Taken 2 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


Empire Admin -> Taken 2 (19/9/2012 2:18:55 PM)

Post your comments on this article




grucl -> - (19/9/2012 2:18:55 PM)

This thread should be good since the review of the first film is something of an "anti-AOTC" around here...

*grabs popcorn*

Let the fun begin!




grucl -> - (19/9/2012 2:18:57 PM)

edit




jackcarter -> ahem... (19/9/2012 2:21:50 PM)

if its worse than part 1 shouldnt it get ˝ star? ;)

that aside will probably wait for the 18 rated cut on dvd as with the first




bennyboy1971 -> RE: ahem... (19/9/2012 3:05:49 PM)

I'm saving my pocket money for when they make Taken vs Tekken




spark1 -> Megatron!!!! (19/9/2012 3:13:22 PM)

he fucked the 'transporter' franchise and now he's done it again it seems.




AxlReznor -> RE: Megatron!!!! (19/9/2012 3:57:21 PM)

It appears that if you're US Special Forces, the best way to ensure that your life remains stressful after you've left is to name your daughter Kim.




jmebaby25 -> RE: ahem... (19/9/2012 4:38:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jackcarter

if its worse than part 1 shouldnt it get ˝ star? ;)

that aside will probably wait for the 18 rated cut on dvd as with the first



BOOM! Congratulations - you win the prize*. I wondered when the first comment would pop up to compare the reviews.

Both films were reviewed by different critics.

* - sadly there is no actual prize.




Invader_Ace -> RE: Megatron! (19/9/2012 4:50:57 PM)

quote:

when it comes to lensing combat. Time and again ... the resulting scraps ... unfold so confusingly — thanks to shakycam, overcranking and merciless strobe-cuts — that it appears he’s editing people to death.


God Damn you, Megatron!  First you killed Transporter and now Taken?!  Damn your eyes!

I'll still see it.  That's the worst thing.  




OPEN YOUR EYES -> RE: Megatron! (19/9/2012 5:38:24 PM)

Taken2 average?
Well I never.[8|]




thosemovieguys -> Taken v Taken 2. (19/9/2012 7:00:41 PM)

I know the the two films were reviewed by different people, but given the first one received such a royal evisceration from Empire does it not look a bit daft to give the second one a higher score and say it's worse?

Shouldn't past review be taken into account in a case like this?

Not having a go - just be interested to hear some thoughts.




Cool Breeze -> RE: Megatron! (19/9/2012 8:49:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Invader_Ace

quote:

when it comes to lensing combat. Time and again ... the resulting scraps ... unfold so confusingly — thanks to shakycam, overcranking and merciless strobe-cuts — that it appears he’s editing people to death.


God Damn you, Megatron!  First you killed Transporter and now Taken?!  Damn your eyes!

I'll still see it.  That's the worst thing.  


The guys name is MegaTON.Hes not a Decepticon from Transformers! [:D]

Anyway two stars? That means its twice as good as the first film! Im there!




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Megatron! (19/9/2012 8:54:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze


quote:

ORIGINAL: Invader_Ace

quote:

when it comes to lensing combat. Time and again ... the resulting scraps ... unfold so confusingly — thanks to shakycam, overcranking and merciless strobe-cuts — that it appears he’s editing people to death.


God Damn you, Megatron!  First you killed Transporter and now Taken?!  Damn your eyes!

I'll still see it.  That's the worst thing.  


The guys name is MegaTON.Hes not a Decepticon from Transformers! [:D]

Anyway two stars? That means its twice as good as the first film! Im there!


Weren't you mocking the Expendables fans a month ago when it looked like their movie would be a PG13? How is that any different to this getting cut down to a 12A?




rtb2k6 -> Am going to see it whatever ! (19/9/2012 10:22:28 PM)

Loved the first film and from the trailers i can see i'm gonna enjoy the second.i remember the reviews of the first film been terrible but like the empire man said it made a shit load of money regardless.




cerebusboy -> RE: Taken v Taken 2. (20/9/2012 10:32:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thosemovieguys

I know the the two films were reviewed by different people, but given the first one received such a royal evisceration from Empire does it not look a bit daft to give the second one a higher score and say it's worse?

Shouldn't past review be taken into account in a case like this?

Not having a go - just be interested to hear some thoughts.


This came up a lot on the Transformers: Dark of the Moon thread (which got less stars than RotF even although Empire said it was better). Some people argued that the star ratings are reflective of Empire per se (indeed, that Empire 20 year special alluded to office discussions on the Attack of the Clones star rating, suggesting that the individual reviewer doesn't always just get to give whatever rating they want without having to justify it), but it would be a bit silly for a reviewer of a sequel to be bound by whatever star rating another reviewer gave to the original.




siraddam -> Twice as good as the first one then? (20/9/2012 11:18:59 AM)

There isn't much consistency at Empire!!
How can you give Taken one star and Taken 2 two stars and say Taken 2 is better than Taken in the same review?????
I am a bit concerened to hear that Olivier Megaton is directing though!!




Void Indigo -> Ha...! (20/9/2012 11:58:01 AM)

Isn't it great how no one actually pays attention i.e. cares about Empire reviews anymore...? Yes, I am petty enough to bring this up again but - 'Attack of the Clones' - 5 Stars, 'Taken' - 1 Star.... Ha Ha Ha! You Muppets!




stevos -> Taken Too? (20/9/2012 12:06:35 PM)

Surely it should be Taken Too- a la Look Who's Talking... :-)




jackcarter -> RE: Taken Too? (20/9/2012 12:18:25 PM)

What about this for Taken 3 - Bryan Mills struggles to save his family once again but the twist is he is suffering from Aids which he contracted from an African prostitute ‘listen to me very carefully…I have full blown Aids’




jmebaby25 -> RE: Taken v Taken 2. (20/9/2012 12:22:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thosemovieguys

I know the the two films were reviewed by different people, but given the first one received such a royal evisceration from Empire does it not look a bit daft to give the second one a higher score and say it's worse?

Shouldn't past review be taken into account in a case like this?

Not having a go - just be interested to hear some thoughts.


I think the reasoning also lies in the fact that the second one is a worse film due to the action being so poorly handled and the awkward plot progression. That, plus the repetition, makes it a technically worse film. However, the warped morality of the original helped bring in such a low score. To quote the review: "A venomous little actioner that mistakes bile for adrenaline"




cerebusboy -> RE: Twice as good as the first one then? (20/9/2012 12:26:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: siraddam


How can you give Taken one star and Taken 2 two stars and say Taken 2 is better than Taken in the same review?????



If Taken 2 is better then wouldn't you expect it to have more stars? [;)]




cerebusboy -> RE: Taken v Taken 2. (20/9/2012 12:31:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jmebaby25

quote:

ORIGINAL: thosemovieguys

I know the the two films were reviewed by different people, but given the first one received such a royal evisceration from Empire does it not look a bit daft to give the second one a higher score and say it's worse?

Shouldn't past review be taken into account in a case like this?

Not having a go - just be interested to hear some thoughts.


I think the reasoning also lies in the fact that the second one is a worse film due to the action being so poorly handled and the awkward plot progression. That, plus the repetition, makes it a technically worse film. However, the warped morality of the original helped bring in such a low score. To quote the review: "A venomous little actioner that mistakes bile for adrenaline"


Yeah, but is that not a tad unfair? I wouldn't necessarily say that classic Arnie or Stallone movies are morally sound but that hardly precludes them being decent actioners. Plus I wouldn't really group Taken with films like, say, the Death Wish movies, where the female characters get raped and murdered in order to set up revenge in a way that is arguably so morally objectionable that it spoils the action. Taken is, after the peerless DOA: Dead or Alive, easily the second best Holly Valance film.




cerebusboy -> RE: Ha...! (20/9/2012 12:36:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Void Indigo

Isn't it great how no one actually pays attention i.e. cares about Empire reviews anymore...? Yes, I am petty enough to bring this up again but - 'Attack of the Clones' - 5 Stars, 'Taken' - 1 Star.... Ha Ha Ha! You Muppets!


Dude, that was ten years ago. Let it go [;)]
Plus, all else being said, Attack of the Clones got five stars because that's what the reviewer (Chris Hewitt) thought it should get, in the same way that a different reviewer thought Taken 2 should get 2 stars. Different reviewers, different opinions. Where's the inconsistency?




Filmfan 2 -> RE: Ha...! (20/9/2012 1:27:16 PM)

I'm loathe to review before seeing, but this is a definite home screening movie, if I ever decide to watch it that is. I saw the first one at the cinema and it was just ludicrous, and the trailer for this pointless cashing-in made my heart sink. Not surprised it's being panned.




jobloffski -> RE: Taken v Taken 2. (20/9/2012 3:18:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: jmebaby25

quote:

ORIGINAL: thosemovieguys

I know the the two films were reviewed by different people, but given the first one received such a royal evisceration from Empire does it not look a bit daft to give the second one a higher score and say it's worse?

Shouldn't past review be taken into account in a case like this?

Not having a go - just be interested to hear some thoughts.


I think the reasoning also lies in the fact that the second one is a worse film due to the action being so poorly handled and the awkward plot progression. That, plus the repetition, makes it a technically worse film. However, the warped morality of the original helped bring in such a low score. To quote the review: "A venomous little actioner that mistakes bile for adrenaline"


Yeah, but is that not a tad unfair? I wouldn't necessarily say that classic Arnie or Stallone movies are morally sound but that hardly precludes them being decent actioners. Plus I wouldn't really group Taken with films like, say, the Death Wish movies, where the female characters get raped and murdered in order to set up revenge in a way that is arguably so morally objectionable that it spoils the action. Taken is, after the peerless DOA: Dead or Alive, easily the second best Holly Valance film.



Yeah, Taken is different, It uses the threat that the main character's daughter MIGHT get raped and murdered to motivate a bollocks plot involving beating up Paris and along the way, he encounters his daughter's friend who HAS been raped and murdered, with the only reason for her to be in the film is for him to find her dead. Totally different, not. Death Wish is supposed to be morally objectionable and not even Michael Dunderhead Winner totally managed to make the story a total right-wing fantasy. It is also shit. Taken presents the rape/murder/revenge as motivation for a daft kick-ass action romp.

They both suck, but I can just about believe that someone would turn vigilante and kill criminals in revenge for what happens at the start of death wish more than I can buy into the premise, characterisation, plot and narrative of Taken, which is utterly a right wing American fantasy, with French based ('cheese eating surrender monkeys') bad guys.

And what's this bullshit still going on about people not getting that reviewers give their opinion, not the settled corporate opinion of a magazine?

EDIT: And what's this other shite, people commenting on films they are clearly not going to waste time watching? Some have too much time on their hands, etc [;)]




AxlReznor -> RE: Taken v Taken 2. (20/9/2012 3:59:07 PM)

I dunno about you, but I always found murder/rape a good reason to get revenge on somebody. What? Are we supposed to write stories now where the only things that people need to avenge are morally acceptable? Why the fuck would you need to get revenge if it isn't something awful that happens in the first place? They're the villain's! You're not supposed to like what they do! And cheering when the villains get the shit kicked out of them is pretty much the plot of every action movie ever!

EDIT: Also, human trafficking for prostitution of the kind in Taken actually exists. It's not like they've completely made up a crime and tried to claim that's what happens in France. It happens! All over the world! And usually they target young foreign girls on their own! People who claim it's xenophobic are idiots.




cerebusboy -> RE: Taken v Taken 2. (20/9/2012 4:16:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jobloffski



Yeah, Taken is different, It uses the threat that the main character's daughter MIGHT get raped and murdered to motivate a bollocks plot involving beating up Paris and along the way, he encounters his daughter's friend who HAS been raped and murdered, with the only reason for her to be in the film is for him to find her dead. Totally different, not.


Actual rape and murder is, in this context, a bit 'Women in Refrigerators" http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WomenInRefrigerators the threat of violence, prevented by the protaganist, isn't the same thing. One objection to DW et all is they serve up rape and murder for titillation as if the subsequent violence towards rapists and murderers makes the former ok.

quote:

EDIT: And what's this other shite, people commenting on films they are clearly not going to waste time watching? Some have too much time on their hands, etc


Hey, speak for yourself! I'll probably see Taken 2 (I saw The Sweeney yesterday, so I'm not fussy [;)])




cerebusboy -> RE: Taken v Taken 2. (20/9/2012 4:24:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AxlReznor

I dunno about you, but I always found murder/rape a good reason to get revenge on somebody. What? Are we supposed to write stories now where the only things that people need to avenge are morally acceptable? Why the fuck would you need to get revenge if it isn't something awful that happens in the first place? They're the villain's! You're not supposed to like what they do! And cheering when the villains get the shit kicked out of them is pretty much the plot of every action movie ever!



You're first line makes it sound like you've got personal vigilante experience! [;)]
I was referring to the line about the original Taken being morally objectionable. I personally do not agree with this characterisation. That said, excessive displays of the villain's evil can be a bit kick the dog http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KickTheDog

the other point is, dramatically, if the loved one is in peril then we can get a satisfying dramatic conclusion when they're rescued. That's not as true if a loved one like a wife or daughter is raped and murdered. Look at The Punisher - it's not like he's going to get to a point where he thinks he's killed enough baddies to make up for his wife and family being killed. It's never over!

quote:

EDIT: Also, human trafficking for prostitution of the kind in Taken actually exists. It's not like they've completely made up a crime and tried to claim that's what happens in France. It happens! All over the world! And usually they target young foreign girls on their own! People who claim it's xenophobic are idiots.


Yeah, it's a dramatic choice: I think a lot of people (especially teenagers) would feel less safe in a foreign country they're visiting for the first time than they would at home, and the foreign setting is also more conducive to vigilantism (i.e. there's no option of letting the CIA or whoever handle it). Personally I'd be flattered if Taken 3 was set in Glasgow! [;)]




AxlReznor -> RE: Taken v Taken 2. (20/9/2012 4:36:19 PM)

It sometimes leads to more intense beatdowns when the loved ones are already dead, though. For example, I found the last few episodes of 24 some of the most emotionally tense hours of television I'd ever seen, because Jack had just lost it. Granted, it eliminates any hope of an entirely happy ending. But the bittersweet ending can be just as dramatic.

Either way, I don't see how people can insist that a movie is immoral simply because the villain does immoral things. If we had to agree with every action a character took, there would be no villains... or for that matter any drama whatsoever. The villains in Taken are part of the human trafficking trade. Morally reprehensible, yes... but that's the point.




AxlReznor -> RE: Taken v Taken 2. (20/9/2012 4:41:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy
quote:

EDIT: Also, human trafficking for prostitution of the kind in Taken actually exists. It's not like they've completely made up a crime and tried to claim that's what happens in France. It happens! All over the world! And usually they target young foreign girls on their own! People who claim it's xenophobic are idiots.


Yeah, it's a dramatic choice: I think a lot of people (especially teenagers) would feel less safe in a foreign country they're visiting for the first time than they would at home, and the foreign setting is also more conducive to vigilantism (i.e. there's no option of letting the CIA or whoever handle it). Personally I'd be flattered if Taken 3 was set in Glasgow! [;)]


Exactly. No one who sees these movies is led to believe that the entire country is full of kidnappers who ply women with drugs and force them into the sex trade. Only that it does happen, and as that's what the movie's about, that's what it's going to show you more of. The same way Trainspotting didn't lead anyone to believe that everyone in Scotland is a heroin addict... and Warrior King didn't lead anyone to believe that all of Australia steals elephants for a living. [;)]




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.09375