Escape from New York

Directed by: John Carpenter

Written by: John Carpenter, Nick Castle

Hollywood has always had an obsession with the dystopian stories near-future with features of a post-apocalyptic society. One of the problems with these movies, though, is that the "near-future" becomes the "present" and eventually "the past."

"Escape from New York" takes place in an alternate universe 1997 in which the island of Manhattan has been turned into an unescapable prison society. When the President of the United States (Pleasance) crashes in the middle of the prison, the warden (Van Cleef) can think of only one rescue option. He decides to send Snake (Russell), a former special forces trooper who has been sentenced to life on Manhattan, to rescue the president in exchange for a pardon from his crimes. (He also plants a bomb in Snake's neck that will automatically detonate in twenty-four hours, just to make sure that saving the president is a priority.) Snake encounters the seedy underworld of Manhattan, including a crazy taxi driver (Borgnine), the smartest man on the island (Stanton), and dubious Duke of the island (Hayes) as he navigates the decaying city.

For some reason - and not only the fact that the movie is set in a "futuristic" 1997 - this movie has not held up over time. None of the effects, costumes, or sets aged very well. The only way this movie can be appreciated is with a retro/camp lens, and even that is somewhat of a stretch.

Part of the problem was that the film's plot is far too flimsy to hold up over the full ninety-plus minutes, which leads to random plot tangents - such as the need for the president to recover some kind of cassette tape (yes, cassette tape!) which will somehow prevent World War III - and filler scenes - like the no-holds barred fight-to-the-death in a wrestling wring for no real reason. None of which added to the movie in any meaningful way.

Speaking of filler: I'm not sure what Ernest Bornine was doing in this movie except to appear and disappear when it was convenient for the story. The same with the character of Harry Dean Stanton's girlfriend, who simply accompanies Stanton through the film. Even Lee Van Cleef, usually one of the strongest presences in his films, falls flat.

Russell manages to shine in an obviously campy role, rasping grunting his way through his lines and grimacing at every opportunity. Maybe the eyepatch helped him see past all the other flaws?

On my recent John Carpenter kick, this one has been a serious disappointment. I guess they can't all be "The Thing."

This movie is a bit of a cult classic, but I'm afraid I won't be joining this cult with much enthusiasm. Maybe if I get a chance to see it on the big screen...

The Thing

Every once in a while - though probably more often than I'd like to admit - I get the urge to see a good horror movie. Nothing to keep me up at night, mind you. Just a good fright. The last time I got that itch, John Carpenter's "The Thing," scratched it perfectly.

The premise of the movie is simple enough: The team at a (dubiously) scientific research outpost in Antarctica finds itself infiltrated by an alien life-form which can replicate itself into nearly any body - human or animal. One by one, the team members - led by helicopter pilot MacReady (Kurt Russell) become survivors, trying to keep the alien from getting leaving Antarctica and decimating the earth's population.

This movie has some pretty amazing moments of suspense. The scene in which the survivors have to submit to a blood test managed to keep the tension incredibly high with relatively little dialogue or action. The climactic attempt to destroy the monster managed to keep me near the edge of my seat (not "on" the edge, though), considering that most of the tropes used were basically cliche.

My favorite moment, though, is right at the end. I love the fact that the conclusion of the movie is left wonderfully ambiguous. Two survivors remain, each suggesting that the other may be the monster in disguise. Yet, without the necessary equipment, they are each powerless to stop the other or prove themselves innocent. They, like the viewer, are left to wonder whether or not humanity is safe. For a brief moment, just before the credits roll, the viewer and the characters have the exact same perspective.

The special-effects in this movie are gruesome and gory, although the stop-motion creature sequences seem a bit waxy and choppy. I think the creature would have been more terrifying if director John Carpenter had taken a cue from Ridley Scott's work in "Alien": a monster is often most terrifying when you have no idea what it looks like or how it kills. Seeing so much of the best so early in the film trivialized it. The Thing became tangible and limited, while much of what makes a creature horrible is that, when left vague and abstract, it can become almost anything capable of limitless terror.

From the primitive premise, clunky dialogue, straight acting, and absurdly huge special effects, this movie has "B film" written all over it. But the synergy of all those parts manages to elevate it to a "B+ film" - or even an "A- film" when watched in just the right mood.

Director: John Carpenter

Written by: John W. Campbell Jr. (story), Bill Lancaster (screenplay)