Escape from L.A. 1996

It's basically the first one but worse. The CGI is laughably bad.

I haven't seen Escape from L.A. since the original release in 1996, and back then, I thought it was OK, but nothing more. That haven't really changed much. I love John Carpenter, I love Kurt Russel, and I especially love the films they have done together...expect maybe this one.

Escape from L.A. is nothing more than a rehash of its classic predecessor, but other than some horrendous CGI, it's done fairly competently. The acting is ok, and the score and sound is, as usual, excellent.

So...Escape from L.A. is not on par with most of Carpenters earlier output, and certainly not the original Escape, but it's entertaining enough to be an OK watch.

It's hard for me to say this about a John Carpenter movie, but I really didn't like "Escape From L.A.". It's a cheap imitation of "Escape From New York". Kurt Russell's portrayal of Snake Plissken is disappointing. He just whispers and groans a lot. Cliff Robertson's turn as the President is lame. The special effects are really bad, especially when I realized this is three years AFTER "Jurassic Park". I'm sure they didn't have the budget but the CGI is horrible and the practical effects may be even worse.

But the worst thing about this movie is that it's boring. How something with Russell, Steve Buscemi, Bruce Campbell, Pam Grier and Stacy Keach can be so dull is beyond comprehension.

Snake Plissken heads for L.A. in John Carpenter’s follow-up to his 1981 cult hit Escape From New York. Unfortunately, this film is a virtual re-make that just switches out New York for L.A. There isn’t any real originality here, or much craftsmanship. The CGI effects are awful, and make all the sets look cheesy and fake. The story has some interesting concepts, such as how a biblical disaster turns the state into a theocracy, but they’re not explored in any depth. Escape From L.A. is a hokey B-movie that’s a bit of fun, but it doesn’t live up to its predecessor.

It's hard for me to say this about a John Carpenter movie, but I really didn't like "Escape From L.A.". It's a cheap imitation of "Escape From New York". Kurt Russell's portrayal of Snake Plissken is disappointing. He just whispers and groans a lot. Cliff Robertson's turn as the President is lame. The special effects are really bad, especially when I realized this is three years AFTER "Jurassic Park". I'm sure they didn't have the budget but the CGI is horrible and the practical effects may be even worse.

But the worst thing about this movie is that it's boring. How something with Russell, Steve Buscemi, Bruce Campbell, Pam Grier and Stacy Keach can be so dull is beyond comprehension.

As someone who is not a big fan of 'Escape from New York', I could just as easily repeat my review of the 1981 film for this sequel. Because, in a way, it's basically the same movie all over again. The setting is now Los Angeles and not New York, but otherwise the plot does remain the same. The strengths of its predecessor are still present, particularly the appearance of the main character, Snake Plissken (Kurt Russell), and the strong worldbuilding. The effects, on the other hand, are once again weak, and the pacing is not exactly brisk. Ultimately, I deduct a few points for the lack of originality. But this trip to the (former) City of Angels is not much worse than the previous one.

Other than the bad CG and lazy writing it's OK. The set pieces give it a bit of variety. How can you not love Snake Plissken shooting hoop?