Skip to main content

Okay, we’re in space now, so it’s not North. It’s port and starboard.

Lockout
(2012)

(SPOILERS) Luc Besson’s “original idea” may have been found guilty of plagiarising both Escape from New York and Escape from L.A. (although, the idea that anyone would want to steal from the sequel…), but the real shame of Lockout is that it wasn’t a Snake Plissken movie. Which isn’t to suggest it’s a whole lot more than a routine actioner with a no-frills, at-best-serviceable screenplay, yet such credentials still put it way out ahead of either L.A. or the at-one-time Escape 3, Ghosts of Mars.

Besson’s producing oeuvre has been shamelessly chock full of derivative man (or woman) on a mission fare, sometimes elevated by inventive direction, at others by an amusing performance. Much more rarely by the writing (perhaps unsurprisingly, since Besson has upwards of forty story/screenplay credits since 2000 alone, and that isn’t including TV). And rarer still when Oliver Megaton is involved. SF has tended to remain in Besson’s directorial domain, however, and he clearly knows one of the keys to quality SF is world building. Both The Fifth Element and Valerian: City of a Thousand Planets were sumptuous visual feasts (even if the latter fell down in numerous other respects). Escape from New York, meanwhile, had an arresting premise combined with a larger-than-life hero and tantalising slivers of future history.

Unfortunately Lockout, being a Besson churn-em-out quickie, can’t be bothered with such inventiveness. The proceedings are set in space, 2079, with the protagonist sentenced to space prison MS One, where the President’s daughter has just been taken hostage (I know, right – what was Carpenter thinking in suing?) Despite this orbital premise, directors Stephen Saint Leger and James Mather tend to emphasise the earthiness of this clink as much as possible. Sure, there’s a space ague from being in stasis so long, but otherwise, much of what you see here wouldn’t look too out of place in an Escape Plan or Lock Up. Mather is principally a cinematographer, making his feature debut, while Leger double duties as both a director and AD (mostly on Vikings, it seems). Both also receive co-writing credits. Neither has a feature or script to their name since.

Which you might think speaks volumes. It might be a response to Lockout’s relative box office failure, of course. But neither does a bad job in either department. Basic, certainly. There’s some choppy editing (possibly a consequence of editing for PG-13 although it was 15 in UK), and some naff CGI, but for the most part, they deliver where its important: in the action stakes. Where they definitely stumble, however, is in offering anything in the way of memorable characters.

Guy Pearce’s Snow isn’t even a Plissken clone; he only appears not to give a shit, but really, he’s a good guy CIA guy (I know, a contradiction in terms). He even brokers a tentative romance with Maggie Grace’s president’s daughter (so nothing like Snake; any women he meets end up dead). Snow also comes equipped with some absolutely dreadful one-liners (“His name was fuck you… Yeah, he was Asian”). That you end up liking him is entirely down to Pearce’s charisma. So much so, I’d have been quite happy to see another Marion Snow adventure (Pearce seems to have been more commonly taking supporting parts of late, which is a shame, particularly when he’s called on to provide straightforward villainy).

Grace is fine as privileged progeny Emilie; presumably, Besson gave her the role as recompense for the ridiculous daughter in distress of the Takens. In which case, he still owes her big time. Peter Stormare trots out hard-nut Peter Stormare on autopilot. Lennie James trots out sympathetic Lennie James. Vincent Regan and Joseph Gilgun make more impact as the criminal brother duo, one older and more seasoned, the other a buy-eyed nutcase. Gilgun attracts all the attention, but despite that, his is an entirely familiar swivel-eyed crazy and not especially rewarding (it’s also a relationship that, unwisely, is indebted to, amongst others, From Dusk Til Dawn).

The last ten minutes are a jumble of expository twists exposing the real bad guy, getting Snow off the hook and giving him the location of the stolen secrets: all of which only serves to emphasise that nothing in the set up mattered at all, because Leger, Mather and Besson completely failed to make these stakes count for anything. That shouldn’t be surprising, as they’ve created no sense whatsoever of this 2079 world. Even Carpenter manages that in Escape from L.A. Lockout is basically 2012, but with a big space prison. I think it’s pretty clear 2079 won’t be like that. The big prison won’t be in space for a start.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

I’m giving you a choice. Either put on these glasses or start eating that trash can.

They Live * (1988) (SPOILERS) Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of They Live – I was a big fan of most things Carpenter at the time of its release – but the manner in which its reputation as a prophecy of (or insight into) “the way things are” has grown is a touch out of proportion with the picture’s relatively modest merits. Indeed, its feting rests almost entirely on the admittedly bravura sequence in which WWF-star-turned-movie-actor Roddy Piper, under the influence of a pair of sunglasses, first witnesses the pervasive influence of aliens among us who are sucking mankind dry. That, and the ludicrously genius sequence in which Roddy, full of transformative fervour, attempts to convince Keith David to don said sunglasses, for his own good. They Live should definitely be viewed by all, for their own good, but it’s only fair to point out that it doesn’t have the consistency of John Carpenter at his very, very best. Nada : I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick a

Ladies and gentlemen, this could be a cultural misunderstanding.

Mars Attacks! (1996) (SPOILERS) Ak. Akk-akk! Tim Burton’s gleefully ghoulish sci-fi was his first real taste of failure. Sure, there was Ed Wood , but that was cheap, critics loved it, and it won Oscars. Mars Attacks! was BIG, though, expected to do boffo business, and like more than a few other idiosyncratic spectaculars of the 1990s ( Last Action Hero , Hudson Hawk ) it bombed BIG. The effect on Burton was noticeable. He retreated into bankable propositions (the creative and critical nadir perhaps being Planet of the Apes , although I’d rate it much higher than the likes of Alice in Wonderland and Dumbo ) and put the brakes on his undisciplined goth energy. Something was lost. Mars Attacks! is far from entirely successful, but it finds the director let loose with his own playset and sensibility intact, apparently given the licence to do what he will.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.