Taken 3

This is my biggest guilty pleasure of all time, I know this film is God awful, from the directing to the writing and the stereotypical villain but I honestly don't care it was just popcorn entertainment and seeing Liam Neeson as Bryan Mills is always good. The plot of this film is basically the plot of The Fugitive. This film is so bad it's good and that's why I give this film 6/10.

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!!

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.

In the beginning, former special forces expert Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) found that his daughter was taken in Paris while, in the sequel, he himself was taken in Istanbul. Clearly Neeson took a bit of persuading to play the role a third time, but it would appear that three factors persuaded him: first, he didn't want to do any travelling this time (so all the shooting -in both senses of the word - is in the overly-familiar Los Angeles where he goes "down the rabbit hole"); second, apparently he didn't think anyone should be taken this time (and the writers obeyed the injunction until near the end when they just couldn't resist any more); and third, he wanted the money.

This is a movie which divides the critics and the public: the former have been very condescending about it but the later enjoy Mills using his special skills again and again (and you can't really blame them). The bad guys here are (mostly) Russians who have terrible accents and awful clothes (especially underwear), but it is always a pleasure to see Forest Whitaker (an intelligent member of the LAPD who knows the significance of a warm bagel). The tag line in the advertisements for "Taken 3" is "It ends here" and I think that would be a sensible decision (although I wouldn't guarantee it).

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.