I wouldn't quite call it "stupid for stupid's sake", but Carpenter's sense of control is too great to think he somehow broke the test tube with this little experiment.
What I love about this film is, despite the fact that in terms of story, it's a virtual clone of its predecessor, it manages to feel completely different. Same writer, director, star, story -- different result. In short, it's funny.
The "stupid" comes into it because it because, well, in the future, it looks like everyone's stupid. And their stupidity seems to be organically linked to forms of stupidity we see around us everyday -- indeed, a stupidity that has its roots in a certain city on the west coast of America.
But let's be fair -- Carpenter and Russell have plenty of targets at whom to shake the stupid stick, my favourite being the religious intolerance of a president who "gets it right" once and rides that into the White House with the support of a terrified and superstitious (and stupid) voting population. And let's not forget his vapid revolutionary daughter.
It's one of the most misanthropic films ever made (almost certainly the prize winner in Carpenter's filmography, and that's saying something) because it shows us a world that's completely irredeemable, very plausible, and has us cheer on a hero who, after swaggering around for an hour and half showing us the hilariously dystopian sites, decides to destroy it all. But the film isn't dour or difficult to watch; it's "rewatchable" in a way that nearly trumps its predecessor.
That's Carpenter's magic.
reply
share
Mississippi20
11 years ago
What I love about this film is, despite the fact that in terms of story, it's a virtual clone of its predecessor, it manages to feel completely different. Same writer, director, star, story -- different result. In short, it's funny.
Very well-said. Nice to see some intelligence in this thread. Carpenter and Russell hate sequels - that's the point. The first movie 'Escape From New York' is pretty dark and gritty. 'Escape From LA' is satirical. Unfortunately it challenged much of the audience who loved 'Escape From New York' and were expecting something similar. Ultimately much of that same audiences wasn't able to pick-up and enjoy the comedic, satirical elements of the film and instead mistook the film for being cheesy and dumb. Since it's LA, the film plays on the whole Hollywood/California scene - the cosmetic surgeon being one of the most obvious satirical elements of the film. It plays on Hollywood action movies themselves. The film is a hoot.
Was it the smart decision by Carpenter/Russell? Not if they wanted to make a hit. They could've sold-out and made a more "faithful" sequel to 'Escape From New York'. But they didn't want to do that and they had the balls to make the movie they wanted to make.
And really - how can you make a true sequel to 'Escape From New York'? The whole idea would've been forced just for the sake of making another one. Bearing that in mind, it's very easy to say why Carpenter/Russell hate sequels.
reply
share
IndyCelt
9 years ago
@balthazar_bee
"it's funny.
...
the film isn't dour or difficult to watch; it's "rewatchable" in a way that nearly trumps its predecessor. That's Carpenter's magic."
I can't agree it's funny. Once I figured out the nice cast wasn't going to produce a decent movie, I looked for parody or B-movie style humor [ie so bad it's good]. But no, no charm or humor.
'Carpenter's magic' was to get a good cast to buy into this. I must say I found it dour and difficult to watch from then on until I finished my dinner and could switch off. Unless the last 40 minutes had some huge redeeming qualities, this is a really poor movie, and waste of talent.
reply
share