Jump to content

Taken 3 - Liam Neeson Is Back...Again.

Goose

By Goose,
in Film, TV & Radio

 Share

Recommended Posts

Robo_1

Robo_1

Posted
Posted

So they're basically going to have a stab at remaking the fugitive, only with more explosions. I'm game, the trailer makes it look a clear cut above the sequel, and the final "good luck" brought a smile to my face. Neeson has always been one of my favourite actors, and it's great to see his career get a second wind as an action lead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gabe

Gabe

Posted
Posted

So they're basically going to have a stab at remaking the fugitive, only with more explosions. I'm game, the trailer makes it look a clear cut above the sequel, and the final "good luck" brought a smile to my face. Neeson has always been one of my favourite actors, and it's great to see his career get a second wind as an action lead.

It's weird how he just turned into a proper action hero as he approached his late 50s - I mean he's 62 now, for crying out loud!

Really liked Taken and Unknown, yet to see the airplane and latest one at the cinema, Taken 2 was awful but that trailer looks a bit better. Will probably watch regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Janson

Janson

Posted
Posted

Looks ok, there seems to be no link to the name 'taken' now though, which gives them more freedom I guess.

God knows what Taken4 will be about though - I imagine at this rate it will be set in the future when Neeson's in a retirement home. The nurse takes his blanket, and things turn sour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
McCoy

McCoy

Posted
Posted

So sad that in response to a gritty hard 18 rated film that was a massive financial success that the studio decides to water down the sequels. There is a massive market for adult skewing films, look at Gone Girl, so we don't need every film to have a PG 13 to try to appeal to everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Despin

Despin

Posted
Posted

It's a essentially a shitty rip off of THE FUGITIVE.

There is no way they shot this with a PG-13/12A rating in mind. It must have been a very late decision. There are some really violent moments that just now seem weird as fuck without the blood.

An example.

SPOILER BELOW I GUESS.

There is a scene where TAKEN tortures a near naked dude that has already been shot several times in the torso. So we have a near naked guy full of bullet holes (we see literal black holes), squirming around on the floor when TAKEN stands over him and starts to question him. He gets no answer so pushes the barrel of his gun INTO one of the bullet holes and TWISTS it to force him to give up information.

This isn't not off screen and implied. We see the gun pressed into the bullet hole in close up. AND THERE IS NO BLOOD. Just the shitty rubber prosthetic. The guy squeals, gives the info and then dies.

We then cut to a wider shot of TAKEN standing over the near naked dead guy who has been shot and dying for several minutes now yet once again there is no blood. Just weird little black holes in his torso.

I'm assuming the dvd will have all the digital blood reinserted. But releasing it like this is just fucking bizarre.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mr_woo

mr_woo

Posted
Posted

So sad that in response to a gritty hard 18 rated film that was a massive financial success that the studio decides to water down the sequels. There is a massive market for adult skewing films, look at Gone Girl, so we don't need every film to have a PG 13 to try to appeal to everyone.

Well the first Taken wasn't really a hard 18 at all. I believe the only thing cut out for the 15 rating in the UK versions cinema release was the torture of the fella by electricity and even then it was only trimmed to remove Brian inserting the nails into the guys legs. (the rest was intact) which was put back into the 18 rated version. The US PG-13 release was edited much more for its cinema release.

The biggest flaw with Taken 2 is that it's poorly directed and Neeson looks so bored and is in it only for the money. The first film is incredibly basic and almost 80's Cannon film esque. But it's well directed, the action's good, Neeson is obviously having a ball and it's very efficient and doesn't overstay its welcome. It's not the greatest film in the world but I love it and enjoy watching it. The sequel was fucking terrible.

I really wish Pierre Morel had come back for the sequels as it least it might have made Taken 2 watchable and I dread to think how bad Taken 3 is.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
McCoy

McCoy

Posted
Posted

Well the first Taken wasn't really a hard 18 at all. I believe the only thing cut out for the 15 rating in the UK versions cinema release was the torture of the fella by electricity and even then it was only trimmed to remove Brian inserting the nails into the guys legs. (the rest was intact) which was put back into the 18 rated version. The US PG-13 release was edited much more for its cinema release.

The biggest flaw with Taken 2 is that it's poorly directed and Neeson looks so bored and is in it only for the money. The first film is incredibly basic and almost 80's Cannon film esque. But it's well directed, the action's good, Neeson is obviously having a ball and it's very efficient and doesn't overstay its welcome. It's not the greatest film in the world but I love it and enjoy watching it. The sequel was fucking terrible.

I really wish Pierre Morel had come back for the sequels as it least it might have made Taken 2 watchable and I dread to think how bad Taken 3 is.

Fair point about the first Taken. Definitely not a hard 18 but you never get the impression that they are being held back from presenting the film they want to show.

Saw the new film tonight. Obviously not as good as the first but I think much better than the second. There are some plot points/twists which I'm still pondering the sense of and the recasting of a previous character doesn't work very well.

Of course, the direction/editing is awful as it was with the second film. As soon as the action starts the sequences become completely incomprehensible which is a massive shame. I'm not sure what it is about this particular director since whatever style he is aiming to achieve just doesn't work imo and it makes the action scenes fairly painful to watch. There was one car chase scene where it is so incomprehensible you actually can't work out what actually happened. Only that stuff happened.

5 out of 10 then. Would be a notch or two higher if the actual action was presented better and the film was a bit more gritty in terms of blood etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smitty

Smitty

Posted
Posted

Of course, the direction/editing is awful as it was with the second film. As soon as the action starts the sequences become completely incomprehensible which is a massive shame. I'm not sure what it is about this particular director since whatever style he is aiming to achieve just doesn't work imo and it makes the action scenes fairly painful to watch. There was one car chase scene where it is so incomprehensible you actually can't work out what actually happened. Only that stuff happened.

I think is the major problem with western action films these days (aside from the lack of violence). It's killing them. Almost every film has it.

You can't follow what's happening in a satisfactory way.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
McCoy

McCoy

Posted
Posted

It's just weird. You spend all that money doing the stunts and then cut them to incomprehensible ribbons. And you'd water it is much for work when editing to do that than just using one long clear take. Or, if you're cynically, perhaps the director doesn't really have the skills to film action and the editing disguises the fact that the stunts were never coordinated properly. I feel sorry, if the stunts are properly coordinated, for the stunt guys who see all their work go to waste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smitty

Smitty

Posted
Posted

It's just weird. You spend all that money doing the stunts and then cut them to incomprehensible ribbons. And you'd water it is much for work when editing to do that than just using one long clear take. Or, if you're cynically, perhaps the director doesn't really have the skills to film action and the editing disguises the fact that the stunts were never coordinated properly. I feel sorry, if the stunts are properly coordinated, for the stunt guys who see all their work go to waste.

I think it's the latter, directors simply not having the skill to shoot and then edit action appropriately.

This episode of the superb Every Frame A Painting highlights the importance of direction and editing to beautiful, clear, engrossing action:

Look how fucking clearly that shit is shot! It's beautiful! Fucking beautiful. The framing! Imagine if western action was shot like that.

4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.

  I accept