« Joaquin’s Performance-Art Life Continues | Home | Awesome Band Names »
“Taken” Is “Absolutely Brilliant”
By Kyle | March 13, 2009
So says Jonah Goldberg, over at Big Hollywood, about this generic action film, which is such a huge hit that it is likely to be a franchise item delivering profits for years to come. (My 0.5 star review is on the Post’s website.) But Goldberg doesn’t actually argue that it’s a good movie, at any point; rather, he just says he likes the basic message of a protective daddy gettin’ medieval on a gang of kidnappers. Goldberg’s one of my favorite NR writers (and his book “Liberal Fascism” makes many excellent, doggedly researched points) but I do wonder about the multiplex grid coordinates where one’s aesthetics and one’s politics meet.
In other words, a lot of liberal movies are great, and a lot of conservative movies suck.
Topics: Europe, Movies, Politics |
March 13th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
It certainly wasn’t great art, but I found it to be a very satisfying movie. Neeson was very effective in a role perfect for him. I found it to be a very solid action movie. It wasn’t nearly in depth or have the epic visuals of Watchmen, but I actually enjoyed Taken more.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Kyle,
This could be one of those instances where you’re over thinking it which is reasonable given you are a critic.
I think people who like this movie just want to see some good old fashion *ss kicking. It was the same with the last Rambo, which I loved, and I’m sure the upcoming Expendables which I couldn’t be more excited about. I liken this to the Transporter Part 1 phenomenon. Looking at it from a critical (and sane) perspective it was a jumbled, poorly written, poorly acted, incoherent mess but at the same time I dare you to not enjoy it.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
I have no problem with B movies per se. Transporter had fun, interesting chases. So did Transporter 2. And I loved Crank, which had a truly ridiculous but inventive imagination and made me laugh all the way through. As I said in my review of Taken, the action scenes were so poorly and frantically cut you couldn’t even figure out where objects were in relation to one another. And how is a guy (Neeson) who shoots an innocent woman at a dinner party to get information out of her husband a hero? The movie is a mangled mess.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I read it that Goldberg was being sarcastic. The whole piece was a joke about the fact that he’d like life to work for his fatherhood like it does for Liam Neeson’s in the movie. I think it’s the funniest thing he’s ever written.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
I hate and I mean hate the jerky camera thing. I’m not sure why directors can’t figure out everyone hates that. I’ve used the word hate now 4 times in this paragraph that is some sort of record.
Have you ever meant anyone who said “wow I hope they yank the camera all over the place during the action scenes”? I haven’t even watched the last Bourne because of this.
March 13th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
I’m with Sean. His tongue’s in cheek, no doubt in my mind.
March 13th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
It’s not “tongue in cheek” as in “I mean the opposite of what I’m saying.” He’s praising it as a guilty-pleasure B movie. I’m saying that even as a B movie, it’s a mess.
March 13th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
What was amusing for me about TAKEN was that it is about America xenophobia but the hero is played by a British actor.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Neeson Brit? I thought Irish.
March 14th, 2009 at 5:28 am
No, he was born in Belfast, like Kenneth Branagh.
March 14th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
A fine B movie. Not sure if Neeson’s character is morally “good.” But the bad guys are clearly bad. The mission he is on, however, is good. The fact that he lets nothing or no one stand in his way led to some interesting moments where I found myself saying “he’s not going to do THAT [because in most movies the "hero" wouldn't] and he does. The movie’s box office success seems to me to be that it’s a genre picture from a previously successful action genre that doesn’t get made much anymore with some interesting idiosyncrasies. And Neeson fills out the main character. If they do try to turn it into a franchise, however, it will not work again. Where does the story line/character development go? BTW, the Northern Irish are not Irish because of a political relationship? Maybe you should tell that one to the barkeep at McSorley’s.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
The United Kingdom is comprised of the countries of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. A person born in Northern Ireland is quite entitled to call themselves Irish, but they are, in fact, British, and I would be quite happy to tell that to the barkeep at McSorleys, except that, unlike yourself, he would already know that.
March 15th, 2009 at 12:07 am
It wasn’t a B movie. It was a stylish Euro-flick. I didn’t think Neeson would be able to cut it - but he’s totally believable and someone no one would want to mess with on a dark night.
Kyle doesn’t like it because the hero wasn’t a Hollywood twat (a la Bruce Willis / Nic Cage). Sure, he shot the woman - but so what? He didn’t kill her. Her husband was a piece of sh*t who betrayed him. And he was racing against the clock to save his daughter.
Neeson is an Ulsterman. Technically, he is British. Or at least part of “Great” Britain (the United Kingdom.) Their currency is the pound, not the shitty euro.
May 21st, 2009 at 10:32 am
So . . . is Neeson taking up the mantel of Steven Seagal, who looked to have aged well in “Urban Justice,” but is getting to be a tad porky for a cinematic martial arts master?
Liam Neeson convinced me of his acting ability when, in “Rob Roy,” he acted sexually attracted to dog-and-a-half Jessica Lange.
Nick Cage a twat? Fer sure.
Bruce Willis? Yer off yer rocker.
RNK