Stallone, Schwarzenegger 'Escape' to semblance of their former glory years
Stallone was always a better actor than Schwarzenegger. That burning question, for those old enough to have asked it and deluded enough to have never figured it out, is answered once and for all in “Escape Plan,” a vintage prison-escape movie in the classic Sly and/or Arnold mold.
They're both in it, both locked up and both looking for a way out of a super prison that has all the escape-proof conveniences that private enterprise can cook up. The old pros hit their marks, and each other. They spill some blood and have theirs spilled.
Stallone plays Ray Breslin. “I break out of prisons for a living.”
He co-owns a security company. He's inserted into prisons, which he then breaks out of so that he can teach the feds how to make their prisons more escape-proof.
His new challenge is a super-secure “secret” prison set up for the CIA and run by private contractors. It's a place for terrorists and their ilk, people who need to disappear. Ray goes in, but his team (Amy Ryan and the rapper 50 Cent) have their safeguards in place. Only they're foiled.
In the cavernous new prison, there's no sunlight. Cells are all glass, the guards wear black storm-trooper suits and sci-fi facemasks. Solitary confinement is a cell with blinding high-intensity lights. And the warden (a whispering Jim Caviezel, pretty good) is a fastidious fussbudget who collects butterflies, constantly checks his suit and tie and has just a hint of sadism about him.
The tempered violence, the nature of the villains, the easy bonhomie of our leads and a cast peppered with great supporting players make “Escape Plan” go down easier than the other “Rambo,”/“Last Man Standing”/“Expendables” pictures that brought these two aged action stars back from the dead.
Roger Moore is a staff writer for McClatchy-Tribune News Service.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Commentary: Witherspoon, Ellison are changing movies
- Gibsonia native’s documentary opens dialogue on returning servicewomen