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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).