You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: The Films of John Carpenter
Escape From L.A. (1996)
--- Right off the bat, you knew this was Carpenter's best film in YEARS. Even surpasses the greatly underrated "Prince of Darkness" (1987). As far as i'm concerned, Carpenter's best since "The Thing". The film, pound-for-pound, is pretty much a retread of "Escape From New York" (1981), but it's a retread we all want to take. The opening theme remix of the classic N.Y. theme, gets you pumped for a special film. Although not as good as the first film, it's still a good film. The cast is great, maybe not the great ensemble of the first film, including Carpenter faves Kurt Russell, Donald Pleasence, Adrienne Barbeau, Harry Dean Stanton & Tom Atkins, along with Ernest Borgnine & Isaac Hayes. The cast of L.A. is very strong, and Russell, Stacy Keach, Steve Buscemi, Pam Grier, Peter Fonda, heck even Ash-himself Bruce Campbell, round it out pretty good. The film, unlike "In The Mouth of Madness" (1995), loses Carpenter's attempt at more modern films. L.A., although having a much higher budget than N.Y., still suffers from Carpenter being behind the times. As much as I love Carpenter's vision and atmosphere, by this point it was so dated, it was tiresome even for his most loyal fans. The film looks like it could've easily been done in 1986, rather than 1996 other than a couple cheap CGI shots. The sets also look cheap, and although L.A. does see a couple L.A. landmarks, I think with Carpenter still cutting corners in this way, L.A. might've been benefitted as being a 'darker' film, like N.Y. to hide these things (L.A. is much more 'lit' than N.Y.).
Carpenter's soundtrack unfortunately disappoints. Like "In The Mouth of Madness", Carpenter, instead of creating new, but familiar sounds, he completely rips off his "They Live" (1988) soundtrack here, and totally lifts cues right from that film, and applies it to L.A.
The film overall itself is still good, and one of Carpenter's better films, and certaintly his best, at that time, in over a decade and a half. After re-watching this, it almost pisses you off that an Escape III was never made, or hasn't yet been. To this day all of the 'Cleveland' talk still intrigues me, as to what took place. After watching this film, I would much rather see an Escape III with Russell starring and Carpenter directing, than a remake of N.Y. I really don't want to see a remake at all. If they go that route, a reboot, with a new cast and new director, taking place in another city, would be better than a straight up remake of N.Y.
Re: The Films of John Carpenter
I only watched In The Mouth of Madness once back when it was released. Wasn't too impressed, although I don't really remember much of it. I'll check the torrents for it, or just add it to my Netflix queue.
I enjoyed Escape from L.A. Like you said, it was a retread of NY, but still fun. I watched that in the theater. It was a huge bomb though. That's why they never did Escape from Earth.
Re: The Films of John Carpenter
Well In The Mouth of Madness is not too terribly impressive. It's an okay film, that just happens to shine, when compared to Carpenter's other 90's efforts (not L.A.), and alot of the crap that was out there in horror for quite sometime. The 90's was a pretty weak decade on that stuff, and Madness stands out because of it, imo.
I did know L.A. was a huge bomb, and that's the reason they didn't do a third. Still a pisser though. L.A. was a fun film, and i'd enjoyed seeing Earth. I do remember with L.A. that, for 1995/96, it had this massive budget and it was HEAVILY marketed as this huge Kurt Russell film, then it goes and only does like $25mil at the B.O., after having a $50 million budget. Yeah... anytime the company sees a 50% loss on something, quickly dampens any chances for another sequel.
Re: The Films of John Carpenter
Vampires (1998)
--- Watched this one for the first time all the way through. Over the years, all i'd seen were bits and pieces, and to my shock, this is not a bad film honestly. Carpenter kind of goes back to doing what he does best, modern day westerns. Although not as 'cult' and memorable as "Big Trouble In Little China" (1986), Vampires follows a bit of the same formula, with Carpenter doing a modern-day western, with horror/sci-fi connections. In a weird way, because of the fact continuity need not be important, I think an interesting concept would've been possibly resurrecting the classic 'Jack Burton' (Kurt Russell) character, who somehow gets involved in vampire slaying, while on the road. But... Carpenter goes for a 'vampire slayer' movie with an all new cast, that although small, does quite well. James Woods is great, and makes his own classic character, much in the same Kurt Russell did with his turns with Carpenter. Daniel Baldwin is also decent supporting cast, and the two of them make a good buddy cop-duo, as vampire slayers, but sadly they spend most of the film apart. I kind of wished that history would've been displayed more.
Now that i've rewatched all of Carpenter's 90's films, i've got a better appreciation for Vampires. Other than the obvious semi-classic "Escape From L.A." (1996), Vampires is really the only other traditional Carpenter film of the decade. "Assault On Precinct 13" (1976), the Escape films, "The Thing" (1982), and even the hokey "Big Trouble In Little China" (1986) & "They Live" (1988), all have 'western' vibes to them. Vampires carries on this traditional, and for that - I like it. It certaintly isn't an amazing film by any means, but it knows exactly what it is, and doesn't strive for more. It's just really good popcorn fun, in a traditional-Carpenter sense.
The 'look' of the film... ugh... you can read above for my opinions, but despite the old Carpenter-feel of Vampires, at this point, I was hoping for a 'fresh look' for his films. Vampires was made in 1998, and could easily pass for 1988. You get the idea...
Re: The Films of John Carpenter
Ghosts of Mars (2001)
--- "Carpenter at rock bottom" one critic called it, and it couldn't be more accurate. Truely Carpenter's worst. Granted I haven't seen "Memoirs Of An Invisible Man" (1992), as well as some of his TV & Cable outputs either ever, or for awhile. The film is just unoriginal and uninspiring. The sad thing of it all is Carpenter rips HIMSELF off. Just lazy filmmaking. Ghosts is basically Assault On Precinct 13... in SPACE! Oooh, get those oscars ready. Who wanted to see that concept in fucking space? I just don't get Carpenter's fascination with sticking concepts in space - AT ALL. Ghosts is basically 13 in space, not to mention Carpenter had concepts that would put Michael Myers in space ("Halloween 6") as well as Snake Plissken in space (the unmade "Escape From Earth")... and it just boggles the mind - why? Anyone who even dares to compare Ghosts to the great and underappreciated "Assault On Precinct 13" (1976) should be shot, and why Carpenter felt the need to take one of his great masterpieces, and rub it into the mud, perplexes me.
Once again, the look and feel are hopelessly dated. The film looks like it were done in 1991, rather than 2001. Hey, at least Carpenter is getting into the 90's, right? The sets are absurdly cheap, like something off a bad 'Direct-To-SciFi Channel' film. And minatures for the action sequences... WHAT THE FUCK? Who didn't stop John, and say "dude, using minatures for explosions and action sequences, hasn't been done since Knight Rider". I guess that honest advice doesn't happen, when your wife produces the film. The cast is absolutely atrocious. Only shout out goes to the great character actor Peter Jason, a Carpenter standard, who's pretty much been in every Carpenter film since 1987's "Prince of Darkness". The rest... ugh. Even the great Pam Grier seems totally out of her element, and going through the motions. The rest of the cast sucks. Flat out. Jason Statham always has sucked, and always will. What blows my mind is how the man has become a bankable action star. He makes Chuck Norris look like Laurence Olivier. The supporting cast just seems to run around, not knowing what to do or say. Other than Desolation Williams (Ice Cube), the rest of the criminals are made out comically dumb. Ice Cube isn't the greatest actor in the world, but is a passable actor, who pretty much plays himself in all his films. Even here... he phones it in. He doesn't seem to be enjoying himself at all, and can't wait for the shoot to be over. It comes through the screen. And last and certaintly least... Natasha Henstridge. Absolutely gorgeous, and stunningly beautiful woman. Heck, she even has screen presence. BUT... she's lacking one key element - ability. Natasha, if she considers this a compliment, comes from the William Shatner/David Hasselhoff school of acting. Anything i've ever seen Natasha in, she "over acts". She's WAY too overdramatic in almost every scene, I guess doing her best Ellen Ripley-impression, but she fails to capture the true emotion of Sigourney Weaver ("Alien" films), Linda Hamilton ("Terminator 2") and Jamie Lee Curtis ("Halloween H2O"), and what made their performances great, in such simpler action-oriented films. Henstridge is very pretty, but gets very annoying after the first 20 minutes of the film.
The ending of the film is laugh out loud horrible. Ice Cube & Henstridge look like kids "playing action star", and do it so badly. One of the things that made tongue-in-cheek films like the "Escape" films, "Vampires", and even the more comedy-oriented "Big Trouble In Little China" so cultilicious is the fact that the actors did not take themselves seriously at all. Everything was "big" and even camp in most places. Russell in "Escape From N.Y." is too serious to be taken for real, Ernest Borgnine's lovable teddy bear routine is the relaxing scenes in the film, Isaac Hayes is 'Mr. Cool', and Donald Pleasence (as always) steals the show with his fucking nuts performance as the U.S. president. The same can be said for the sequel, Russell and Victor Wong's Sorcerer in "China", and James Woods in "Vampires". The problem for Ghosts, is everyone is over the top like that, ESPECIALLY Henstridge, and yet, they totally take themselves seriously, even though there's no way the audience can.
The only redeemable factor for this film is the soundtrack. Maybe not Carpenter's best, but a soundtrack featuring Carpenter, along with contributions from Guns N' Roses members Robin Finck and Buckethead, make "listening" to the film, a whole lot more tolarable.
I don't know if i'll ever watch this film again. Maybe just burn the soundtrack, and forget the film ever existed.
