Please would fans explain why they enjoyed this movie
-
ccr1633 — 15 years ago(August 13, 2010 09:34 AM)
Hi samuel-84. I feel I am missing something when I see a semi-trollish character such as yourself fishing for explanations as to why people like a movie, without offering up even a single opinion of your own about the film. Please can I get some feedback as to what you did not enjoy about escape from NY.
-
brushfyr — 15 years ago(August 28, 2010 09:00 PM)
Alot of people have summed up alot of things nicely, many I agree with. But really, I hate to say it, it's one of those things where if you have to ask you wouldnt understand it. I know that's an ass of answer but that's a big part of it.
First off, this movie came out in 1981, before the vhs explosion of the 80s. When video chains and mom and pop stores started to rent vhs tapes, it created an entire industry of direct to video low budget cheapies. Movies noone intended to be released like in theaters, but just for people to rent. If you've already rent Star Wars, and it cost the same to rent Escape From The Bronx (a real italian movie) you may rent Bronx. And it cost a fraction of what Star Wars did to make. So after 30 years there have been countless movies with a post apocolyptic world and leather clad anti heroes fighting for survival. But it many ways it was a more novel idea in 1981.
BTW - I know westerns had alot of anti heroes, but I'm saying alot of science fiction were a little more good vs evil at the time, alot less of the Vin Diesel guy just doing a mercenary job thing at the time.
So the characters, setting, and costumes were all amazingly novel. I've read that the movie was the first to have the concept of customizing cars. Not sure if it's true, but cant recall a movie that had similar messed up cars before 1981. Sure, a ton after but not before.
So it was a very original and well done move at the time. Since then, a ton of movies and ripped the tone and atmosphere of this and Blade Runner to death. So it looks hacky, when really it's where the hacks were stealing it from. -
wildpeckinpah — 15 years ago(October 12, 2010 07:13 PM)
Another reason for the appeal of Escape from NY is that at the time of its release the events of the film were 16 years in the future. 1981 was a time ripe with urban decay and high crime and fearful murder rates. Along with Detriot, NYC was the most hellish hole in the States and as the city was 13 years away from being rescued by Giuliani. In 1981 it was no stretch of the imagination to think that Carpenter's distopia could actually happen.
I was looking forward to this exciting future and was disappointed when the (real) calendar rolled to 1997 and Manhattan hadn't become a walled prison. But during the 80's thoughts of this literally happening gave the movie added punch. -
jamiekincaid — 15 years ago(October 22, 2010 08:48 AM)
Carpenter has a way of telling a story that hmmmhow do you describe it? He has a certain "flow" that I guess you either love or don't get. And I don't mean don't get in a condescending/dismissive way. It either works for you or it doesn't. For me, his movies have an almost poetic way of creeping up on you until all of a sudden you realize you are completely immersed in this world and it's fantastic. I think EFNY and The Thing are perfect examples but Big Trouble does it in it's own way too. Even EFLA has "it" just to a a lesser extent. For Escape, there is something about the combination of the lighting, the music, Plissken, and the story that just works.
I won't even begin to try to explain the appeal of Plissken. Aside from the fact that I am a woman and Plissken is 100% aesthetically pleasing, there is something so untouchably cool and smooth about him that you route for him from the first second. He is the bad-ass other bad-asses want to be but not in an over-the-top way. He just kind of quietly goes about doing what he needs to do. They never relent and have him doing typical heroic stunts. He's not out to save the world or the damsel in distress. He's just doing what he can to get himself out of a bad situation. You put everything Carpenter is a master of together with what Kurt did with Plissken and - BAM - you have a legend.
Do yourself a favor. Erase any and all preconceived notions you have about the film. Try not to worry about what differences would be apparent because 30 years has passed. Don't worry about lack of action in an action movie. Try to forget what you think you already know about the film. Go in with no expectations and just let it kind of wash over you. I don't mean that to sound preachy. It's just such a great movie. If you go in expecting it to be The Matrix you are going to miss some great stuff.
Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle. -
Zoomorph — 15 years ago(October 26, 2010 08:40 PM)
I wonder the same thing really.
I gave this movie 1/10, it's got to be one of the worst I've ever seen! (I try to avoid them.) I can always find at least something positive to appreciate about films, but this one is complete crap except the DVD menu and perhaps the soundtrack!
~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~ -
ksmail-1 — 15 years ago(November 26, 2010 09:29 AM)
I agree with OP. This movie was horrible and I find it hard to believe that so many people enjoy it. It was more of a comedy for me, especially the music, just notice the music during the "intense action sequences", and you'll just start laughing. Snake Plissken might have been a little cool, but the acting was pretty bad. The way Kurt Russell talks, trying to be all cool, that was pretty funny too.
I gave it a 2/10, 2 instead of 1 because it was unintentionally funny. I'm 19 years old by the way, perhaps you need to have experienced the 70s/80s and been part of the ridiculous trends to fully enjoy this movie.
It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything. -
franzkabuki — 15 years ago(December 03, 2010 01:01 AM)
The score is absolutely great and Snake Plissken is obviously about as cool as human beings get. Then theres also this uniquely somber and trashy scenery, the most ludicrous pimpmobile ever conceived, planes flying to the World Trade Center, Harry Dean Stanton what more do you need? I wouldnt call it a masterpiece, but it sure has character and a bad attitude. 7,5/10.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan -
reynardtfox — 15 years ago(January 14, 2011 11:18 PM)
Eventually, when you are older, some know-it-all kid is going to be dismissive of the era of your formative years and lacking in perspective and experience of your beloved pop-culture touchstones, and then you'll truly understand the breadth of your hateful foolishness
-
jamiekincaid — 15 years ago(December 15, 2010 05:43 PM)
You need to have your ears checked.
Second that. That voice is just part of Snake. I didn't realize anyone was crazy enough not to like it.
Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle. -
simest — 14 years ago(July 01, 2011 03:33 AM)
Why did I enjoy it?
- Snake Plissken
- A range of colourful characters.
- John Carpenter's score.
- Carpenter's direction and handling of action sequences.
- Imaginative concept of the premise.
- Snake Plissken
- Snake Plissken's outfit.
- Fabulous, quotable dialogue.
- Lee Van Cleef.
- Great villain (The Duke).
- Hilarious villain (Romero).
- Snake Plissken.
- Ernest Borgnine, his cab and his crappy jazz tape.
- Terrific sets, lighting and production design.
- Exciting chase sequences (crazies, 69th St. Bridge)
- Tom Atkins.
- Adrienne Barbeau's cleavage.
- Snake's wrestling bout.
- Interesting gadgets and weapons.
- Broadway!
- Snake Plissken.
There are more but I'm really too tired to go on!
And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.