This is the original review of Escape from New York by Siskel & Ebert on "Sneak Previews" in 1981. All of the segments pertaining to the movie have been included.
a RARE example of Gene knowing better than Roger. The ending was awesome, Plisken getting revenge on the system that used him. He doesn't care if the world burns, he has no F's left to give.
Gene loved genre movies, but couldn’t admit his blue-collar tastes. Watching him intellectualize liking something that you know he liked just because it was cool is one of the great pleasures this show affords.
@@henryesj6242 I don't think Gene's intelligence has ever been questioned. It's just that he tended to look down on movies that a lot of people considered entertaining.
I liked him in Convoy, he played Dirty Lyle "Cottonmouth" Wallace who chases Kris Kristofferson's character, Martin "Rubber Duck" Penwald and his convoy of truckers all over the Arizona and into the Mexican border as Rubber Duck is met by the Army and Lyle who will shoot at Rubber Duck's truck as he drives onto the bridge...
@@LouieLouie3, He was one of my favorite characters in the film, because he played it completely straight. He seemed to be an insane cab driver who didn't quite understand that Manhattan had been turned into a giant prison.
I first saw ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK on First Choice Superchannel (Canada) in 1982. I was 11. I adored the movie, and my younger brother and I watched it several times. Later, we got it on VHS videocassette. Watched it several more times. To this day, it's one of my favourite movies.
I always agreed more with Ebert than Siskel. There were exceptions for sure and this is definitely one of them (Siskel also liked Carpenter's "The Thing" and Ebert didn't). Didn't like the ending??? The audience cheered wildly at the ending when I saw it a few times in the summer of '81. The villain's demise and the American Bandstand tape were crowd-pleasing moments and the audience ate it up.
Ebert also somewhat famously gave Escape From L.A a 3.5 star rating out of 4. I also tended to agree with Ebert, but it's crazy to me that he said no to this much better original (imo), yet gave the sequel an almost perfect score. Don't get me wrong, I also enjoy LA a lot, but I don't think it comes close to the original.
@@BrokenGodEnt Yep. He does have a valid point about L.A. being more satirical toward its culture than N.Y. was. But it's more of a silly comedy than a cynical action pic and much less rewatchable. I can watch L.A. and chuckle but N.Y. is much more entertaining.
The ending was perfect! Snake put the President to the test . . . saw how full of shit he was, how he didn't really give a shit about the world he'd been saved from or the world he was presumably trying to save with that Tape . . . so Snake--not caring himself about the shitty world people like the President had created and ruled over--allowed that world to continue its collapse, by destroying the Tape that supposedly was going to rescue everything from the brink of destruction. Just as he was deemed expendable, those tiny explosives lodged into his neck, so too was the world expendable to him. Snake was NOT a hero; just a ruthless man with the capability of getting the job done.
@@kentallard8852 LOL stfu, it's horrible. I'm the biggest John Carpenter and Kurt Russell fan there is and even I realize that Escape From LA is garbage. It's not even campy fun, or a guilty pleasure, it's just bad.
@@kentallard8852 With regard to the sequel: I think they made a mistake going with virtually the same plot. Still, there's a couple great action sequences, some genuinely funny moments, and to your point about characterization, yes, Russell is just excellent as Snake. If for no other reason, "Escape From LA" needed to be made so we could see him play that role one more time.
It's hard to explain how vivid and nightmarish (in a good way) this movie was at the time it came out. It showed a darkly realistic cyberpunk aesthetic even before "Blade Runner" or the literary genre itself had coalesced. It was meant to be comic book, and I'm sorry Ebert didn't recognize what an effective and to-be-classic anti-hero character was created by Russell here. It was the ultimate expression of the "prison film", a genre with built-in horror generated by the anxiety that law-abiding movie goers have at the prospect of being thrown into a dog-eat-dog prison world. I agree with Ebert that the ending's extreme nihilism, though an appropriate coda to what came before it, also left it on a real downer.
Oh man! The atmosphere of the NYC prison colony makes this film so cool, I can’t believe Ebert gave it a thumb’s down... And what’s up with Siskel dissing Adrienne Barbeau? Great flick!
Exactly, John Carpenter's direction, music and Dean Cundey's cinematography creates such a thick and dread filled atmosphere. Also, Snake Plissken pretty much gave birth to the quintessential, stereotypical, 80s action hero, the movie is amazing. And Adrienne Barbeau was so smoking hot, she should've gotten props for that alone lol
This movie was great. Carpenter should have made it a trilogy with the sequels being released in the mid and late 80's. By the time he made Escape from L.A. the magic was long gone. Also, Adrienne Barbeau was perfect as a tough and beautiful woman!
Strange that when reviewing 'Prince of Darkness', Siskel said that Carpenter hadn't done anything interesting since 'Halloween', yet he liked this one. What do you expect from critics, consistency?
I disagree with Siskel and Ebert regarding their shared criticism of the film, that it didn't go more in depth "about the prison society in Manhattan". Well, it's a movie, not a documentary. There's only so much time the director has to tell the story. Carpenter did it right; he focused on Plissken's perspective of things.
Yes, I think delving more deeply into the prison society might only have served to slow the pace of what is essentially an action film, not (as you so correctly observed) a documentary. Now in the sequel they did step away from the plot to take a closer look at the culture of the LA prison society and I think that only served to bring the movie to a virtual halt. Carpenter's instincts were definitely more on the money with the original.
Totally agree. The setup is that NYC is a prison...that's only the setup and setting of the picture. The real action is all about Snake rescuing the president.
There seemed to be some nods toward early Eastwood movies...including having actor Lee Van Cleef in the film, Cleef being in two Eastwood Spagetti Westerns.
Interesting to come to this right after watching your clip of their review of The Warriors, as both flicks are about a mission deep into crumbling New York that involves avoiding dangerous gangs. Escape from New York is a satisfying if mildly imperfect realization of its premise. I'd actually have liked it more if it had explored the mysterious city even more and been longer, and maybe had a slightly larger budget to open up that vast world. Still, there's nothing to criticize about the story, characters or rough-and-ready confidence of Carpenter's direction.
I just saw it. You seem to know what you're on about, so I'll bring this up to you. I didn't like it. I didn't outright hate it because its premise was slightly intriguing and it did remind me of The Warriors, if only a bit too much. What was on display seemed very shallow to me, I didn't understand the motivations of the main antagonist who was so gung-ho about keeping the ill-obtained president that he was willing to risk life and limb. For what? Ransom? Money? Freedom? Or to dress him up in a wig? The whole deathclock subplot was nonsensical in that it actually hindered the mission. What if he got a beat on the president 10 minutes later than when he had gotten him? It's an excuse for pointless predictable drama that didn't need to be there. And why did the president fly over that airspace to begin with? Carpenter is usually a great filmmaker, but his touch here seemed to outright lack confidence. Both the sound and visual editing were off and it made for an awkward movie. I just don't understand why people like it. 4/10.
1. The main antagonist's motivation is clearly stated in the movie. 2. The deathclock prevents Plissken from escaping. Yes, it lowers his chances of actually accomplishing his mission, but without it there would be no chance at all, because the he would simply abandon the mission and disappear. Again, this is explained in the movie. 3. The president's plane was hijacked and intentionally crashed in Manhattan. And again, this is shown in the film. Did you not pay any attention whatsoever while watching the movie? Or are you one of those moviegoers who need everything spelled out for them (I didn't understand...., Why did....) and still don't get it? Disike the film all you want, but at least come up with valid criticism. And please learn the difference between personally liking/not liking a movie and a movie actually being good/bad from a filmmaking point of view.
@@catrachocolo Wow, okay. Needless aggression there, but whatever. It's now been going on three months since watching it, so maybe my responses aren't valid, but I'll give it a try anyway. What is the villain's motivation? Seems to me, all they did with the president is torture and humiliate him. And they're worried about him skipping out and escaping from a mission that's set in a city-sized super prison? Seems to me they could just track him and promise to neutralize him if he tries anything rather than putting the life of the president in the hands of a traitor and psychopath hooked up to a death device. I don't care what you say about that. It's a plot hole. Plain and simple. With the third one, fine. I'll concede to that one. Maybe I just missed that part. And you know what? Maybe I didn't pay much attention to the movie at certain points. Can you figure out why? Because I wasn't enjoying it and I was getting exceptionally bored with Russel's constant whispering and the shallow-as-hell development of the world in which this is set. The entire setting feels more like a prop - something to allow for Carpenter's imaginings to be half-heartedly realized without putting much work into the overall immersion of the film. It's shallow, slow and stupid. These are valid criticisms, and just because you don't like hearing it, it doesn't mean that they aren't valid. You have every right to like this movie, but every movie has flaws. It just depends on whether or not those flaws hold the film back in your opinion. And I can very much enjoy a movie that doesn't have everything spelled out the viewer. Know what my fifth favorite movie is? 2001: A Space Odyssey. That explains less than EFNY, but it feels like I'm actually watching something transpire. Escape from New York feels dead on arrival and totally soulless. It's cinematic junk food and not even satisfying junk food at that. There. Notice how I wasn't aggressive? Now it's your turn.
In 1981 the crime problem in new york city was so bad and getting worse, that at the time it wasnt much of an unrealistic concept for the island of manhattan to be turned into one giant prison. Crime was so out of hand, it seemed like a logical and easier solution.
This movie & The thing basically made Kurt russel a legend and what he is now. Because before those, he did an excellent performance in Elvis (1979) where he played Elvis but that was a forgotten tv movie and wasnt a big movie. So thanks also for Escape from new york
6:19 Funny Ebert says this about endings. If you watch 1980's movies, any genre, it seems like a LOT of them didn't reach a conclusion, so much as they hit a payoff scene, then just sort of stumbled to the credits. That's not the worst thing, since a 2010's version of the same story would probably have 20-minute denouement, but it's a weird idiosyncrasy of 80's films.
@@johnnyskinwalker4095 I could understand his frustration. Before the spaghetti westerns, Van Cleef was a minor league actor whose best known roles were in films that were merely seen as B grade crime dramas such as The Big Combo and Kansas City Confidential. These days, both films are now considered classics.
Everytime I see Kurt Russell and Lee Van Kleef talk to one another it seems like a conversation between Solid Snake and Revolver Ocelot. Hideo Kojima after all lists Escape from New York as one of his many influences.
The ironic thing is Roger Ebert created the “Stanton Rule” that stated any film with Harry Dean Stanton couldn’t be bad. (He made this years after “Escape From New York”) he also changed his view of the film years later.
Why didn't John Carpenter explore the inner workings of his prison society more? A six million dollar budget, that's why. It was miraculous that Carpenter, Alves, and company were able to make the world as immersive as it was.
Of course Kurt Russell meant to sound like Clint Eastwood. Carpenter even recognised this on set when they started filming. And spending more time on "...the prison society..." wasn't the point of the movie - and It would've slowed things right down. Carpenter showed us enough, and he only had $7 million to make his movie. Give the guy a break!
I like the movie but I kinda see Roger’s point. I always felt the set-up here was more interesting than the rest of the story. It’s the future, Manhattan is being used as one big prison... I’m interested. Then, well...
Gene Siskel gave "thumbs up" to both Escape From New York and The Thing while Roger gave both "thumbs down," both times where Gene was right and Roger was wrong.
Well, Gene's entitled to his opinion, but I think Adrienne B. is quite good as Maggie. She's not just eye candy; she plays the role with an effectively world weary cynicism, and, later on, displays some genuine emotion, too. She and Harry Dean Stanton's "Brain" make a really funny and surprisingly compelling couple.
Great movie. I usually agree more with Ebert, but he blew it this time. As for Adrienne Barbeau, she wasn't half-naked. She's simply stacked... and if you got it, flaunt it.
Its fun to see those rare instances where Gene was more on target than Roger. Gene correctly identified this flick as what we would call today a graphic novel. Roger wanted a big budget show with more scope. The budget for E.F.N.Y. was really low, and the expanded view of the NY prison society that both of these guys wanted to see would not have been possible with the money Carpenter had to work with. the entire story takes place on one evening so of course you will get only the barest glimpse of what New York had become and the feudalistic society that the Duke controls. I thought we saw just enough to give us what we needed to know and a bunch of entertaining scenery chewing from Russel and his opponents.
Escape from New York is the one Carpenter film that hasn't aged too well for me sadly. That said, I still enjoy it. Siskel's comment about Adrienne Barbeau being a very poor actress? Come on! I know he saw Carpenter's The Fog. She is fantastic in that and the best thing about the film!
Escape from New York has a dystopian dream-like quality to it. You don't really want to scratch it deeper than the way that Carpenter presents it or you would lose the diaphanous (un)reality of the story and the action. Manhattan is Hell and Snake is a fallen angel who struggles against the Devil (Duke) and God to achieve his own autonomy (anarchy).
Love this movie but I definitely Want to explore more on how nyc became this prison and see the nightmares taking place in Manhattan. You can probably make a tv series out of this
I think that's what Gene was saying here. Funny though, because if you look back on the majority of the films reviewed by S&E, Ebert is usually the one favoring films like this one and pointing out the artistic merits of some of the more violent films while Gene was always the one who couldn't understand why graphic violence was shown at all.
I will always love this movie. I will always hate Escape from LA because it was the epitiome of a successful cult film that manages to parody itself and forgets what made the first a success. Highlander 2 was another example.
