Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)

Say the name John Carpenter, and I think of a few different movies. My favorite has always been The Thing, but he also directed Halloween, Escape from New York and Big Trouble in Little China among others. He had to start somewhere though, including one of his more notable and controversial movies, 1976's Assault on Precinct 13.

Having just received a promotion within the California Highway Patrol, Lt. Ethan Bishop (Austin Stoker) receives his orders for his upcoming shift. He's supposed to head over to a precinct that's in its final hours, the station closing the next morning. What's the point? Eh, he goes along with it. At the same time, a Death Row prisoner, Napoleon Wilson (Darwin Joston), is being transported to a new facility, but another prisoner on the bus is having some medical issues, forcing the bus to stop at the soon-to-be closed precinct. Lastly, a mysterious, quiet, almost in-shock man named Lawson (Martin West) stumbles into the police station. He's being chased by members of a street gang who are close behind and start to shoot up the station. Now, Bishop, Wilson, Lawson and the skeleton crew working during the precinct's last shift are in a fight for their lives. Unable to communicate with the outside world and isolated from the city, their hopes for survival seem slim at best. 

John Carpenter is a talented director who also writes screenplays and has done his own soundtracks, as he does here with a synth-sounding, electronica score. But you know what else he is? Above all else, he's a big fan of movies and films in general. I've seen him pop up in countless DVD special features and tribute interviews. He knows where films have come from and what audiences like while still making his own films....well, his own. I think this qualifies in a big way, touches of the western genre (Rio Bravo's prison under siege scenario, Once Upon a Time in the West providing several word-for-word lines) with an influx of all the violent craziness the 1970s had to offer. It was remade in 2005 (an entertaining, more star-driven action flick), but this 1976 original has a lot going for it. Does that make it a good movie though?

I think the more appropriate description is that 'Assault' is more an interesting movie than a good one. Made on the cheap with a budget of about $100,000, it has that low budget charm. It has the look of a renegade filmmaker trying something different. The violence is surprising and at times, shocking, including one infamous scene with a girl (Kim Richards) at an ice cream truck. It isn't interested in genre conventions either. Anyone and everyone is bait for the bad guys so don't blink. Just because you think you're safe, that means nothing. The cast has some recognizable faces but definitely no stars. It's all these little things that add up, but I came away kinda 'blah' to the whole thing. I liked it, didn't love it.

So who to look out for? As mentioned, not a ton of star power. Some recognizable faces but no stars. Stoker is the hero, the police officer seemingly on his own to survive and lead. The most interesting character was Joston's Wilson, a Death Row inmate who steps up to the plate with his life on the line. Not much development there, but it's an interesting persona. They perform a Hell of an Odd Couple. There's also Leigh (Laurie Zimmer), a pretty, tough police secretary, Wells (Tony Burton, of Rocky fame), as a fellow prisoner being transported, Starker (Charles Cyphers), the higher-ranking police officer in charge of the transport, Julie (Nancy Kyes), another secretary, Chaney (Henry Brandon), the crotchety, cantankerous officer, and the precinct captain (James Jeter). Some cool characters, but much of the focus is on Stoker, Joston, Zimmer and Burton.

I guess I was just looking for something else, something more. The street gang is never really explained, just that they've come into possession of a huge shipment of heavy and automatic weapons. They've taken an oath among the group, ready to die....because they're a really loyal street gang? I guess? They decide their efforts are best used shooting up an isolated precinct because someone inside has seriously wronged them. Wave after wave of attacks provide some cool, chaotic action scenes, but they get tedious quickly. Carpenter shoots these scenes in interesting fashion, seemingly unending gangsters with a death wish revealing themselves in the darkness, behind cars, moving in and around parked cars. There's some cool little moments that wouldn't be out of place in a horror movie.

But as a whole? It's okay. Nothing more, nothing less. I came away disappointed. It isn't a bad movie, but I didn't enjoy it nearly as much as I hoped I would. A disappointing end result.

Assault on Precinct 13 (1976): **/****

The Thing (1982)

In the case of good original and good remake, 1951's The Thing from Another World and 1982's The Thing have the same basic storyline but differ from there on in. And that's not a bad thing. They're similar enough to be compared, but the remake is a stand-alone film in a lot of senses. It is the rare remake that improves on the original's premise, even spawning a recent prequel.

At a remote weather station in Antarctica, gunfire erupts as a Norwegian helicopter swoops in, a man firing away at a fleeing dog. The crew is killed, leaving the American outfit at the station to figure out what happened at the Norwegian camp, an hour's trip away. They find that the Norwegians stumbled across something in the ice, something other-worldly that's been hidden away in the ice. Among the Americans is MacReady (Kurt Russell), the helicopter pilot, Garry (Donald Moffat), the station commander, and Blair (Wilford Brimley), the station doctor. MacReady and Blair begin to piece it together. The dog that was running from the helicopter is the Thing, an alien species able to imitate life, killing its source in the process. Could any of the crew have been taken over? Is it too late to stop this being before it is too late and escapes?

The 1951 original is a smart, well-written horror/sci-fi story that capitalized on the fear in the U.S. of the Russians, Communism and the Cold War. It begged viewers to watch the skies because one never knew when an attack could come! Cue dramatic music! With the 1982 version, horror master John Carpenter directs a story that is darker, scarier and more ominous. This isolated station is hundreds of miles from civilization and any sort of help, the British Columbia location providing a great backdrop for that isolated feeling. Composer Ennio Morricone's score is what a good horror/thriller score should be. Unsettling without being obvious, it foreshadows the coming doom but never blares in your face. Listen to his main theme HERE.

What works so smoothly in Carpenter's version is how intelligent and well-written it is. Yes, it's creepy as hell watching the Thing attack anything and everything in sight, ripping them apart rather graphically and then "becoming" the victim. But that's just a visual scare. What about the paranoia and fear of not knowing who you can trust? Could the person you're talking to be the Thing? Maybe he's already been attacked. The Thing is able to perfectly replicate its source victim, forcing MacReady, Blair and the others to come up with a test to reveal someone/something's true identity. That's what makes 'Thing' special. Everyone begins to turn on each other, sure they're truly themselves, but who's sure? Even better, Carpenter keeps us in the dark as to several characters. As a viewer, we're not always sure who's real and who's the Thing, much less the characters. Gory, bloody scares are one thing, but smart, paranoia thrills are even better.

As a director, Carpenter has been a great interview on several other DVDs' special features, talking about his love of 1950s war/westerns that featured a group of specialists working together (another reason Carpenter is awesome). 'Thing' allows him to assemble an all-male ensemble cast, Russell being the biggest name here in the director/star's third movie together. Russell as MacReady is the unquestioned star, the cynical, boozing helicopter pilot. It's his appearance that made him iconic though; the beard, the long hair, heavy jacket and boots, the sombrero he wears while flying. Great presence for a great character. Brimley is a scene-stealer as Blair, the doc who figures the Thing out, and along with Moffat as Garry there's also T.K. Carter as Nauls (the cook), David Clennon as Palmer, Keith David as Childs, Richard Dysart as Copper (the 2nd doctor), Charles Hallahan as Norris, Peter Maloney as Bennings, Richard Masur as Clark (the dog handler), Joel Polis as Fuchs, and Thomas G. Waites as Windows (radioman). Basically, these guys are fodder for the Thing, but they're a uniformly solid bunch.

In terms of originality, it's hard to beat the opening for 1982's The Thing. With no explanation, we're dropped into a chase; a helicopter racing over the Antarctic terrain and pursuing something. A man-on board is hanging off the chopper on a runner, blasting away at a dog running away below. We don't know what or why (for awhile at least) he's doing so, making it all that much more mysterious and sinister. The explanation comes along and it all fits together, but in terms of scene and tone-setting, that opening is one of the all-time greats, especially with Morricone's score driving the action. Watch it HERE. As quite the bookend, the finale is great too, open-ended enough for the audience to make up their mind about what they've seen. One of the great final lines in a movie too.

Also worth mentioning? The 2011 prequel was good in its own right and more than did justice to the 1982 version. Some homework was clearly done setting up the mysterious Norwegian camp, making it a spot-on version of what we saw in the 1982 version, and that movie's ending is just as good, ending where this one begins in a great little connection. All told, all three 'Thing' movies are above average, but this sci-fi/horror/thriller from John Carpenter is hands down the best. You can watch the whole movie at Youtube -- watch HERE -- in 10 parts.

The Thing <---trailer (1982): *** 1/2 /****

Escape from L.A.

If you're going to do a sequel, you might as well commit and do it right, right? You'd think so, or at least that's usually my hope when I stumble across a sequel -- especially an unnecessary one. That is partially why I avoided John Carpenter's 1996 sequel Escape from L.A.. The 1981 original doesn't need a sequel so somewhat skeptical, I dove in.

It's 2013 and the United States is very much a dystopian country still, even 16 years since Special Forces soldier turned criminal Snake Plissken (Kurt Russell) rescued the President in New York. Now though, an immensely powerful earthquake has ripped Los Angeles apart, the city now an island destination for any "undesirables." Now a new religious fanatic (Cliff Robertson) has become the President, and his extremist daughter (A.J. Langer) has hijacked an item that could destroy the world, retreating to L.A. to work with fellow extremist Cuervo Jones (Georges Corraface). Snake's services are called on once more. Blackmailed and working against a deadline of death, Snake must sneak into L.A., retrieve the item, kill the daughter, and only then will he be safe. Can he pull off the impossible again?

I didn't love the original Escape from New York, but I certainly liked it. Made on a small budget, there was a certain B-movie charm to Carpenter's film. It was cheesy and ridiculous and over the top and most importantly of all, fun to watch. The dystopian setting of an America that is nothing like the country we know now is ideal, opening the door for all kinds of outlets to take a story. Carpenter and Russell worked together a handful of times over their careers, clearly enjoying making movies together. Russell liked it so much -- and playing Snake too -- that he worked with Carpenter on writing a sequel. It was held up for years, finally coming to fruition in the mid 1990s. With that long of a wait and this much talent involved, why then is the sequel so bad?

The obvious answer is that it is basically the same movie. Sequels are fine when they add another step, a new layer to a pre-existing world and characters. But making the same movie -- quite literally -- with all the same features, characters and settings? Replacing New York with Los Angeles isn't unique or new. It's a road trip. I guess I just expected more. If you've got 15-plus years to write a sequel, couldn't you manage something better than this?  It bombed in theaters, not making a profit, so I'm not the only one with complaints. The repeat of New York's success is one thing, but this 'Escape' has too much really awful CGI, too many similar characters, and did I mention the almost identical story?

What carries both movies on different levels is Kurt Russell. 'New York' is just a genuinely good B-movie that's aided and boosted by Russell. 'L.A.' is basically watchable only because of Russell. Snake Plissken is Russell's most iconic character from a successful career, and there's nothing about him that isn't cool. Okay, check that, the odd, fetishisized leather outfit is a little much. But other than that, Snake is the perfect anti-hero. A high profile crook with a reputation, he has no regard for any authority and only goes along with the plan because his life depends on it. Yes, he growls everything he says. Yes, he makes some awfully stupid decisions. But is he cool doing it? Yes, Kurt Russell is awesome, and he's cooler than you.

While the rest of the cast and characters are pretty ridiculous, Carpenter nonetheless assembles quite a cast. Start with Robertson, having some fun taking some jabs at the religious nuts. His U.S. President is one big stereotype, hamming it up like nobody's business. Stacy Keach plays Malloy, Snake's "handler" of sorts, with Michelle Forbes as his assistant. Steve Buscemi, Bruce Campbell, Valeria Golino and Peter Fonda play just some of the eccentric nuts trying to survive in Los Angeles who Snake runs across, Buscemi and Fonda making the best impressions. Look also for Pam Grier as Hershe Las Palmas, a drag queen who Snake used to work with on other jobs. I've gotta admit though, it's a little unsettling hearing a man's voice coming from Grier's mouth.

So watching a rehash of the more enjoyable Escape from New York, there are some saving graces in this most unnecessary of sequels. The ending features a couple very cool twists, some you can see coming if you're paying attention, but enjoyable nonetheless. Was there ever any doubt Snake was going to get duped repeatedly by these morons? I think not. Cool character, cool ending, but that doesn't save the movie.

Escape from L.A. <---trailer (1996): * 1/2 /****

Escape from New York

Not having been around in the 60s and 70s when Kurt Russell was making a name for himself on TV and in Disney movies like 'The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes,' I don't know how popular the young actor was at the time. He was obviously popular enough though as he springboarded his early Disney career into feature films as an adult that typically had him playing some variation of a tough guy.

Part of that transition is thanks in great part to action/horror director John Carpenter who cast Russell in two early 80s movies, Escape from New York and The Thing (a remake of a 1950s sci-fi movie). The Thing is one of my favorite horror/sci-fi combos with Russell headlining as MacReady, a booze-swilling, tough talking helicopter pilot of a remote science station in the Arctic. Seeing the cast and reading the plot of 'Escape,' I thought I'd enjoy that one as much but came away disappointed.

In 1988, crime in the U.S. escalates over 400% and the island of Manhattan is turned into a maximum security prison. A huge wall is built all around the island, and all the bridges and exits off the island are mined so prisoners can't escape. It's a self-governed prison where there are no guards, and the prisoners rule themselves with no interference from above. The idea is simple, as a prisoner you go onto the island and never leave. But after years of success, a revolutionary group hijacks Air Force One with the President (Donald Pleasence) on board and crashes the plane onto the island.

The prison commissioner, Hauk (Lee Van Cleef) is forced to come up with a plan to get the President out of the island prison safely and is facing a deadline in doing it. The President needs to speak at a world summit -- the U.S., Russia, and China seem to be at war but it's never clearly spelled out -- and is carrying vital information. Hauk turns to his only option, a prisoner about to be sent to Manhattan, Snake Plisken (Russell), promising him a full pardon if he can get the President out in only 22 hours. Snake agrees, and gets onto the island via a glider that lands on top of the World Trade Center (a very eerie scene) only to find that the President is a prisoner of the Duke (Isaac Hayes), the self-appointed ruler of Manhattan Prison.

Carpenter's films have a reputation as cult classics, movies that aren't necessarily high quality but are nonetheless extremely entertaining. 'Escape' certainly has that popularity with its fans, but I struggled getting into the movie. It was filmed on a small budget, but that tends to work here more often than not. Carpenter uses parts of downtown St. Louis as a stand-in for a ruined, beaten down Manhattan, and the setting works beautifully. Almost all the movie takes place at night in the shadowy, vacant streets where prisoners with nothing to lose hide just out of sight ready to attack if the opportunity presents itself. Atmosphere and cinematography are the least of the movie's worries.

Clocking in at a brisk 99 minutes, the movie feels stagnant at times but could also use some fleshing out of the characters, especially Plissken. Russell growls and grimaces his way through lines, making Plissken a modern-day gunfighter you could see Clint Eastwood playing in a spaghetti western. His background is hinted at -- war hero turned criminal -- but it's never dealt with in full force. Maybe it was intended that way to keep the already very stylish, very cool character a mystery, which I understand, but even a little more background would have been good. Also, Carpenter had to cut the original beginning of the movie explaining how Plissken got caught, acts the way he does and ends up being sent to Manhattan. Check it out HERE if curious. Extremely stylish sequence which could have really helped the movie out.

But in addition to little development for Plissken, the supporting cast is given even less, a real shame when considering the talent involved. Hayes is more of a presence than an actor and pulls off the part of the Duke adequately, but how did he come to power in Manhattan? Van Cleef as always is a badass, and Pleasence is really just an idea of a president. There's also Ernest Borgnine as Cabbie, a longtime prisoner who still operates his cab, and Harry Dean Stanton as Brain, a prisoner living in the library who supplies the Duke with gasoline for his entourage, seen here. Cabbie gets some backstory but not much, and Brain has a history with Snake but that's never really revealed. Adrienne Barbeau's chest also makes an appearance as Maggie, Brain's girl. She says virtually nothing and wears a low-cut dress. That's the character, no frills attached.

The generally cheap feeling of the movie works in most cases, but basically nothing happens. Snake walks around a lot -- at a slow pace too considering time is of the essence -- meets people, runs around, snatches the President rather easily and tries to get out of the island prison fortress. Even Russell's cool presence couldn't save this one as an interesting story never rises to its potential and wastes a strong supporting cast.

Escape from New York <----trailer (1981): **/****