Escape from New York

Reccomend me something similar. I really liked this movie. Escape from L.A. was shit tho

...

...

You should love this movie, OP. It has the same atmosphere as Escape from New York.

>escape from New York thread
Very poetic.

Movies like these have little historical base but are nevertheless reminders that New York was once seen as post apocalyptic jungle ruins

Death Wish
Dirty Harry
Assault on Precinct 13

Escape from New York came out in the 80s but to me it has a very 70s kinda feel to it.

Street of Fire is set in New York right?

If you want a sci-fi movie that has interesting characters and you don't mind badly aged effects then check out the original Planet of the Apes.

>it's a Japanese made a scifi road movie of sex and violence and ended in New York episode

Sounds fun.

Wolfen is really really unique and worth to be remembered.

Guys I feel bad saying this because so much of Escape from NY is cool but it's still not a very good movie. It's so limited by its budget that its action set pieces make it look really bad. Almost everything else is great but those scenes detract so much.

Also watch Soylent Green

TRANCERS
well some of it

>Escape from L.A. was shit tho
Why? It's exactly the same in almost every single way. That's it's only fault.

>It's so limited by its budget
Hoh boy you should really watch Dark Star then. Maybe you'll get it then.

you didn't tell me this was some cartoon shit

There is this film called Robocop I don't know if anyone here has seen it lel. It's a quirky action movie from the 80's.

Escape from New York is commonly labeled an action movie but I don't really view it as such. For me, it's an atmospheric dystopian movie that's more about characters than action. I think it's fantastic.

I've seen Dark Star, I think it's pretty cool and uses its low budget effectively. Escape from NY feels like it tries to overcompensate sometimes. I still enjoy it, and honestly probably a little more than Dark Star, but I can't love it as much as some guys on here do

I'd agree with that, but I also found some characters a little tedious. Cabbie for instance would be great if he wasn't so annoying at times.

this

I thought the pic is obvious

Not to be confused with the steaming pile of shit by the same name that came out in 2013

im colorblind it looks real to me

>tries to overcompensate
But that's part of Carpenter's charm. He does all kinds of bullshit all the time. I never understood how people could take movies like Escape From NY, Assault on Precinct 13 or They Live seriously. They were obviously never meant to be.
Even outside of his goofy films, he still does weird, kind of experimental shit in his more serious movies. It's like he's trying to sabotage himself, but barely doesn't, and the result is so unique and intriguing.

>It's exactly the same in almost every single way.

The entire tone is different.

>NY:
>Snake is morally ambiguous
>Prez is morally ambiguous
>NYC prison was a response to a real problem
>humor is low-key and dark
>ending doesn't tell us whether Snake did the right thing

>LA:
>Snake is a straight hero
>Prez is a straight villain
>LA ghetto is just the prez being whacky
>humor is "ironic" and self-referential (clothes scene)
>ending basically says "FUCK YEAH PLISSKEN IS AWESUM"

If ever there were two movies that encapsulated the gulf between the 80s and 90s, it was those two.

Eh, I agree about the moral ambiguity being less interesting, although I never understood why everything has to be in the gray area to be good. Good vs bad isn't inherently a poor plot device.

The rest of what you said is just opinions, though. The LA ghetto is basically the same thing as in NY, I really don't see how you could have seen it any differently.

The humor works well. He's even more "that guy" that everyone knows is a badass and if if they would have taken it seriously, it would have just been a missed opportunity. Self-referential humor is in no way a bad thing, especially when you're talking about John Carpenter, who does silly shit all the time. It's fine if you don't like the humor style, but saying it's bad is bullshit, and you know it.

Also how the fuck is the ending any different than in NY? in NY it's implied that basically the whole world is going to go at war if they don't get the tape, so it's fair to expect exactly that to happen next. In LA he kind of fucks up the whole world so no one kills each other, but everything is still fucked up. Both endings are very much "he did the right thing, but at what cost", and in neither movie does he give a fuck.

You're just overreacting because of the general bias against LA. Sure, it's a shame they didn't do anything new, but if you want more of the same, it's more than serviceable.

This

*the LACK of moral ambiguity

yeah people have all too easily forgotten that NY was a shithole in the 70's and 80's

>>ending basically says "FUCK YEAH PLISSKEN IS AWESUM"
while I agree about all of that, I still kind of liked the ending. The way everything goes black and you see the match light up the dark was quite nice

thing is, NY is a more gritty film, and most of it is played pretty straight. the fact that NY was abandoned and turned into a giant supermax penal colony is played totally straight. in the late 70's into the 80's NY was a horrible place. A far cry from the gentrified shining city it is these days. so the idea of NY being walled off and left as a prison, while improbable, was believable, considering the movie is set in a very dystopian cold war fueled nightmare.

in LA, aside from being the same concept rehashed, (with the exact same motions: "Snake gets tricked into being given x hours to live and has to therefore infiltrate a walled off city prison to rescue x ) and it's mostly played campy. the place is shitty because it's pure anarchy, and yet it still never seems as dangerous as NY did. And in general theres much more camp. dont forget the tidal wave surfing. or the ridiculous scene with the plastic surgeon.

NY was a hit because it wasnt campy. it was a dark dystopian movie. LA was a campy almost parody of the first one. (And Russel was clearly not in shape for it either, which made it worse)

like another user said, in NY, the president was this ambiguously moralled asshole. The ending where snake asks him about the people that died and he sort of handwaves it while looking at himself in the mirror, was fantastic. he didnt care who died, he was back to business as usual now that he was back in his throne. he was a generic politician who only cared about himself and his politics.

in LA the president was this religious right parody and blatantly a villain.

Like I said, camp and humor =/= bad, but it's fine if you don't like it. Also NY was taking itself way too seriously, and so it felt kind of goofy, which of course was great. Everything was so over the top, it was like a child wrote it. That's just a step away from full on silly humor anyway.

As for the humor and dumb stuff in LA, I repeat, it's not a bad thing. It's just a different take on it.
The rest you just reiterated, so I'm not gonna bother repeating myself because everything I said before still stands. What you're saying are just opinions. I don't see how switching up the style makes it any worse, or that moral ambiguity is by default superior in every case. LA was meant from the start to be goofier, and it succeeded. The surfing and mad doctor scenes were meant to be like they are, and I don't see anything wrong with the lack of the dark and gritty. Obviously I still like NY better, and I think it's a better movie mainly because of its originality and uniqueness, but LA gets a lot of undeserved flak. If it would have come out before NY, it would have probably gotten just as much praise as NY.

>Escape from L.A. was shit tho
its a parody of NY and other action movies
pleb

Escape from NY has a certain kind of edge that movies nowadays lack.

>The way everything goes black and you see the match light up the dark was quite nice
Yeah that one.

Wow, beat me to it.

>We'll never get Escape From Earth
Feels bad man.

I guess it's just the difference between NY and LA.

This
LA seemed more like a parody to me. It was enjoyable, but nowhere near the NY. LA had twice the budget, but somehow they made a worse looking movie. CGI looked really weird and was unnecessary in most places. Just remember the radars from NY, they weren't CGI but still looked better than the LA ones. Also plot was a lot weaker in LA, and I don't mind that it trys to be the same as NY.
NY felt more dangerous to me, despite the fact that almost every person had gun in LA. (In NY only Duke, Snake and Brain had guns if i remember correctly) The only fight scene in NY was the one in the ring, the rest were just one punches by Snake. LA had more fights and action but felt duller. And they replaced the fight in ring with basketball (??). Now that I think again, LA is a parody. Those plastic people, doll heads on car, surfing...

They could still do it. Even cast the Kurt Russel as old Snake

literally the warriors

Escape to Witch Mountain

crazy thunder road