Closer to a remake than a sequel, but improves on the 1981 film with some better ideas, and more measured pacing, making it funner. It still doesn't have the same clever creativity and the cheesy, fun thrills of some others of its type, such as 1990's Total Recall or even the recent Doomsday, which makes most of Escape From L.A. not very memorable, but it's a decent time killer, with some darker themes underneath.
Far superior to N.Y. and one of the most brilliantly subversive artworks. Carpenter not only lampoons the Hollywood mouthpiece of the global elite (it too was his Escape from L.A.), he sticks it to humanity as a whole, from the moral 'superior' to the 'defectives'. One of the few sincere characters aside from our hero is erased after an utterance of "it's not so bad". Sorry babe, welcome to the human race.
A sequel like Home Alone and Home Alone 2 in the sense where the story is basically the same from the first film to the other but whats at stake is taken a notch further in certain action scenes - some of them are ridiculously corny where Snake Plissken is surfing and playing basketball - its a matter of life and death of course. A funny but cheap sequel - The John Carpenter quality stamp has a weak ink in it.
This is a decent sequel to John Carpenter's badass movie. Kurt Russell is in top notch badass form as he journeys through new terrain and new quirkier characters. I mean if they are so desperate to remake this franchise just give Kurt Russell a third shot as the character. If that happens then maybe we'll get a Tango and Cash sequel.
With testicles the size of basketballs, Carpenter engages on the cinematic equivalent of a kamikaze mission, ceding aesthetics for exclamatory political commentary without reservation. Immune to any myopic critiques which miss the mark of serving its death metal punch-line, 'Escape from L.A.' is one of the most vital artistic statements of our time (and of all time): Fuck commerce. Fuck science. Fuck humanity.
Carpenter, bless him, said this sequel was better than the original, and now that New York has been gentrified, his vision of L.A. as a melting-pot safe-haven for the outcasts of America's moral majority may be the more relevant of the two. But the satirical promise comes undone: tonal awkwardness, lame plotting, 90s FX that aged worst than 80s FX, and cheap jokes whose targets, by 1996, couldn't feel shame anyway.
9 - You have to hand it to Carpenter; taking what is arguably his most enduring cult film, injecting ten metric tons of uncut weapons-grade absurdity straight into its eye, and using the thing as a framework for a balls-out satirical piece that takes the piss out of his own filmography, the Hollywood machine, and the less desirable facets of Western society. All while working as an unironic old school machismo fest.
Larger, pulpier, funnier than the original - but this is not necessarily a bad thing. Unfortunately to most it'll feel like John Carpenter gets a little lost along the way, but instead it seems like he's tearing strip off of the big studio "blockbuster" model that breathed life into the sequel in the first place. Meta? Or simply explosive genre filmmaking? Can't it be both?
some movies are so silly you have to admire them. beyond the mid-90's in-jokey-ness, this feels aesthetically akin to the low-fi carpenter of the 80's (though probably more in line with "they live" than with snake's earlier, superior adventure). as you might expect, the worst parts are also the best (i.e. surfing with peter fonda).