Taken was the film of 2008 that, in my mind, took home the award for "Best Mindless Entertainment." Of course, in actuality, Taken was kind of a good movie but, regardless, a guilty pleasure through and through. It wasn't as great as the likes of a Die Hard, but it was what it was – an entertaining shoot-em-up action movie, but with appeal in their use of family bond. By Taken 2, a lot of that was put to the test and, if anything, detracted from the appeal of the original. It's not that Taken 2 was bad, for it certainly took the level of "mindless entertainment" farther than the original did; however, for that reason, the 2nd film's ultimate problem was just that: it pushed the mindless entertainment aspect of the first film way too far. You know how in action movies people (namely the hero) unabashedly blows stuff up, causes massive car crashes, and shoots up numerous people, but they never get arrested or charged for obstructing justice or disturbing the peace? Well, Taken 2 was probably the crowning achievement of exemplifying that theme (just throw grenades into public areas so I can hear where you are). For that reason, I was a little weary about Taken 3: A film that isn't bad but isn't necessarily good and, if anything, proves Taken may have been ultimately better left as a standalone film to begin with.
In some ways, I admired Taken 3 certainly more than I did that of Taken 2. For one, this film is more of an adventure type film, as opposed to a purely action based one that the predecessors might have been. The film isn't constantly worried about having "another one bites the dust" moment and, if anything, I appreciated how the film was taking time to actually focus on the story and on the aspects of death, loss, and grief. Still, some of the storytelling methods were questionable: For example, do you really think a man as smart as Bryan would run from the police? And some of his techniques to prove his innocence (such as his sudden possession of resources or outside contact) seem like lazy writing to me, for many of them appear out of nowhere without having been set up properly. Also, while I appreciated the film trying to add some twists to the plot (some of which works), I think, in the context of being a concluding chapter to this trilogy, it pretty much ignores this fact and, rather than pay tribute to or even really acknowledge the first two films, we get, more or less, a standalone sequel that has not much of anything to stand on.
By this time around the characters feel like caricatures of their former selves, and the script doesn't seem to do much to enhance this. Rather than have the majority of them mature but keep their same charm, I think the film is a little too desperate to focus on Bryan Mills' "special set of skills" (i.e. his technique of relying on precision and accuracy) rather than the character behind the skills. Really, the film doesn't seem that interested in any of the villains and, save for a few, the fight scenes aren't near as entertaining because many of the antagonists are just very void – as if to suggest that we should want the "bad" characters to be killed simply because the film says we should want them to be killed. Maybe it's just that all the characters have overstayed their welcome? That being said, the acting is still pretty good and, while it does feel to some degree many of the actors are just there by contract, they still don't condescend the material and they give it their all. Maggie Grace, again, has really proved herself worthy of emotionally charged scenes, and I hope to see her in more serious films. Also, by Taken 3 a lot of what made the first one likable, and the second one tolerable, starts to become slightly comedic this time around. One could argue that the film is intentional in this but, come on, why try and trick the audience into thinking a certain character is supposedly dead from a big action stunt when we know there's at least 40 minutes of running time left in the film?
The bottom line is that, for Taken 3 to be cited as the concluding piece in this trilogy, it kind of fails as a final installment, and barely cuts it as being a passable sequel. By Taken 3 you want to feel satisfaction and even warmth and comfort in this being the end – a celebration of the first 2 films and whatever legacy that remains. In the end it's more "Meh, I could have done without this one."
In some ways, I admired Taken 3 certainly more than I did that of Taken 2. For one, this film is more of an adventure type film, as opposed to a purely action based one that the predecessors might have been. The film isn't constantly worried about having "another one bites the dust" moment and, if anything, I appreciated how the film was taking time to actually focus on the story and on the aspects of death, loss, and grief. Still, some of the storytelling methods were questionable: For example, do you really think a man as smart as Bryan would run from the police? And some of his techniques to prove his innocence (such as his sudden possession of resources or outside contact) seem like lazy writing to me, for many of them appear out of nowhere without having been set up properly. Also, while I appreciated the film trying to add some twists to the plot (some of which works), I think, in the context of being a concluding chapter to this trilogy, it pretty much ignores this fact and, rather than pay tribute to or even really acknowledge the first two films, we get, more or less, a standalone sequel that has not much of anything to stand on.
By this time around the characters feel like caricatures of their former selves, and the script doesn't seem to do much to enhance this. Rather than have the majority of them mature but keep their same charm, I think the film is a little too desperate to focus on Bryan Mills' "special set of skills" (i.e. his technique of relying on precision and accuracy) rather than the character behind the skills. Really, the film doesn't seem that interested in any of the villains and, save for a few, the fight scenes aren't near as entertaining because many of the antagonists are just very void – as if to suggest that we should want the "bad" characters to be killed simply because the film says we should want them to be killed. Maybe it's just that all the characters have overstayed their welcome? That being said, the acting is still pretty good and, while it does feel to some degree many of the actors are just there by contract, they still don't condescend the material and they give it their all. Maggie Grace, again, has really proved herself worthy of emotionally charged scenes, and I hope to see her in more serious films. Also, by Taken 3 a lot of what made the first one likable, and the second one tolerable, starts to become slightly comedic this time around. One could argue that the film is intentional in this but, come on, why try and trick the audience into thinking a certain character is supposedly dead from a big action stunt when we know there's at least 40 minutes of running time left in the film?
The bottom line is that, for Taken 3 to be cited as the concluding piece in this trilogy, it kind of fails as a final installment, and barely cuts it as being a passable sequel. By Taken 3 you want to feel satisfaction and even warmth and comfort in this being the end – a celebration of the first 2 films and whatever legacy that remains. In the end it's more "Meh, I could have done without this one."