Review of Escape from L.A. (1996) by Chuck T — 06 Apr 2014

After the events of the first film (Escape From New York) things have gone from bad to worse. The President, a deeply religious man, states that the sinful city of L.A will be separated from the rest of Moral America. Sure enough, an earthquake transforms it into an island and, as was the case with New York, that island is made into a prison.

Utopia, the president's daughter, is unhappy with her fathers ever growing megalomania, and deluded by the obviously Che Guevara inspired villain, steals the control for the US' super weapon "The Sword of Damocles". A series of satellites that act as EMP's, with the capacity to send the world back to the stone age. And flees into L.A.

Who can get the weapon back and kill Utopia for her crimes? Badass Snake Plissken that's who! Poisoned so he only has 12 hours to get the job done by a drug that makes him gradually perform poorer (makes sense). Plissken is jetted into the city.

It is interesting noting the differences between the two cities. Unlike in EFNY, where there was one ruler, barely any guns, a shortage of fuel and feral humans living under the city. L.A has people armed to the teeth, a variety of gangs (the most interesting being the surgery addicted ones led by "The Surgeon General of Beverly Hills" an excellent cameo from Bruce Campbell). But that's about all the film offers.??I love it! Knowing some of the back story, this was Carpenter's middle finger to being forced to churn out movies for money over quality, and on that level I appreciate it for what it is. KR's acting is sublime, but that's it. The effects are sh*t, the story is exactly the same as its predecessor except it makes less sense. Is it a must see? No! Is it a sci-fi classic? No! Is it worth watching? For a laugh yes! Also, I would be amiss if I didn't tip my hat to the man himself Steve Buscemi, also brilliant! Good cast but doesn't deliver the goods. 4/10.