Theatrical Reviews: Taken 3

Watching a Taken sequel is a somewhat pointless exercise.  The original Taken movie felt somewhat self-contained, it felt like a movie that had a very simple core that really only lent itself to a single story; and that worked really well.  Unfortunately though, that means that these sequels come off as kind of soulless and pointless.  Taken 3 definitely creates for itself more of a right to itself then its direct predecessor, but that isn’t saying much.

Taken 3 isn’t terrible, it’s just feels futile.  Writers and director alike try really hard to give these characters and this world a reason to return to the screen, but they’re fighting an uphill battle.  Anything that these characters go through is going to feel force, just by virtue of the original not lending itself very well to sequels.

What reason do we have to care about these characters?  Did people see Bryan Mills torture criminals in the original Taken and say to themselves, “I like that guy; I want to see what happens next.”  The first Taken worked as an experience as much as a story; that story of a man delving into a dark criminal underworld felt real (despite itself) and heavy in a big way.  Making a sequel to that is almost as bad as making a sequel to Unbroken where Louis Zamperini gets put in another Japanese prison camp during World War 3.

As I’ve already mentioned, Taken 3 is definitely trying hard to make up lost ground.  The movie starts slow, but moves forward with a series of fun twists and reasonably entertaining action set pieces.  Despite the fact that nobody gives a flying crap about these characters, the movie is able to make its plot quick enough and surprising enough to easily get the viewer through the breezy 100 minute runtime. 

A mistake a lot of crummy movies make these days is runtime.  Movie sins are usually a lot more tolerable when they are regulated to a shorter amount of time, and I think this movie knows that its audience isn’t willing to stick with it for two and a half hours.  The filmmakers wisely cut the movie down, sacrificing some clarity for entertainment value.

For the record, all of the performances are fine in this new Taken movie.  I definitely never groaned at the acting, and Neeson never puts in a bad performance.  Forest Whitaker is particularly entertaining in his role (which is basically a redux of his role from The Last Stand,) and I get the feeling, as I often do from the movies he’s in, that he is too good for this.

Overall this latest Taken flick is actually a fair little thriller.  If this was a standalone thriller I don’t think it would be getting the negative vibe that the critics have attributed to its quality.  It is only a total failure in reference to the original Taken movie.  Take it for what it is and you might find that it’s a reasonably entertaining thriller; inferior to the average action flick, yet not bad by any measure.

Thanks as always for reading!  Check back this weekend for more movie reviews!