Taken 3

Taken 3 is a step down from Taken 2, itself a lesser film than the original. But that is to be expected and forgiven. The title could be considered an unimaginative misnomer, but it makes marketing sense.

Aside from the part of Stuart (husband to Famke Janssen's Lenore), the casting is consistent. The addition of Forest Whitaker as a smart cop is for me something of a saving grace since Taken 3 offers up absurdities without question. On reflection, however, the plot has enough coherence to do the trilogy justice. Moreover, it is a joy to see Liam Neeson in this role again.

The director Olivier Megaton has an irksome penchant for frenetic, up-close, disorienting action sequences whereby shots are rarely longer than two seconds. He was a little better in this regard for Taken 2, which had the benefit of superior choreography.

Another personal point of contention is the casting of Sam Spruell as the top Russian villain. He has not an imposing physical constitution and quite frankly brings to mind Jim Carrey, who sported the same haircut in the Dumb and Dumber movies. Not at all what I want in a villain.

I generally enjoy the films I see, and this one—notwithstanding the negatives—is no exception. However, I would not recommend it for people who are more stern in matters of taste.

Bryan Mills, this guy just can't get a break. Ultimately we can say this guy is bad luck Brian.

I have a few questions for the plot, most important is, where did the boyfriend of the daughter go, for the whole movie?Other than that you can not say that the movie is bad, however is not a plot masterpiece.

This movie is kinda indifferent towards itself. Nelson has to use his "skills" one more time, we see action, explosions and naked ladies.

However the feeling that this movie is made for profit does not leave us, during the whole cinematic experience. The movie feels empty, both of fun and development.

The best thing about this is probably Nelson, who at this age still can look as bad ass as ever.

Final judgment: enjoyable, but don't have big expectations.

Let's review.

(Quoting from my IMDb reviews of the first two) Taken 1 was one of those unexpected surprises that keeps the wheels in Tinseltown turning. It turned Neeson, a very competent actor, into filmdom's oldest and newest action hero. A neat trick. It was actually a very well made product and even with all the attention, still under-rated. It was better than people thought.

OK, to be clear. Neeson was not getting any younger and when offered Taken 2, he took it. Sorry for the pun. Taken 2 was not so much a film as an IQ test. If you thought it was in the same class as Taken 1, you failed the test. Sorry. The truth hurts.

To atone for Taken 2, Neeson did the Tombstone flic. It was great and showed the world he was still an A-list actor. Apology accepted.

Hollywood never ever leaves money on the table. Which brings us to Taken 3. Not really a Taken movie, more of what you would expect if they wanted to do a TV series on the Neeson character and they started with a long pilot.

It is much better than Taken 2 but then again so is footage of your dog's birthday party.

It is not bad. Depends on your expectations.

High expectations, you will not be happy.

Bored and want to spend time with Liam?You could do worse.

I love this series. I can't for life of me understand why anybody would review this poorly, yet I see bad reviews. Clearly those people are nitpicking. This is a classy action film. It follows really well in the footsteps of those that proceeded it. Liam Neeson is just a great action star. He knows when to pour it on, and when to back off so it's not too much. That's really important in this genre, because any misstep can easily make the movie look phony, cheap - or just bad acting.

The only absurd part of the movie was the swapping out of actors for Stuart St. John's part. The first movie had him as a kind, old balding man and in this film he's been transformed into a suave, young, tanned husband. Huh? It serves the movie well, but doesn't follow what we saw in the first film with any accuracy.

This movie has all the essential elements of the first TAKEN - just distributed slightly differently. Forest Whitaker adds a nice touch.

This is an action movie worth watching. Hollywood - please make TAKEN 4!!

Liam Neeson returns to the role of Bryan Mills, a government operative with a "particular set of skills", who gets framed for the murder of one of his nearest and dearest - - I don't do spoilers, but the trailer neatly does: thanks a bunch trailer! Knowing his innocence, and not taking any s**t from anyone, Mills goes on the run to get to the bottom of who framed him and make them pay. Hindering Mills more than helping him is police chief Franck Dotzler (Forest Whitaker) who is not only dogged in his pursuit of Mills as the key suspect but also extremely smart, trying to piece together the complex three-way relationship between Mills, his ex-wife Lenore (Bond-girl Famke Jansson) and her current husband Stuart (MI-2's Dougray Scott). Staying just one step ahead of the pursuing cops, Bryan's focus rapidly turns to his daughter Kim Bauer - oh, sorry, wrong franchise - Kim Mills (Maggie Grace) and keeping her safe from the bad guys.

Taken 2 was an energetic roller-coaster of a thriller also directed by Olivier Megaton (note: not his name at birth!) and to give Taken 3 a bit of credit parts of this film - following a painfully slow start with a lot of wordy exposition - live up to popcorn-munching past glories. Some of the lines - especially those of the whip-smart Dotzler - are entertaining. And, in particular, Neeson does a very amusing variant of his famous 'telephone answering message' at the denouement of the film. Apart from a damp squib of a final scene (probably hastily written as they were in the pub) the script by the same Taken team of Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen is passable.

In general though, this film is all over the place.

Editing is of the frenetic Bourne variety but not to the same standard: a specific and horrible example is an early car chase which is almost incoherent in the way it is staged and cut together. And whilst a lot of the staged violence in the first two films was over-the-top escapism, some of the action in this film makes no logical sense whatsoever: I could perhaps believe that body used as a shield might stop a handgun bullet - but a high powered sub-machine gun? Please!

To top this off, two separate incidents with Mills in exploding cars simply defy any possible suspension of disbelief: this was more like Neeson in a film remake of the "indestructible" Captain Scarlett TV series than a supposedly realistic film.

This may be a personal view, but I have a long-standing loathing of the movie trait of bumping off a key character at the start of a sequel after you, as the viewer, have invested the emotional energy in the previous film rooting for them to survive. (Alien 3 is probably the most heinous example of this crime, with the first-reel death of the little girl 'Newt'). Adding a final-reel tragic twist (as in Skyfall, or The Amazing Spiderman 2) is fine in my book. But this particular type of cheap storytelling trick just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

So go and see Taken 3 if you are happy to park your brain at the door and buy a bumper box of popcorn, but this is far from a classic and is a particularly stark coming down to movie-earth for me two days after watching the brilliant "Whiplash".

(If you enjoyed this review please see my other reviews at bob-the-movie-man.com and enter your email address to receive future posts. Thanks).