Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to an all new Reaction & Review. Tonight, guys, we're closing out 2025 with a movie that's also a follow up from a previous episode of mine. The movie came out in 1996. That movie is "Escape From L.A."
Now, for those of you who are new here and are reading this for the first time, I'll fill you in. Several years ago, I reviewed "Escape From New York" and I loved it. It was the second movie from John Carpenter that I hadn't seen before and I'm glad I did. Not only did I love it, I also ranked it as my number one movie from one of my early Top 5 movies list I did for Reaction & Review of that year.
And tonight, I get to check out it's only sequel. Now, I've heard some mixed things about this film. I've heard some people say that the movie's pretty good, though not quite as good as the first one. I've even heard some people flat out admit that the movie is a pile of shit. And I'll admit, I do have some concerns with it myself. For starters, like I said, this movie came out in 1996. It's predecessor, "Escape From New York", came out in 1981. So to wait 15 years to make a sequel seems kind of odd to me.
The other minor thing that I wanted to mention is that, even though John Carpenter is credited as both a writer and director, I noticed that Nick Castle, the man who-co wrote with Carpenter on "Escape From New York" doesn't come back for this one. Now I don't know the reason why exactly, but I will say that they did get two other people on board as co-writers. One of them being Debra Hill, who was one of the producers on "Escape From New York". The other being the film's star Kurt Russell. So it's a trade off I'm willing to accept here.
Now whether or not that translates into a good movie is another issue altogether. But that's what I'm here to find out. I really hope that this movie will be just as entertaining as the first film was. And the only way I'm gonna know for sure is if I shut up and I push play, and I'm gonna do that right now. So, without further ado, it's time to kick back, relax, and check out "Escape From L.A.".
5 minutes later
So let me see if I understand this. Los Angeles, after it became an island after all the devastation it suffered from, is now basically a deportation port for people who are unfit or undesirable to live in the new United States. You know, some people have predicted for years that California itself would end up drowning in the ocean, though that obviously still hasn't happened. But if it did, and it ended up like an island like how it's being described here, one could make an argument that certain celebrities would fit perfectly on that island. Not just because Los Angeles is an actual shithole, mind you, but that a certain number of Hollywood celebrities are just horrible people in general that you hope you get to see those people stranded there. Mind you, this is just my own bullshit theory, so you can take it for what it's worth. But it is something that you could potentially ponder on. At least, to me you could.
11 minutes later
So Snake has been infected with some kind of virus that will kill him in less than 10 hours. And unless he can retrieve the black box, he will die due to the virus's infection. That *is* sorta interesting. Though when you think about it, it's a much smaller timetable to work with...oh, and apparently, Snake's been talking to a hologram of the President...OK. Anyway, back to my point, it's a smaller timetable to work with considering in the first movie, he had about a whole day's worth to save the President. But still, at least it's an interesting way to get Snake's cooperation.
7 minutes later
Well, guys, even though it is a little bit early in the film, I can safely say that the CG, at least in this sequence here, is ridiculously shit. OK granted, I understand this movie was made in the mid-90's, but this CG here is shit even by the standards of 1996. I'm hoping maybe as the movie goes on, I'll get to see less of it, but I'm not sure if that's going to be the case or not.
12 minutes later
Well, guys, I am willing to say that Snake Plissken is still a major badass. That was kinda awesome. Granted, it was kinda stupid of them to not shoot at Snake at any given time, but I'm willing to kinda let it slide there.
7 minutes later
OK, that is really creative on how Plissken just had a blow dart inside his mouth and shot at this surgeon generals face. I'm curious as to how long he actually had that in his mouth or how he was actually able to hide it there, but then again, considering what the man's been through in his time of war, I'm going to assume that's natural for him to do something like that.
6 minutes later
OK, that was sorta unexpected. The only other character, aside from Snake, who had something resembling depth is now dead. Well, if this movie ends up going like it did in the first movie, Snake can't have people who are alive around him. That's kinda tragic, really.
11 minutes later
So Snake has to play basketball solo, and he has to get 10 points. Otherwise, he gets shot and killed. You know, guys, I'm no fan of basketball, but if the NBA ever wanted to implement this sort of rule for their sport, it would actually give me a reason to watch basketball. Just something I thought I'd share with you guys.
The Review
Well, guys, that was "Escape From L.A.". Let me go ahead and shut the film off now...OK. Well, first thing I gotta answer is the obvious. Is this movie better than the first one? No. Not even by a mile does this thing come even close to how awesome the first movie was. Now I will go ahead and say that, while it doesn't really come close to surpassing the original in any way, I can't deny that I had fun watching with this movie. Now mind you, it isn't entirely good. The film is flawed as shit, but it's still enjoyable in it's own unique way.
So, let's dive right into this one and talk more about the movie. Let's start with the writing. The best way I can summarize this movie's story is that it almost feels like a rehash of "Escape From New York". You have scenes in this movie that are almost identical to how it was done in the first film. A couple of examples I would list is stuff like the opening scene to Snake getting arrested and being cut a deal to him dropping on the island, only it's through a submarine this time and not a jet. I'll talk more about that submarine later when I get to the CG. Another example I can think of is the basketball game where the crowd is chanting for Snake, much similar to how Snake killed that one dude in the first movie in a wrestling ring. There's more I could mention here, but basically, guys, it's examples like those where you can tell that the movie is basically just a rehash of the first film. Now if you haven't seen "Escape From New York" and you saw this movie first, you probably wouldn't notice it. In fact, you would probably view in a different manner.
As such, I want to mention the film's tone a little bit. See, while the movie is more or less just a rehash of "Escape From New York", there's one thing that feels a little different to how the first movie operated. The first movie felt something like a sci-fi action thriller. And it took itself quite seriously. Granted, it does have a couple of goofy moments, but it still knew what it wanted to be in terms of it's tone. This movie, on the other hand, feels a lot more...goofier than before. I'd almost say that it feels like a parody of the first movie to a certain extent. And it's kind of a double-edged sword here. On one hand, it feels rather off putting, especially knowing how much of a tonal shift it goes from being a sci-fi action thriller to it being a stupid plotless action film. On the other hand, though, it *is* somewhat refreshing to see this kind of change unfold as you watch the movie. It kinda reminds me of what happened in between Puppet Master's 3 and 4. Where the third movie was pretty dark in it's tone, and the fourth movie changes that by being somewhat more light-hearted. And that's what this movie is in a nutshell. It's a dumb action film that harkens back to how a lot of action movies from the 90's operated. Which I know might turn some people off, but again, it's something that kinda stuck with me throughout the film.
Characters here are kind of a mixed bag. Personally speaking, barring Snake Plissken, the characters in this movie are nowhere near as interesting as the first movie. The only characters I can mention are the President's daughter, who gets kidnapped and is kind of an annoying bitch. Cuervo Jones is this movie's main antagonist and the best thing I can remember about him is that he looks like a young Fidel Castro cosplayer. Other than that, he has nothing on the Duke from the first movie. That brings me to the only other character I can mention, which is Eddie. Or "Map to the Stars" Eddie. Don't ask me why he calls himself that, it's not really important. But I will say that Eddie is probably the only character who has something resembling a personality. He kinda acts like a car salesman mobster, which makes sense, since he is played by Steve Buscemi, and he's had experience in those roles both before and after this movie. But yeah, he easily is the best side character in the entire movie. Snake Plissken himself is more or less the same character he was in the first movie. Cynical, doesn't give a shit, and just does whatever he needs to do in order to get the mission done. And he can also be a badass too, which is always awesome to see.
So, to paraphrase with you guys, the writing in this movie is pretty weak. Only because it's just blatantly rehashing the first movie's plot, only now they're just making it more goofier and more action packed. But again, it doesn't necessarily make it bad, it's just...different is all. So with that said, let's go straight into the acting. The acting here is actually really good. Kurt Russell is the only one who reprises his role as Snake Plissken and he's great at it. Even during a 15 year gap from when he last played the character, the man has not lost his step at all. Steve Buscemi, as I mentioned before, is very natural in his role and seems like he's having a lot of fun with it. The only one who I have mixed feelings on is Peter Fonda as the surfer bum. I don't know what it is exactly, but something about his performance just doesn't feel right to me. Maybe it's just because I've never seen Peter Fonda in this sort of role before. Mind you now, he's only in two scenes of the entire movie. One at the beginning when Snake is on the island, and the other is a scene that I cannot spoil because it's something you would have to witness for yourself. Trust me, you'll know what that scene is the moment you get to it. But yeah, Fonda's acting in this movie isn't really bad per se, it's just something that's putting me off slightly.
Now let's get to the worst aspect of the film: the CG. Oh dear god, where do I begin here...? Well, to summarize for you guys, the CG in this movie is beyond dogshit. The submarine sequence is basically the beginning of what you would come to expect with the horribly rendered CG. Because almost any scene that has Snake in any type of vehicle looks awful. The only scene where it looks decent for the most part is during the motorcycle chase, and most of that is done practically. Well, except for a shot when he lands the motorcycle on the back of a truck and the compositing of the shot looks horrible. That also includes the bulletproof helicopters, where the CG looks like it came out of fucking "Beast Wars". Guys, as I've mentioned it before, but the CG in this movie would look terrible not just by today's standards, but also by the standards set in 1996. I've seen movies from the mid 90's that had far better looking CG, like the "Mortal Kombat" film which came out a year prior to this one, and was working with a lower budget of $20 million. This film has over twice the budget and the CG looks like utter dogshit. It's really kinda sad, especially when you think on how "Escape From New York" relied on practical effects rather than shitty, outdated CG. But then again, as I mentioned before, "Escape From New York" was released in 1981, where CG hadn't really existed yet. But regardless, the CG is easily the worst thing about this movie.
Camerawork here is pretty good. Lighting here is lit fine. The sound-mixing here is good. The music is also pretty good, too. It was done by John Carpenter, who's also had experience in making music, which some people may not be aware of, but I'm letting you know now just in case you didn't. So yeah, the music here is pretty good.
So ultimately, guys, when all is said and done, am I able to recommend "Escape From L.A."? I can, yes. But only if you view it as a mindless popcorn flick. If you're able to turn your brain off for about an hour and 41 minutes of it's runtime, then you'll probably really enjoy it. I don't know how one would feel about it's tonal shift from the first movie to this one, though. If you're not a fan of goofy plotless action films, then you're probably not gonna want to watch this one. If you want a more serious film in this kind of manner, then I would just recommend watching the first movie and ignore this one. However, if you're able to accept some of the goofiness of what this movie tries to do, then, again, you're probably really gonna enjoy this one. Now obviously, I would watch the first movie more often than this one, but it might still be worth rewatching again if I wanted to turn my brain off for whatever reasoning. I don't know if it will be good on multiple viewings, but I could see myself watching it again if I'm in the mood for it. Speaking of which, I kinda just want to watch the first movie again, seeing as how it's been a little bit since I last watched it. So I'm gonna go do that next once I get done typing this one up.
And with that, guys, we conclude the last Reaction & Review for 2025. And I'll be back next year for my annual "Tales of the Longbox" marathon. Until then, guys, take care, and I will see you all later. Peace.