Escape to the Movies: Taken 3 - The One Where Liam Neeson Beats People Up

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

And so, what has been so aptly christened by a certain other site that does a lot of movie reviews as "Fuck You It's January" has begun.

Sleepy-Bob Disclaimer? That's a new one.

It's times like this when I'm glad that some December US releases are pushed into the UK's January releases so I still have to indulge in the likes of Birdman and Foxcatcher.

I'm not so sure what the point of Taken 2 was, so I think I'll believe Bob's interpretation of it being an action film with Taken skin on.

If the number of responses to your posts drop, it's because the website is sluggish when pushing the "comments" button.

It would have been nice if Taken 3 were like Die Hard 3 - but yeah, January.

When I was a kid I loved the Paddington Bear books. I'm shocked an pleased if it turns out they didn't butcher the bear.

What is the deal about the dance? What did Marvel do this time?

I really don't get the whole "dad's always right" angle. He's former-CIA and he's a concerned father. Of course he's going to have reservations about his daughter going anywhere without an escort. The fact that he's proven right is just grounds for making the movie in the first place. Would you be happier if this somehow balked "traditional gender roles" and the very real threat of human trafficking just so his daughter can return home safe and Famke Jannsen can turn to Liam after two hours of them playing chess just to go "HA!" And then a big splash of "VISIT EUROPE" tops off the film.

Because if so sign me up. Sounds like pure Oscar bait. I can't wait for part two where the family visits Turkey and then there's a quietly heated debate where the fathers of the bad guys from the first film (and the bad guys from the first one since they technically didn't do anything bad in your magical gender-equal version of Taken) meet Liam in traffic and Liam won't merge over. Then "VISIT TURKEY" appears on the screen and we all laugh.

Yeah I don't get what Marvel did where they messed up either? What did they do?

walsfeo:
If the number of responses to your posts drop, it's because the website is sluggish when pushing the "comments" button.

It would have been nice if Taken 3 were like Die Hard 3 - but yeah, January.

When I was a kid I loved the Paddington Bear books. I'm shocked an pleased if it turns out they didn't butcher the bear.

What is the deal about the dance? What did Marvel do this time?

Bob's once again harping on Marvel and allowing Edgar Wright to split from the Ant-Man project, and hiring another director to finish it. Sounds like he already declared it Marvel's first big failure before it's released.

I'm confused regarding his comments on Ant-Man at the end. Where did marvel screw up? All I've seen is the trailer and I thought it looked pretty good. The only comment I can think of is when they guy ask if it's to late to change the name.

Lol, I love this review. It really shows how bitter Bob has become. I love the riffing on the first film which... is supposed to make the point that the women should have just listened to him, they should have "Taken" his advice? I don't buy that one bit. It's more a movie about a guy who sacrificed his relationship with his family to do his "dirty job" and for once that "dirty job" puts him into a position where he can then save his family. The second one was a pretty strait forward sequel with a direct link to first, though it was far less cathartic to watch. The third I'm going to see because "it's January" which actually means they aren't releasing much of anything at all and less that "it's total crap".

Also, you fell asleep in it... I can't help but feel you should not actually be reviewing it at all because your opinion is that it's still crap despite not having been conscious for the whole movie. If I fall asleep during a movie and then find the portion I do see not satisfying, I don't go around telling people it's a crap movie, I actually try to see the whole thing before I give my opinion. Journalistic integrity doesn't extend to your show all of the suddenly being about a first impression of a medium that first impressions are useless on.

Darth_Payn:

walsfeo:
If the number of responses to your posts drop, it's because the website is sluggish when pushing the "comments" button.

It would have been nice if Taken 3 were like Die Hard 3 - but yeah, January.

When I was a kid I loved the Paddington Bear books. I'm shocked an pleased if it turns out they didn't butcher the bear.

What is the deal about the dance? What did Marvel do this time?

Bob's once again harping on Marvel and allowing Edgar Wright to split from the Ant-Man project, and hiring another director to finish it. Sounds like he already declared it Marvel's first big failure before it's released.

Oh, gotcha.

The commercial looked... alright, if not inspiring. I'll be there to see Ant Man on opening weekend, but I won't be terribly shocked if it is a bit of a hot mess. That would be a shame because if there was one franchise that could afford to pull an "iffy" movie, it'd be MCU. If the movie is less that what they think their fans would love just pull it and release digitally. Or give first viewing of it to ABC as a bribe to keep Agents of SHIELD on the air.

I don't think Ant Man will suck, but won't be all that shocked if it is seen as a misstep.

And that's one diatribe too far. I'm hitting the ejection button and escaping from Escape To The Movies. There is just not enough fun in these videos to justify wading through all of the negativity. If people enjoy this then all the more power to them, but I'm out. Can anyone suggest a replacement?

Baresark:

Also, you fell asleep in it... I can't help but feel you should not actually be reviewing it at all because your opinion is that it's still crap despite not having been conscious for the whole movie. If I fall asleep during a movie and then find the portion I do see not satisfying, I don't go around telling people it's a crap movie, I actually try to see the whole thing before I give my opinion. Journalistic integrity doesn't extend to your show all of the suddenly being about a first impression of a medium that first impressions are useless on.

Disagree with you there. If a movie, specifically a balls-to-the-wall action movie such as this one, causes part of its audience to fall asleep in the movie theatre (and said audience doesn't happen to include my mother), that has to be an indictment of the movie on some level. Yeah, maybe the bit he slept through was the best, most engaging, and most profound piece of cinema since No Country for Old Men (unlikely), but the movie still can't get full points because IT PUT ITS AUDIENCE TO SLEEP. And if the rest of the movie is trash, the chance that the small part the audience slept through is good is rather slim.

OT: It's a completely superfluous third movie in a series that let's be completely honest, didn't even need a second. Did anyone actually expect it to be good?

Darth_Payn:

walsfeo:
What is the deal about the dance? What did Marvel do this time?

Bob's once again harping on Marvel and allowing Edgar Wright to split from the Ant-Man project, and hiring another director to finish it. Sounds like he already declared it Marvel's first big failure before it's released.

They are setting the tone that you're not supposed to take this one as seriously (self deprecation, lamp-shading how silly the idea is, etc). Probably setting the expectations bar a bit low, ala Guardians. So if it succeeds, they do a victory lap. If it tanks, or is just mediocre, then nobody was really expecting anything from it anyway.

Their hedging their marketing bets in case the change in director backfires.

Femke Janssen is turning into the female version of Sean Bean.

Great actress... but she just KEEPS DYING in practically every franchise I've seen her in.

Oh Bob don't worry about it. We take everything you say with mountains of salt anyway!

SnakeoilSage:
Would you be happier if this somehow balked "traditional gender roles" and the very real threat of human trafficking

The very real threat of human trafficking that disproportionately targets poor, vulnerable immigrant women from Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America--basically anyone except rich, white American tourists 5 minutes after they get off their plane? Seriously, was the lothario who gave them a ride from the airport the dumbest human trafficker in France? Even if she didn't have a CIA superspy for a father, it was obvious someone with enough money to afford the ritziest apartment in Paris would be looking for her. Taken can also refer to the people who took this nonsense seriously.

It can be a fun action movie and still be a moronic reactionary power-fantasy for bitter, aging dudes who'd shit their pants if someone pulled a gun on them in real life. That defines most of the 80s action film canon in a nutshell.

Falling asleep in the theater seems pretty appropriate to me - not a lot going on here.

I'm holding out for another sequel where they cross over with Fast and the Furious so we can all get Taken 4: A Ride.

SnakeoilSage:
I really don't get the whole "dad's always right" angle. He's former-CIA and he's a concerned father. Of course he's going to have reservations about his daughter going anywhere without an escort. The fact that he's proven right is just grounds for making the movie in the first place.

That last sentence doesn't really make sense. Yeah, a paranoid "I toldya so" macho father-knows-best fantasy is the basis of making the movie, and that's a bad thing. As someone else mentioned above me, rich white tourists are pretty much the people human traffickers avoid like the plague, because CNN goes DEFCON-1 whenever a pretty white American sniffles overseas. It's not a movie about the realistic danger of human trafficking, it's a transparent power fantasy for men who go apeshit whenever their daughters so much touch a boy without an interview.

The funny thing is Bob basically said that was fine, as most of the movie is just action, and it still holds up on those points and can be fun to watch.

Paradoxrifts:
And that's one diatribe too far. I'm hitting the ejection button and escaping from Escape To The Movies. There is just not enough fun in these videos to justify wading through all of the negativity. If people enjoy this then all the more power to them, but I'm out. Can anyone suggest a replacement?

Unfortunately, a lot of the similar reviewers that were ever good to begin with have all gone in the same direction these past few years. I gave up following Bob's Twitter long ago because he had turned into one of those too-liberal-for-their-own-good types, but his videos were still pretty good. Now, it's all just leaking into this and "The Big Picture", and I think I am out as well.

T8B95:

Baresark:

Also, you fell asleep in it... I can't help but feel you should not actually be reviewing it at all because your opinion is that it's still crap despite not having been conscious for the whole movie. If I fall asleep during a movie and then find the portion I do see not satisfying, I don't go around telling people it's a crap movie, I actually try to see the whole thing before I give my opinion. Journalistic integrity doesn't extend to your show all of the suddenly being about a first impression of a medium that first impressions are useless on.

Disagree with you there. If a movie, specifically a balls-to-the-wall action movie such as this one, causes part of its audience to fall asleep in the movie theatre (and said audience doesn't happen to include my mother), that has to be an indictment of the movie on some level. Yeah, maybe the bit he slept through was the best, most engaging, and most profound piece of cinema since No Country for Old Men (unlikely), but the movie still can't get full points because IT PUT ITS AUDIENCE TO SLEEP. And if the rest of the movie is trash, the chance that the small part the audience slept through is good is rather slim.

OT: It's a completely superfluous third movie in a series that let's be completely honest, didn't even need a second. Did anyone actually expect it to be good?

That's fine. I don't agree. I loved 300 (from a macho manly perspective), but I can fall asleep in 300 if I'm tired. My guess is that Bob (who seems to make no moves to take care of himself, physically speaking), is actually quite tired all the time. That is what happens when you don't exercise and eat crap food all the time, especially when you hit your 30's.

Also, clearly this franchise didn't need anything beyond the first movie. I can't agree with you more on that.

I take it Bob has never seen or read Paddington Bear before? Ok sure that doesn't mean the film itself will automatically be good but still I am fond of that bear when I was a little.

Scarim Coral:
I take it Bob has never seen or read Paddington Bear before? Ok sure that doesn't mean the film itself will automatically be good but still I am fond of that bear when I was a little.

I think it's mainly just surprising because the trailers made it look like typical kiddie-movie slapstick garbage (see also: Smurfs, Scooby Doo, Underdog, Alvin and the Chipmunks, etc). Really, though... my first though when I hit that blurb was... "I don't know, Bob... isn't it your job to tell us if it's good???"

SnakeoilSage:
I really don't get the whole "dad's always right" angle. He's former-CIA and he's a concerned father. Of course he's going to have reservations about his daughter going anywhere without an escort. The fact that he's proven right is just grounds for making the movie in the first place. Would you be happier if this somehow balked "traditional gender roles" and the very real threat of human trafficking just so his daughter can return home safe and Famke Jannsen can turn to Liam after two hours of them playing chess just to go "HA!" And then a big splash of "VISIT EUROPE" tops off the film.

You are arguing with the interpretation of a movies outside cultural context, based on an in-universe justification.

It's like if someone said that Darth Vader's helmet is inspired by traditional Japanese Kabuto helmets, and you would reply "Nah, actually it's shaped that way to fit his breathing equipment inside it".

One does not exclude the other. Just because something has in-universe justification, doesn't mean that the idea for it came up without a reason.

Taken is not a documentary, it's not like the creators where forced to follow Liam Neeson in a former-CIA concerned father role in the first place, and then got stuck with the inevitable consequences. They consciously wrote that setup instead of a billion other possible ones.

That it ended up being vaguely plausible, just means that the plot is not broken. But beyond that, we can ALSO discuss what the motives might have been to set up that one narrative out of all possible ones, and yeah, "pandering to disgruntled patriarchs with power fantasies about restoring their authority" sounds a pretty spot on guess.

That was beautiful... the ad that played before MovieBob's clip was the trailer for Taken 3...

While I don't really have anything to the Taken 3 discussion, I did want to drop in and say that I appreciated the disclaimer at the start of the video. It may have been halfway a gag, but it is always welcome to get that sort of information out in the open, as well as a welcome bit of insight into just how dull Bob thought the film was.

I never get the FUCKING point of bleeping out 'fucking', especially since we are allowed to swear here. The entire word isn't even bleeped, we can still very much tell by its syntactic positioning in the sentence, that it begins with 'f' and ends with 'ing' that yes, you, Moviebob, are indeed saying 'Fucking'. So what's the deal here? Is there really such a dense Escapist-reviewer policy which mandates bleeping? Well it obviously doesn't/didn't cover Yahtzee...Or Jim Sterling.
Is it because MovieBob is indeed adverse to swearing? Well, obviously not, since he was swearing, and we can tell he is swearing. So...Someone, anyone, just...Tell me.

WarpedLord:
I think it's mainly just surprising because the trailers made it look like typical kiddie-movie slapstick garbage (see also: Smurfs, Scooby Doo, Underdog, Alvin and the Chipmunks, etc).

I dunno, I didn't get that impression from the trailer at all. The movie looks well animated for the most part, and the humor looks generally clever; like when the guy is calling his insurance company to ask if they cover bears, or when Paddington is walking through the subway station trying to figure out how to act human. Also it has a cute bear! :D

Meanwhile trailers for Alvin and Smurfs definitely made me groan at how bland they looked, and the cheap attempts at pop humor just made me roll my eyes. I mean, I get that they're kid's shows, but they can still have clever jokes. Also, neither of them had a cute bear.

Really, though... my first though when I hit that blurb was... "I don't know, Bob... isn't it your job to tell us if it's good???"

Well, the movie isn't out yet, so it's possible it hasn't been previewed in his area yet and he was just offering-up his reaction to the opinions he's heard so far.

Paradoxrifts:
And that's one diatribe too far. I'm hitting the ejection button and escaping from Escape To The Movies. There is just not enough fun in these videos to justify wading through all of the negativity. If people enjoy this then all the more power to them, but I'm out. Can anyone suggest a replacement?

Yep, even when he says "it's fine" at the end it doesn't diminish the completely pointless attack on divorced fathers that manages to turn "caring for your children's safety" into "lousy slob father power fantasies for escapism after alimony payments".

Paradoxrifts:
And that's one diatribe too far. I'm hitting the ejection button and escaping from Escape To The Movies. There is just not enough fun in these videos to justify wading through all of the negativity. If people enjoy this then all the more power to them, but I'm out.

Too true. I've been watching Bob's content since he was first an independent Youtube channel years ago, and in these past couple years his content has been getting more preachy and bitter, and not in an enjoyable way.

Paradoxrifts:
Can anyone suggest a replacement?

I find Red Letter Media's review show Half in the Bag to be a good choice for comedic reviews.

Lately I've been watching/listening to Mark Kermode on the kermodeandmayo Youtube channel for "professional" reviews, although he can be quite funny as well.

Oh christ on a bike, will all you blubbing precious wee men give it a rest already? Every week I pop in to the thread to see if there's any interesting discussion of the movie, and it's the same cabal of whingers complaining that Bob isn't being right-wing enough for their tastes. If you're genuinely incapable of tolerating a reviewer analysing the movie from a political perspective you don't share, might I suggest you check out the Family Research Council or something? Seems like more your speed.

I don't really mind Bob calling taken out for the jerkoff-powerfantasy that it is (and seriously, taken is very blatant one at that), but how about calling it out on "Bob's favorite movie" -list as well. Machete would be a good start.

"I was so bored that I fell asleep, so for all I know the movie wasn't that bad."

Bob, if it was so boring that you fell asleep, it was bad.

Ark of the Covetor:
Oh christ on a bike, will all you blubbing precious wee men give it a rest already? Every week I pop in to the thread to see if there's any interesting discussion of the movie, and it's the same cabal of whingers complaining that Bob isn't being right-wing enough for their tastes. If you're genuinely incapable of tolerating a reviewer analysing the movie from a political perspective you don't share, might I suggest you check out the Family Research Council or something? Seems like more your speed.

The tolerance is strong in you.

There is a world of difference between analyzing art from a political perspective and going on a big ol' ranting spree. My political views rarely, if ever, stop me from enjoying movies, TV shows, or indeed internet commentators with differing views. You can disagree with someone or something politically and still enjoy them.

I disagree with Escapist contributor emeritus Jim Sterling on a few topics, but I still find him a pleasant and knowledgeable fellow, and I absolutely LOVE his content! And when he does get politically riled up, he states or argues his views in a mature and affable manner. Where Bob as of late will just descend into hostility and hyperbole.

Taken 3 was not as good as Taken 2, which was not as good as Taken. It didn't seem to fit well as a sequel to 2, it contained a number of instances which brought me out of my suspension of disbelief, and it didn't have the singular drive that the first (and even second) film did propelling you toward the end.

All that said, it was still a decent to good action movie. The chases were decent, the fights were great (Taken has the best 'real' fights I've seen outside a martial arts movie, although I'm not a huge movie buff, so my scope is somewhat limited), and the sneaking and snooping worked reasonably well (even if they detracted from the action occasionally).

Rating this a one star movie when you didn't even see the whole thing is pretty unfair, since falling asleep in the middle of the movie is obviously on you.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here