TAKEN 2 - Page 2

These review are bad. But having read the script....

Please listen to the critics. This film will be painful.

Having seen Taken 2 in a Dolby Atmos theater, it is not as bad as what seems to be the consensus amongst the so-called critics. I tend not to believe the critics and if interested will just go and see whatever the film is and make up my own mind. It does not seem to be as well paced as Taken. A lot of that has to do with exposition for those who may not have seen the first film. Well shot and not blurry as one review indicated. Luc Besson may have a hard time coming up with a third script should this film do well at the box office - but the opening is there.

There were no less than two completely laughable, illogical plot elements in this movie, but overall I enjoyed it and think it is a fine followup to the first flick. This fills the craving for the old school, hero-in-rage-mode genre that I like (Death Wish series, Segal classics, etc.).

Since T2 is financially more successful than T1 so far, I hope the series continues.

It's not.
Edited by joeblow - 10/18/12 at 10:46am

If you liked the first one, you'll still probably enjoy this one.
First one was an A, this one is a B (maybe).

Lots of action. Don't take it too seriously. I happen to like Liam Neeson - and he won't disappoint fans.

Also- they didn't spend much time/money on editing. Cars scenes where there is mayhem, side-swiping, crashing -- and then the next frame the car is driven in nearly pristine shape - side view mirror intact. LOL

It is what it is.

Doesn't the subtext in the first movie bother anyone? I mean, it's about a father who goes to extreme lengths to rescue his daughter's virginity from an Arab. Think about that, it is pretty twisted.

Huh?

Shady I think you've been taking your ethnic sensitivity courses too seriously Liam pretty much kicks ass without respect to race/religion/creed throughout the movie (I believe it starts with Eastern Europeans, then goes on to white expat Americans, and finally to the Arabs).

jeff

When it was released, the movie was criticized for being xenophobic- its depiction of foreigners as being backward and corrupt. The central conflict is driven by deviant outsiders. But I am talking about more than that, I am saying why does the story have the father save the daughter right before the arab is about to 'deflower' her? I am saying there is a creepy incestuous subtext to the movie; why is the father so concerned about who gets the first go at his daughter? Why did the sexually active girl have to die horribly, why does open sexual desire need to be punished so brutally? Look how gender roles are depicted in this movie: the feminine is soft, gullible, vulnerable and needs protecting whereas masculinity is depicted as being justified in its paranoia and righteous in its brutality. Think about the choices the writer makes, these are no accidents. Think about its promotion of vigilantism. This movie has a conservative streak a mile wide, both politically and culturally. It's so reactionary it makes Rambo 2 look like a Micheal Moore movie.

I'm cool with over-analyzing a movie, but you have to realize how absurd this sounds right? The "first go" as you call it is from a guy who has paid her kidnappers money for her, not some dude she's dating. Of course he's "concerned" about it. The entire setup of the movie is that he's uniquely capable of doing something about it.

He saves her right before the Arab dude "gets" her because it heightens the tension.

As for the promotion of vigilantism and righteous brutal masculinity, uh yes that's the whole point. This is a movie about a dude who will let nothing (corrupt cops, criminals, etc) stop him from saving his daughter and the relentless Jack Bauer/Jason Bourne style beatdowns he has to deliver in order to do it.

I guess the answer to your first question is no, the subtexts don't really bother anyone else

jeff

What I am calling attention to isn't the actions of the main character, but how the writer has setup the events. I am not asking whether you should empathize with the protagonist, I am asking how does this scenario get cooked up in the first place. The point of the movie is, of course, all the carnage, but the justification that the writer has invented for it is gross and absurd: the daughter's virginity must be saved!

Carry on your complaints with Luc Besson and don't bother to watch anymore of his absurd movies.

I loved the original Taken and thought it was an excellent thriller. Before seeing Taken 2, I recognized that it was another Hollywood ripoff sequel, so went in with suitably low expectations. Thanks mainly to the presence of the always excellent Liam Neeson, a solid supporting cast , and a runtime of a laudably short 92 minutes, I was reasonably well entertained. For those of us who had seen the first Taken, the proceedings were entirely predictable and generated not the slightest sense of dread. Nevertheless, I didn't think my time was entirely wasted. If you liked Taken, then give Taken 2 a shot. 6 Stars out of 10.

Will do I love Taken and I'm sure I will enjoy Taken 2. Thanks gwsat

I just watched the Blu-ray and was really underwhelmed on all fronts. The editing was simply awful, like they didn't even really care. I also hated the quick edits which made the movie too jarring. I assume that it helped with all the fighting sequences but jeez. Another exmaple of the teal fad in Hollywood although it is more subdued than most. The plot, there really is none. It is one fight or chase scene after another. BTW, there is no US Embassy in Istanbul as Ankara is the capital. It is the US Consulate. Amazing they couldn't get that right. I have been fortunate to have spent a good deal of time in Istanbul. It is a beautiful city but you wouldn't know it from this film. What a waste of a locale. This film could have been shot anywhere with B roll of the city spliced in. It looks like they shot on the Brige frm the Golden Horn and a 2 block radius in the Sultanamet district. What a real waste.

A big +1
Couldn't agree more with your entire post. I went into this knowing the reviews slammed it and expecting it to be short of the original but holy crap, this sucked! The writing was absolutely horrendous! So a few kind gestures and a sob story from Mrs. Mills and I'm supposed to care about her like I would a teenage girl taken for sex trafficking? The story on the original was linier and I'm fine with that but they had some potential here and failed bug time, not just in the writing but even the ability to create any tension. What a let down, very glad I did not rush out to blind buy this based on the awesomeness of the first one.

I enjoyed the film, ENJOYED, didn't say it was great. But yea the story is so so but was definitely a popcorn flick. Kind of disappointed at the gun sounds (heard this in an ATMOS theater)

Pretty decent action movie. Being 90 minutes help alot.

Oh yes they did, most Americans don't know the state capitols of their surrounding states let alone a country's they might confuse with the Thanksgiving dinner.

But seriously this was a quick attempt for a cash grab since Taken was such an unexpected hit. They didn't have time nor wanted to develop something more meaningful, and attention to small details. It is what it is.

who cares about the Consulate. Go read a dictionary next time if you want facts. This is an action movie.

Like most sequel, this one is underwhelmed.

Thank goodness it was only 90-minute. Actually could have done it in 80 or less. Rental only.

Not paying a cent for these obvious grabs is the only revenge we can extract. Assuming you're willing to go
even that distance