Skip to main content

He did it. He shut down the Earth.

Escape from L.A.
(1996)

(SPOILERS) It seems it was Kurt Russell’s enthusiasm for his most iconic character (no, not Captain Ron) that got Escape from L.A. made. That makes sense, because there’s precious little evidence here that John Carpenter gave two shits. This really was his point of no return, I think. His last great chance to show his mettle. But lent a decent-sized budget (equivalent to five times that of Escape from New York) he squandered it, delivering an inert TV movie that further rubs salt in the wound by operating as a virtual remake of the original. Just absent any of the wit, atmosphere, pace and inspiration.

I was an apologist for the picture for a long while. Never to the extent of suggesting it was actually good, but certainly arguing it wasn’t that bad. But it is. Escape from L.A. is a bad movie. An early example of the trend in decade-plus-later sequels and strong evidence that the nostalgia at play is predominately a trickster destined to elicit ultimate disappointment.

Yes, it’s very easy to blame Gary B Kibbe’s appallingly flat, lifeless cinematography, ebbing the life out from every single shot and scene, but Carpenter knew what the guy was doing and what he was capable – or incapable – of (this was their sixth collaboration). I’ve compared their relationship to Spielberg’s with Janusz Kaminski, but whatever Kaminski’s faults (and they’re essentially that he can only light in one style, irrespective of tonal or genre needs), he clearly is a skilled technician. Kibbe’s work with Carpenter, particularly their last four films, is barely functional (I’ll still go to bat for In the Mouth of Madness being an exception that proves the rule).

One half wonders if there was some kind of bloody-mindedness going on, so inept is the picture visually (the effects stink, the costumes are terrible, the makeup lousy). It leaves one retrospectively thinking the reason Escape from New York is so good is down to Dean Cundey, and Carpenter simply lucked in by working with a really talented DP over the span of a (almost) decade.

I don’t think anyone, anywhere, is drinking Carpenter’s particular brand of Kool-Aid when he insists Escape from L.A. is far, far better than its predecessor, it just hasn’t been recognised as such yet. It’s not just better, its “ten times better. It’s got more to it. It’s more mature. It’s got a lot more to it. I think people didn’t like it because they felt it was a remake, not a sequel”. He goes on to cite Howard Hawks’ Rio Bravo and El Dorado as an example, and insists its time hasn’t come (“Yeah, but you just wait. You’ve got to give me a little while. People will say, you know, what was wrong with me?”)

Sorry, John, but it’s almost 25 years. If it were going to happen, it would have done long ago. I don’t necessarily think the virtual remake approach was doomed to fail (and I definitely don’t think that’s why it flopped), but the self-conscious larkiness on display is of the kind where, for the most part, timing is everything. And Escape from L.A. doesn’t have it. If it had served up Snake Plissken in something as inventive as Big Trouble in Little China, riffing on his macho-isms and legendary status, that could have been fun. Feasibly. But the timing of gags is excruciating, from the first “I thought he’d be taller” onwards.

Given the amount it copies, Escape from L.A. also manages some serious feats of ungainly establishing detail compared to its cleanly-defined, streamlined predecessor. By 1998, a year after the events of Escape from New York, the Los Angeles has become “ravaged by crime and immorality”, necessitating the formation of the United States Police Force. An earthquake on August 23 2000, predicted by Cliff Robertson’s God-bothering presidential candidate as divine punishment, leads to LA becoming an island. Upon his being granted a life term as president, he issues Directive 17, deporting any undesirables there, minus their citizenship. It’s all very untidy and needlessly involved, presumably as a means for Carpenter (writing with Russell and producer Debra Hill) to take some shots at religious extremism that are in no danger of landing (actually, Russell takes credit for the President’s outlook). It’s also surely no coincidence that the first on the don’ts list is smoking:

Malloy: The United States is a no smoking nation. No smoking, no drinking, no drugs, no women. Unless, of course, you’re married. No guns, no foul language, no red meat.
Snake: Land of the free.

All that remains is for an important figure/item to end up in this banishment zone, now rolled forward to 2013, and the need for Snake’s services to retrieve them/it. This comes in the form of the President’s Patty Hearst-styled daughter Utopia (AJ Langer, now Countess of Devon), who, having fallen under the spell of Georges Corraface’ Che Guevara clone – the threat to the US is now from South America, rather than Russia – steals the remote control for the President’s EM pulse wielding satellite array.

You might think that, once Snake is introduced and the ticking clock established – this time via infection with the Plutoxin 7 virus – the movie just needs to propel itself from set piece to set piece, but at no point does it muster any momentum. There’s a series of repeats of Escape from New York, but they tend to be tiresome. Instead of a glider, Snake arrives in a sub. Which, like the glider, he loses (the visuals are lousy; the budget effects for the glider were way better). Corraface is Isaac Hayes, but lacking his presence. Steve Buscemi’s Maps to the Stars Eddie is a combination of Cabbie and Brain, and represents possibly the nadir of that Buscemi schtick: a reminder that he was entirely stereotyped as the untrustworthy weasel in only a few short years. Valeria Golino’s female cannon fodder vaguely echoes Adrienne Barbeau (she dies bloodily). Peter Fonda’s surfer is a joke without a punchline (unless you think he and Snake, having a conversation while surfing a wave, is the height of hilarity. It is, at least, indicative that Die Hard with a Vengeance didn’t have the 90s monopoly on cheesy water-spout gags).

Stacy Keach and Michelle Forbes do their best with very little. Which is to say, Lee Van Cleef made something much more memorable in less screen time. Likewise, Robertson is an utterly bland President, even with his ruthless attitude toward his daughter (it fits the life President idea that this was originally planned for Donald Pleasance).

Only Bruce Campbell and Pam Grier make much of a positive impression. The former has a brief, prosthetics-shrouded scene as the plastic-surgery-happy Surgeon General of Beverly Hills (“What a beautiful blue eye. Shame he only has one”). If one were to be generous, one might suggest Grier’s transsexual ex-partner of Snake was prescient, except that she’s only there so Kurt can annoy her with her former name (Carjack Malone). Still, it does mean Carpenter had the jump on both Tarantino and Soderbergh, using Grier and Fonda just before they were “rediscovered” by more feted filmmakers. That’s the problem here all over, though. The picture has the same eye for eclectic casting as the original, but it’s entirely squandered.

Kibbe ensures any effects-heavy action, be it earthquakes or floods, or hang-gliding, looks shoddy and poorly staged and lit. There’s zero atmosphere to the various locations – usually advised by a street sign, or a burning Hollywood one – and gang scenes There are a couple of moments where there’s a sense of what might have been; Kurt giving chase to Cuervo’s convoy on a bike never breaks a sweat, but it at least it has structural beats on its side. And the basketball scene is about the only sequence that does succeed in mustering some tension (curious that Alien Resurrection would also sport futuristic basketball skills the following year. And use Leland Orser, but more memorably). Kurt made all the shots himself, apparently.

Is there any evidence that Escape from L.A. is more mature, as Carpenter claims? A movie where the activation code is 666? I suppose it echoes the sense that the chaotic lawlessness of Escape from New York, for all that it has the vibes of a waking nightmare, at least represent a degree of personal autonomy. Moments before she is shot, Golino’s Taslima calls LA “the only free zone left, anywhere” and Snake nods an understanding “Dark paradise”. If you substitute Carpenter’s religious iron fist for technocratic rigour, you mightn’t be so far off in 2020 (once the dust has settled from rioting and economic collapse).

Malloy: 100% pure death Complete nervous system shutdown. You crash. You bleed out like a stuck pig. Not a pretty sight.

And there’s also the cynicism towards state-sanctioned fear. The President is opportunistic in bringing in his sweeping societal changes post 23/8 in the manner of 9/11, while the virus that has Snake all flustered, promising him less than ten hours to live, is actually no more than a “fast, hard-hitting case of the flu”. All that needless concern and stress about a deadly virus? “It’s bullshit, baby. Rumour control. Government propaganda. Just one more lie.

Malloy: You push that button, everything we’ve accomplished for the past five hundred years will be finished. Our technology. Our way of life. Our entire history. We’ll have to start all over again.

Unfortunately, even if that kind of element were representative, Escape from L.A. would still be a bust. At a lean 100 minutes, it still manages to crawl along interminably. Russell’s fine, but he’s acting in a vacuum for the most part. Perhaps his behind-the-scenes contribution to Tombstone had inspired him to greater creatively involvement, but it was for nought. Besides which, this period showed he was faring much better in everyman roles (Executive Decision, Breakdown) than hard-man ones (Soldier being his nadir, and something of a line under his viable status as a leading man). Snake Plissken? I thought he’d be better than this. Ah well, I guess Guy Pearce got to play a version that was.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.