. The audience failed. John Carpenter probably knew this beforehand.
10 out of 10
When the film “Escape from New York” was shot, no one could guess that whenever they would shoot a sequel. Yes, times go by, technology and mentality, and tastes, the viewer changes, it becomes more difficult to please. But when the sequel about the adventures of the Snake came out, it was in the mid-90s. This means that filmmakers have begun to develop imagination.
But, unfortunately, this does not apply to the movie "Escape from Los Angeles". Before us is the continuation of the story about Plisskin, which differs from the previous film only by changing the scene and a slightly aged and strengthened actor Kurt Russell in the title role. Plus, a lot of characters were added, which were played by such stars as Steve Buscemi, Stacy Keech, the cult Bruce Campbell, Pam Grier and many others. Of course, this movie won.
Director John Carpenter expanded the story, adding many characters, adding a great entourage in the form of scenery in the ruined Los Angeles, black humor and a rather large piece of cruelty, which only made the film tougher. Having written music with the famous composer Shirley Walker, Carpenter modernized the music in the picture and the musical theme, which greatly made the film very futuristic.
Unfortunately, the film was weaker than its predecessor. Because he's like a copier repeating the first movie. All the novelty and freshness is lost once the Snake hits Los Angeles. If it were a horror film, where sequels almost always repeat each other, then this trick would be repeated from the plot by one hundred percent, but since there were such films as "Broken Arrow", "Independence Day", and even "Twilight", the viewer was probably set to watch a much more spectacular action movie. No, I’m not saying that the film is not spectacular, it’s just not presented as it should.
John Carpenter does not like to shoot sequels, see this feature of his strongly affected this product, which came out and not good or bad. As a sequel, the film is from the series " so myself", and as a separate film, it is quite nothing.
7 out of 10
From “New York” there remained only the inimitable charisma of Kurt Russell and the inflating atmosphere. Not so much the story as the city itself. And it is not for nothing that the titles of both films pay tribute to the cities, because it is through them that the atmosphere and mood are conveyed in both films. Only Los Angeles is shown as a city of a destroyed civilization, in which homeless people live as if in a pack, and the leader is a leader similar to Che Guevara. Still, “Escape from New York”, which presents a city of the near future with totalitarian conditions, in this regard was more acceptable to the canons of dystopia.
Otherwise, it seemed that Carpenter had nothing more to offer. High-budget cinema as if not for him, because the master of his craft shot the masterpiece in fact for a minimum amount of money, can work well only in his field, because you can not drink the skill. This suggests that most of the late works of the director, whose budget was quite decent, were extremely unsuccessful for him, and unpopular with viewers and critics.
By the way, the difference between the films is 15 years, but during the viewing it seemed that the films were shot in parallel, that is, at the same time. And Escape from Los Angeles’ stated $50 million budget didn’t really feel like it was just being spent on royalties. But this is an old-fashioned tape, still has a fascinating character. This is certainly not what it was in New York, just here it looks naive, sometimes boring, but alive, and in many ways the film saved the immature image of the Snake Plissken.
As a result, Carpenter did not shoot a fantastic dystopia, but decided to rethink the first film, and create an action movie on its basis. Critics were very restrained and negative about this, pointing out that the most talented independent director of our time, acted too incorrectly in relation to the sequel, copying the plot and narrative from the first picture. But as many people know, Carpenter is a lover of creative reinterpretations of other films, which is what he did, making films such as “Something” or “Man from the Star”. That’s just not always passed on, success from the original picture to the sequel, that’s the problem of “Escape from Los Angeles”.
5.5 out of 10
A hero. Criminal. The most wanted man in the world. And just the Snake Pliskin.
This film, unlike its predecessor, was not so warmly received by the public and many people blame this picture for saying that it looks like its predecessor. I won’t argue, the films about the adventures of Snake Pliskin are similar to each other as identical twins, the only difference is that the first film was shot for young people who grew up on such concepts as “sex, drugs, rock and roll” while the second film was designed for modern society. Yes, Escape from Los Angeles is a remake of the first film, but when did the remake become a symbol of something bad? *looks doomed to look at a string of remakes of one another worse* X-h-okay, in modern Hollywood, things are very bad with remakes, but it is one thing when a person takes up a film without realizing what he is doing, well, it is quite another when the person responsible for the original is engaged in the remake. For examples, I will not go far and will cite quite banal - "Evil Dead" (where the second film was actually a remake of the first) and "Riddick Chronicles" (where "Riddick" was actually a remake of "Black Hole"). Do you think it was a bad movie? At the same time, I note the remake in no way begs for the merits of the original films, just they are somewhat different. Same with our guest tonight. So wait with the pitchforks and torches, because God sees in world cinema there are enough films that really deserve all sorts of censure, and I will smoothly go to the culprit of the celebration. So this is "Escape from Los Angeles."
It has been a long fifteen years since the President of America was rescued from the captivity of the “Duke” and given the situation in the country – the island of Manhattan was wiped off the face of the globe. No, of course, the direct text of this is nowhere to say, but why does the “most democratic country in the world” need an island that destabilizes the situation in the region, when you can do exactly the same, but not in the center of the country? It is said that it was done thanks to an “accidental” earthquake (well, rightly speaking, would anyone believe that the troubled region broke away by itself without the participation of the government and the military?) Los Angeles is becoming a floating island that is walled around and sent there by “hardened criminals” – Jews, Mexicans, Buddhists, children left without parents, women unable to pay for housing, in general, all those who are displeased by the Nazi regime ... er, I mean the sacred American democracy. But here's the trouble - not everyone is delighted with this state of affairs and the daughter of the American president steals the remote control of Earth satellites and runs away to her beloved Cuervo Johnson, who runs in Los Angeles and dreams of world domination. The American government is again in a state of complete panic, but there is one cunning military man who offers a way out of this difficult situation, and his name is Snake Pliskin. The latter truth has been busy and does not want to help the executioners in the return of their property, as well as the murder of all those involved, including the daughter of the President, but in this case the military has a trouble-free remedy - a slow-acting poison. Well, Pliskin, you survived Stalingrad, you survived Cleveland, you escaped New York, but are you up to Los Angeles? Huh? What? Of course your name is Snake. How could I forget...
What do you say? This film, like its predecessor, continues to make evil jokes about both the politics of the United States and its vaunted democracy, on which they are so obsessed that modern America is already like a police state, where freedom of speech is nothing more than an empty sound and where, an ordinary citizen cannot walk a step without being caught on camera. And even if a step to the right or left does not entail shooting, but do not worry whether there will be more. At the same time, Carpenter, in the words of the heroes, asks, what is freedom? Los Angeles residents are free, but what did they think? Break into gangs, bring back the colosseum of games, and kill anyone who looks at them? Is that freedom? If the answer is yes, I have to follow Pliskin’s example and say, “Someone stop the Earth.” I'll get off."
But you're not here for irony, but to see an interesting and fascinating action movie with a fantastic twist, are you? Well, fiction, as such, in the film actually will not. And before the viewer appears the era of the seventies in all its glory - a stylish and cynical main character in a leather cloak letting off snide comments about and without, bustling beauties that look at the hero with big eyes and ask for help, a gangster rabble of all colors and colors, malicious scientists who love to experiment on living people and, of course, mother-anarchy that goes through the streets and summons under its banners the offended, oppressed and just crazy. The only “but”, it is necessary to make a discount on the fact that the budget of the old Carpenter was actually not, and therefore everything was filmed exclusively on bare enthusiasm, so that the special effects that took place in the “Water World”, “Star landing” and “Robocop” you, dear viewer, will not see. But believe me, this is not a reason to go in distressed feelings to review “Destroyer” or “Time Patrol”. There will be shootings, chases and explosions in this movie. Yes, I agree that what happens sometimes looks quite naive, but guys, let’s be realistic, “Judge Dredd” also looks quite naive, but does this affect its merits? So don't put too much pressure on realism, because John Carpenter specialized in something else. Namely, in order to entertain the viewer and he succeeds in this - a duel of the Snake and four criminals armed to the teeth, a brawl that grows into a muzzle between the heroes of Kurt Russell and Steve Buscemi, a gang of collectors that collects not garbage, but parts of living people. These and many other moments in the film for a long time fade into memory, and if this happens, then this already indicates that this is not just a one-day film, but something more.
So let me say this, if you want to see a good action movie in which there is everything for which the viewer loves such films, then pay attention to this movie. Well, if you are waiting for a smart and multifaceted fantastic action movie with a twisted storyline, then of course this film will disappoint you.
At the risk of appearing to be Captain Obvious, Escape from Los Angeles is frankly bad and somewhat mimicking the average blockbuster movie. Avarice for action and carefully built models of the original replaced all sorts of chases and poorly painted CGI-effects, instead of an oppressive spirit, some unnaturally bright extravaganza is presented, and the plot moves of the first part are borrowed from themselves - from Escape from New York. Perhaps the repetition of the plot twists and the main character are the only aspects that have not been touched. And if the former can outrage, the charismatic Serpent Plisskin, radiating incredible charisma, evokes only the desire to raise a thumb like Commodus from Gladiator. So is ... the director.
John Carpenter is one of those directors who should be trusted with expensive productions only in rare cases. Well, what to do if a person feels comfortable with a minimum budget and in the same minimal scenery - they make him improvise, going to all sorts of tricks. The second part of “Escape from ...” with its plump budget, apparently, had a harmful effect on John’s activity, since there are so many repetitions here, and most of the new “chips” are stunned, and not in a good way. But the skill still do not drink, and, no matter how confused the train of thought, Carpenter manages to charm all that tastelessness reigning on the screen.
Cutting eyes, primitive computer graphics; a man who changed gender and leads one of the gangs; surfing (!); overplaying actors ... These are weighty reasons to just take and turn off the film, but you should feel the atmosphere, as you unwittingly become a walking example of the expression: “The mice cried, pricked, but continued to bite the cactus.” Relatively cozy atmosphere straight from the 80s, chic antihero, remarkable music of Carpenter himself ... It’s not always easy to turn a blind eye to the flaws and to see the bleakness of Escape from New York when you see, for example, a ridiculous gang of surgeons. But tell me, how long have you seen cowboy noir? Have you ever seen it? This is how Carpenter defined his genre. Indeed, the film sometimes resembles a Western immersed in modern realities. At least the same Plisken duel with a few scumbags reduces the unpleasant sediment to a minimum, after a lousy chase. And if you perceive the film not as a “dark prophecy” and “classy action movie”, namely as “cowboy noir”, then pleasure, albeit specific, is guaranteed.
Today, a cold mathematical calculation reigns, turning films into potential box office leaders and heartbreakers of ordinary moviegoers. This opus is terribly controversial, but it is alive! As if Frankenstein, unevenly assembled from various flaps, rejects many, but there are those who manage to see the charm and soul in this “ugliness”.
A promising scenario that turned into one of the numerous and similar dystopias.
“Escape from New York” 15 years before the release of this film was unexpectedly a hit. And John Carpenter at the outset of his career decided to create a sequel. Only instead of the apocalyptic “Big Apple”, there is an equally apocalyptic Hollywood, which has turned into a kind of prison, into which the daughter of the current ultraconservative president escapes, taking with her a superweapon that cuts electricity using a system of satellites on any part of the Earth or on the entire planet at once. The Snake's (Kurt Russell) task is to kill his negligent daughter and return the superweapon. He has 8 hours or he will die of the virus.
Admittedly, it is not clear from the film that Carpenter wanted to remove a parody, thrash, dystopia or a fantastic action movie. Little by little and nothing in particular. Individual chips look interesting, but in general everything is somehow too predictable, and sometimes on the contrary – illogical.
Most importantly, the film desperately lacks the drive needed in such cases. Apparently, Carpenter just got old and lost his grip. Of course, on “Escape...” the subsequent “Destroyer” with Stallone and some other less well-known films are completely built, but ... it still looks a little ridiculous, because it is tortured. Just out of respect for Carpenter -
You could call it “Call Me Serpent 2,” but that doesn’t change much. The second time, to the delight of the audience, Kurt Russell appears in the image of the Snake Plisskin. The director did not change either, so the film could only be expected to be a worthy continuation, at least. Everyone praises Carpenter’s work in terms of horror films, I myself have not watched them, but I have the impression that he also succeeds in such a plan of action, at least it is clear that there are abilities.
The plot in this picture still resembles and is very close to the plot of the previous one. But now it's Los Angeles. After the great earthquake, this city turned into an island, again stuffed with bad people. What happened next is no longer described. But, they are sent to the island - of course, the Snake. Who else? Now, as for acting. I write again, but all the weaknesses of the escapes were villains. What's in New York, what's here. The same guy who looks so much like Che Guevara, well, absolutely no fear, and, the dictator, which he was so wanted to make, did not work at all. That's why it's better to keep quiet. The serpent himself, of course, is on top. It got tougher, tougher, tougher, and shoots more. Also stands out “conductor”, which plays kind of stupid, and kind of cunning. It is not necessary to say that everyone coped, but the picture does not suffer much because of this. Few people know, but Kurt Russell was the main initiator of the sequel, as he wanted to return to the hero he liked so much. It was also influenced by the earthquake and riots in Los Angeles in 1994. As for the work of the soundtrack, it is as always at the top, slightly changed the main theme of the film, and the sounds performed in the cowboy style, really resemble a Western. But the directorial and camera work failed. Some strange scenery, cartoon waves, computer boat. You can immediately see that the cast of this film did not know anything about special effects. Maybe because the whole budget they were dipping on something more necessary, because even at that time, $ 40 million (with the deduction of Russell’s fee) could be removed much better. Also, watching how Russell throws the ball into the basket, created a strange feeling, for 10 seconds the platform is very possible to run. But to throw the ball, and especially the last throw, believe me, I gave basketball 4 years, and to throw like the hero threw it, such a throw falls from a thousand times. But the beginning was not bad, but it was not given 10 seconds, because it was painfully fast time flew by. Apparently, the creators wanted to make the atmosphere even more heroic. Whether or not it turned out, it is up to us, the audience.
Conclusion: A good continuation of the acclaimed action movie. It reminds me very much of the second Die Hard with the same list of references to the first part: plot, setting, bad guys, etc. But at the same time, the film cannot be called bad. Yes, stupidly executed hero and special effects, but what they finally added, although not quite powerful, but still action movie, is already good. Finally, the creators replenished the Snake’s arsenal of weapons and handed over a chic cloak in which he looked simply magnificent and heroic.
A terrible event is coming. In 2013, the center of the world and Hollywood will separate from the United States of Democracy. It would require a large nine-point earthquake and a staggering number of citizens unworthy of the great American Dream. They will be deported to the wreckage of California and hang a barn castle on the border. This will only be the beginning.
Nice fantastic operetta of the eighties. How I miss the scoffing of brutal heroes in shabby leathers and cowboy boots. The earth in general, and the hometown of America in particular, is now being saved in a boring and rational way. Warm lamp sound cracking scenery replaced computer pixels. Phrases of supermen and bad guys are filtered three times for political correctness. All together drink jus and cheerfully chew gum.
The name of John Carpenter is remembered with nostalgic awe by many Oldphages. Someone caught “Man from the Star” on a wide Soviet screen, someone changed the collection of videotapes with “Confessions of the Invisible” or “Halloween” to a collectible edition of fancy discs, who unsuccessfully visits cinemas, hoping in remakes of “Something” and “Atttacks on the Thirteenth Precinct” to find the atmosphere of youth views. Alas, the genre has changed irrevocably.
Under the curtain of the outgoing century, the director tried to stay in the saddle of unwieldy militants with fantastic filling, creating a copy of the film “Escape from New York” beloved by the viewer. Significantly increasing the budget compared to the original picture, the author retained the leading actor and plot twists, paying tribute to another American metropolis - Los Angeles. Ironically, the film made about the same amount of money as the original. Which was tantamount to failure. And, most sadly, the new “Escape” turned away fans, who were not enough old moves.
But if you do not bother with the release date and the presence of cult predecessors, get old-fashioned dark glasses and shabby jeans from the mezzanine mezzanine and imagine the stray perestroika years, then your pound of pleasure will be guaranteed. Unperturbed Kurt Russell is decorated with Nelson’s Kutuzovsky armband, the elegance of the basketball player and Robocop’s immortality. On duty platinum beauties regularly improve their impeccable figure the background of the frame, occasionally passing the death remote to our hero. The overflowing rebel chief is disguised as the hit Che Guevara in a historic beret. Steve Buscemi's crazy eyes bring ultimate chaos to the definition of "friend or foe." Recital of automatic queues, sewers, streetball coliseum, armored helicopters, the President of the USA with the wisdom of George W. Bush - a complete set of native cassette cassette eighties.
Do not look for the triple meaning of the allegory of the frame, since the trolling of infallible America is visible from miles away. Our hero does not succumb to the snotty pathos of official speeches in defense of democracy, he defiantly throws a cigarette into the corner of his mouth, hardly found in non-smoking and non-drinking America, with pleasure deprives the Yankees of the most expensive – electricity. Even the outrageous Sasha Cohen plays by more familiar rules.
And it does not matter that in this comedy, the stamps are tightly bound by harsh white threads. It does not matter that the picture will not see a little award in any nomination (unless Saturn timidly approved the costumes). Escape from Los Angeles is a hundred minutes of forgotten pleasure. Smooth modern cinema weather for a moment diluted with a light breeze from the past.