I guess to some people it's not a problem, but even the shittiest B-Grade Jean Claude Van Damme movie has conflict and resolution. My point is, if he just goes through the entire movie without a single conflict or any sense of danger that would begotten the protagonist, that makes for one hell of a boring movie. If you take Casino Royale with Daniel Craig, that movie was well done because you see Bond in some parts of the movie a broken down person, both physically and mentally. You take Jason Bourne, he was hounded and hunted all through the 3 movies, there is always a looming danger that keep you as the viewer enthralled.
You're already overthinking it. Your analysis of the movie takes more than one sentence, which is already more thought than required. I enjoyed the movie, as did many other people, therefore no further editing or tweaking of the movie was required.
I guess to some people it's not a problem, but even the shittiest B-Grade Jean Claude Van Damme movie has conflict and resolution. My point is, if he just goes through the entire movie without a single conflict or any sense of danger that would begotten the protagonist, that makes for one hell of a boring movie. If you take Casino Royale with Daniel Craig, that movie was well done because you see Bond in some parts of the movie a broken down person, both physically and mentally. You take Jason Bourne, he was hounded and hunted all through the 3 movies, there is always a looming danger that keep you as the viewer enthralled.
That may have helped those movies, but somehow due to the way Taken is set up, I think it would have severely hurt my enjoyment of the movie if they had the protagonist broken and defeated during any part of it. Taken is a ride on the awesome train, and the train don't stop till the end.
You're already overthinking it. Your analysis of the movie takes more than one sentence, which is already more thought than required. I enjoyed the movie, as did many other people, therefore no further editing or tweaking of the movie was required.
What is funny is that I am in the minority for not being a fan of the first movie. My biggest problem with it was that there were no conflicts--he just kicked ass all the way through. However, I thought the trailer looks badass, I'll go as far to guess that Taken 2 will be better than the first.
one take on the ridiculousness... http://liamneesonscock.tumblr.com/
*nsfw a bit
"Liam Neesons cock is so big, if Bruce Wayne slid down it hed start out as Adam West and wind up as Christian Bale."
"liam neesons cock is so big, the tip can only be seen from the land before time"
While I will for sure see this when it comes out on Bluray, I can't but wish Liam would focus on higher quality flicks to help offset these mostly mindless ass kicking fighting for his life movies he's been on a roll with lately.
Then he does pretty cringe worthy movies like Clash and Wrath of the Titans and Battleship.
I consider him a pretty solid actor but some of the role choices are interesting IMO...
Guess maybe since his wife passed he just wants to keep as busy as he can to keep himself occupied.
You're already overthinking it. Your analysis of the movie takes more than one sentence, which is already more thought than required. I enjoyed the movie, as did many other people, therefore no further editing or tweaking of the movie was required.
Taken 2 = girl being kidnap in Asia this time by the Triads as a white sex slave. Dad uses his kung fu shaolin temple golden monkey madz skillz to beat up hundreds of bad guys and the big boss then takes back his little girl.
The end....
until Taken 3 = this time it would be in Australia/Africa/Antartica/undersea/ect....rinse/recycle/repeat....and so on.
Taken 2 = girl being kidnap in Asia this time by the Triads as a white sex slave. Dad uses his kung fu shaolin temple golden monkey madz skillz to beat up hundreds of bad guys and the big boss then takes back his little girl.
The end....
until Taken 3 = this time it would be in Australia/Africa/Antartica/undersea/ect....rinse/recycle/repeat....and so on.
Wasn't very good. In the original, I couldn't really pick up that it was PG-13, but in this one it was ridiculously obvious. Although, it probably didn't help that I watched Die Hard 4 last night and listened to the commentary where they explained everything that they had to tone down to meet the PG-13 rating. However, when you see Liam Neeson "wipe a man's face to death", you know something's wrong.
the plot wasn't anything special. the action was pretty well done. plenty of gaping plotholes, and i'm pretty sure a couple clips were re-used in the movie.
but overall enjoyable. liam neeson remains a badass
Actually, it's not the same scenario... it's worse. I realized it while I was watching it, but the big difference is that the script for the first Taken put you in Liam Neeson's shoes... you had no idea who took his daughter, but you were along the for the ride of him trying to find out. In this, everything is pretty much shoved in your face. There's no mystery at all as you know in the first five minutes (or you already do if you saw the trailer) who is going after him.
the plot wasn't anything special. the action was pretty well done. plenty of gaping plotholes, and i'm pretty sure a couple clips were re-used in the movie.
but overall enjoyable. liam neeson remains a badass
Honestly, I thought the action was terrible in the movie, which is really what turned me off. What I picked up on pretty quickly during that baton fight scene was that they constantly cut away right before the baton would hit someone... most likely because they can't show it. Just like how a PG-13 movie cannot show a bullet actually entering someone's body (heard that on the Die Hard 4 commentary). Maybe it's because I was clued into what PG-13 means for an action movie, but all throughout the film, I kept noticing these things.
Here's another example that I'll block out just in case people want to be wow'd by it...
There was the scene near the end where they're shooting up the wall where Liam is supposedly on the other side. The guy is peering through the holes and Liam shoots him right in the eye.
Did you notice that they didn't actually show anything?
I really enjoyed the first movie. It's one of those crazy action movies that's up there with Shoot 'Em Up for me, but this one was just a waste of $11. I should have went to see Tim Burton's Family Do -- err Frankenweenie. I'm curious if anyone even remembers that old TV show where Tim obviously rehashed his latest "creation" from (note: that was his TV show too).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.