ksundstrom
Joined Nov 2002
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews25
ksundstrom's rating
The admirable plot synopsis provided needs no further description of the plot and the action. Liam Neeson surely must have been attracted by the very serious themes in the script, primarily written by Luc Besson. In the modern genre of very fast action, rough, tough and clinically effective a la Besson, the moral and political themes remind one however of the great era of Hollywoods major films which contained, under the surface of a passionate story, very strong moral and political themes that influenced generations not only in the west but also in the middle and far east. To-day, some of these major themes in the film which concern us deeply but need more attention in seeing the film Taken but need to be repeated in future films are: - - parentalguidance, responsibility and protection of our children (TV is full of failures of parents to accept fully what all this means) - young peoples gullibility in search of exciting experiences which can have grave consequences for parents and friends - the growing threat of immigration with criminal intent. As the film is made in Europe, it is the increasing influx of mafia like organisations from East Europe - the ever prevailant corruption in political circles - the ever prevailant demand for vengeance preferred to due process of law, despite the great increase in the proportion of the population with higher education The film is worth seeing several times to absorb all these issues. Liam Neeson is to be honored for promoting them.
Elizabeth 1: The Golden Age gets only an average: 5. But the acting gets 8 (9 for Cate Blanchett), the rest only 3. Why only 3? The director Shekar Kapur in his second part of Elizabeth 1 (first part 1998) provides marvelous parts such as Elizabeth's court when receiving the ambassadors and Sir Walter Raleigh, the hectic preparation for defending England against the Spanish Armada 1588 and the dramatic naval battle. But the rest is very much Bollywood stuff, though Shekar Kapur is not an Indian but from Pakistan. Great improvements to England were made under Elizabeth's rule. The incorporation of the East India Company which ruled India until 1857 before the rule was taken over by the English Crown. The modest beginning of stock exchange trading (influence of the Dutch), development of industry (textile, mines and naval construction), better agriculture, the acceptance of the growing role of the middle classes, better conditions for the poor... Secondly, the role of Sir Walter Raleigh does not do justice to his importance. No emphasis on his contributions as scholar, soldier, sailor and statesman, just emphasis in the film on his piracy, colonization of Virginia and his sex appeal. The thoughtful viewer is ignored, just historical froth is served up. Shekar Kapur can do better. Let's hope he can be given the opportunity to rise to the challenge in a third definitive version of Elizabeth 1.
Unfortunately, there are too many commentaries on the film that are more to do with film knowledge of the writer of the commentary. (The editors of IMDb are very lax on this!) Unnecessary comparisons are made with other films in order to satisfy the commentators' egos for some sort of recognition that they are well versed in the film world. The first commentary is a case in point, the final conclusions are superficial and so maybe reflective of the poor understanding of the terrible strategic errors made by the Pentagon under Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz with the side support from Cheney. Bush at that time had no independent view, so proving to be a poor Commander in Chief. However, the film brings through the dire criticism of the Pentagon's handling of the Iraq War whilst keeping the film dramatically on course as a powerful story of the harm to those soldiers who suffer from poor preparation for maintaining security and promoting peace in Iraq when they can. Its success is due to the disciplined direction and the terse empathy of the actors who perform marvelously. The film's final point is shattering: the Pentagon has not done anywhere enough to treat the soldiers coming home with loss of limb and PTSD.