"Escape from New York" is by no means a classic film, but it's memorably dark, seedy, suspenseful and even funny. You might call it a worthy cult favorite. Alas, "Escape from L.A." is not nearly as memorable - in fact, it plays out like a tired remake of its far more amusing predecessor.
Both films have essentially the same premise; corrupt government officials send criminal tough guy "Snake" Plissken to infiltrate the ruins of a once-great city and retrieve some MacGuffin for them. In both films, Snake is reluctant to cooperate, but the government secures his compliance by threatening his life. So, Snake duly treks off to an urban wasteland, wasting thugs and meeting a variety of wacky characters on his way to completing his desperate mission.
Because the two films are so similar, I find "Escape from L.A." tedious - it simply doesn't break enough new ground. And, to make matters worse, this tepid sequel does everything worse than the original movie. The villain is inferior, the president is inferior, and even the special effects are inferior (note the positively laughable CGI when Snake pilots his submarine to L.A.; the approach to New York in the first film is infinitely classier.)
And, though both films are comedies (of a sort), I find that the jokes in the first are simply better. In "L.A.," there are some attempts at social satire, but by and large they don't work. For instance, the much-praised "plastic surgery" segment feels really isolated and pointless to me. It's a one-joke sequence that goes nowhere and contributes nothing to the plot. Ultimately, I think the first film has the edge in the comedy department because it was co-written by Nick Castle, who reportedly lightened up the script and was quite a wit in general (though Castle is credited on this movie, I believe it's only because he wrote the original film.)
Perhaps the crowning aggravation of "Escape from L.A." is its exceedingly preachy social commentary. Now, I happen to be fairly liberal, so I agree with some of this film's criticisms of the religious right - but I also find the presentation of these criticisms to be superficial, condescending, and obnoxious. To be perfectly blunt, this movie is not literate enough to have serious political aims. It's just too silly and in-your-face; it doesn't have the subtlety to work as a satire, and it certainly lacks balance. Suffice to say, if you're conservative, this movie will annoy you, and even if you're an open-minded liberal, it will probably still annoy you by representing your views so poorly.
Yeah, this is basically a dud, though I sort of enjoy the Luddite-like sentiments in the concluding scenes. It's got some good cameos, a few decent scenes, but in the end...it just ain't the original. What a waste of 50 million bucks!
Both films have essentially the same premise; corrupt government officials send criminal tough guy "Snake" Plissken to infiltrate the ruins of a once-great city and retrieve some MacGuffin for them. In both films, Snake is reluctant to cooperate, but the government secures his compliance by threatening his life. So, Snake duly treks off to an urban wasteland, wasting thugs and meeting a variety of wacky characters on his way to completing his desperate mission.
Because the two films are so similar, I find "Escape from L.A." tedious - it simply doesn't break enough new ground. And, to make matters worse, this tepid sequel does everything worse than the original movie. The villain is inferior, the president is inferior, and even the special effects are inferior (note the positively laughable CGI when Snake pilots his submarine to L.A.; the approach to New York in the first film is infinitely classier.)
And, though both films are comedies (of a sort), I find that the jokes in the first are simply better. In "L.A.," there are some attempts at social satire, but by and large they don't work. For instance, the much-praised "plastic surgery" segment feels really isolated and pointless to me. It's a one-joke sequence that goes nowhere and contributes nothing to the plot. Ultimately, I think the first film has the edge in the comedy department because it was co-written by Nick Castle, who reportedly lightened up the script and was quite a wit in general (though Castle is credited on this movie, I believe it's only because he wrote the original film.)
Perhaps the crowning aggravation of "Escape from L.A." is its exceedingly preachy social commentary. Now, I happen to be fairly liberal, so I agree with some of this film's criticisms of the religious right - but I also find the presentation of these criticisms to be superficial, condescending, and obnoxious. To be perfectly blunt, this movie is not literate enough to have serious political aims. It's just too silly and in-your-face; it doesn't have the subtlety to work as a satire, and it certainly lacks balance. Suffice to say, if you're conservative, this movie will annoy you, and even if you're an open-minded liberal, it will probably still annoy you by representing your views so poorly.
Yeah, this is basically a dud, though I sort of enjoy the Luddite-like sentiments in the concluding scenes. It's got some good cameos, a few decent scenes, but in the end...it just ain't the original. What a waste of 50 million bucks!