I know I shouldn't like this, but I do. The whole thing was a complete rehash, the special effects sucked even back then, it didn't have any of the dark grittiness that made the original so awesome, etc, etc.
But it does have one thing going for it, and that's Snake Plissken. I disagree with the OP that Snake had no personality, well, he had the same as in the first film. I thought that the only thing that was comparable in the two films was Kurt's performance. Snake wasn't exactly a deep character in the first one, he was so cool because he was quiet and mysterious. The surf scene, which lasts all of 45 seconds (and yes it's silly and the effects atrocious) is the only time Snake seems out of character. And I thought they expanded on him nicely, and in the same style as the first. Most everything you learn about him is from stories people tell that make him sound kind of legendary, he was caught gunfighting, basically he's been the same Snake for all these years.
And the ending is very good. I'd say I like the ending more than the first. Rather than just tearing up the tape, Snake uses his hologram projector and all that, then sends the world back to the Dark Ages. That's like the most Snake Plissken thing you can do.
I really like the beginning and the end, but everything in between is kind of boring and sometimes silly. The script was really focused on satirizing Los Angeles, which was a tired concept even back then. The characters Snake meets along the way aren't that interesting, as the OP said. At least not compared to the likes of The Duke, Cabbie, Brain and Romero from the first. I think Stacy Keach does an OK job, but I don't think anybody can match Lee van Cleef. It's nowhere near being as good as the first, but to me it's an acceptable though inferior follow-up.
"See you guys at the 10 year prison reunion" - Ben Richards
reply
share