Reviews

I remember seeing the advertisements for this movie when it was first released (I was 13), and I can remember wondering why anyone would attempt a sequel (I was precocious) of "2001." I didn't much appreciate "2001" at that age, but I did understand that many people respected it as an important film in the history of movies. (I feel the same way about the Beatles still.)

I saw it again recently, and I enjoyed it. It is not perfect, and the special effects are lacking. It didn't bother me that the Soviet Union still existed; it reminds us perhaps why it got made in 1984 at the height of the Cold War in some respects. (I remind the reader that "The Day After" was not a random event, either.) I suppose today the great enemy would be China, or Putin's Russia which bears so much resemblance to the Soviet Union.

I think the cast did a great job, although I have always found Bob Balaban extremely distracting in any movie or television show he's in.

I appreciated having some answers to questions left by "2001." I do think its important to know why HAL malfunctioned; the fact that Floyd's contradictory orders in the name of secrecy caused the break-down is, I think, a criticism of government secrecy mirrored in the original film. The scene I am thinking of is the other scientists on the space station grilling Floyd about about the reasons for the closure of Clavius.

I liked the ending narration of the movie, despite the fact that normally I detest such things.

THis is a worth-while movie. Certainly not perfect, but interesting enough to earn a solid 6.5 out of ten.

This was simply one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It was recommended by a now-former friend. The plot was clearly slapped together by three zombies from "The Walking Dead" (or a C- list Damon/Affleck non-sexual couple) and made about as much sense as Ron Paul ; the "we can do anything even though we're fat" message was ham-handed at best, and as blunt as Sarah Palin on a particularly stupid day; the dialog was wooden -- which make sense because so were the actors. I literally couldn't see the forest for the trees. Its the sort of movie that makes you pray for a forest fire, or for Jason Voorhees to show up and put a stop to this nonsense. That's the only ending that could have improved this movie: mass slaughter, starting with the writers.

I'm stunned at how bad it is, in all honesty. I can't imagine how it got made. I really can't. The voice-over narration of the kid's letter home to grandma was filled with lines like, "Together, we can do anything!" and "We all love ourselves now" -- yet they feel that way after doing absolutely nothing to earn that confidence except promise to lead healthier lives after a night of binging.

I laughed only because I can't believe that someone read the script and said yes. Avoid this movie. It's not an enjoyable mess, just a mess; on a brighter note, it is an epic triumph for writers and producers lacking talent, grace, and apparently basic intelligence.

"Taken" finds the daughter of ex-CIA agent Liam Neeson kidnapped in Paris by Albanians and held for sale into the white slave trade, and details Neeson's efforts to save his daughter and her friend.

"Taken" is a terrible movie. Liam Neeson is a terrible fit for the "aggrieved parent / former CIA agent / action movie" genre. When people applauded, I looked at Don and said, loud enough for people to hear, "You have to be kidding me!" Some of those near us laughed nervously — after applauding, mind you.

The script was literally laughable at many points. I can imagine the screenwriter sitting at home using some sort of iLife-type program … "iHollywood Script" or some such … to assembly this dreck from stock story elements. It is filled with cliché after cliché, often delivered by Neeson without a hint of urgency or passion. His banter with his former CIA colleagues, and his ex-wife and daughter, is, conversely, delivered with obviously false passion and good humor. He reminded me of a super-excited infomercial audience member at points.

There are many "great" (hint: sarcasm employed here) bits of dialogue throughout the film. I stifled my laughter at several points. Here, however, is the best exchange.

Neeson, as "Bryan Mills," meets an old friend from French Internal Security. When he announces his plans to retrieve his kidnapped daughter, his French friend warns him not to "tear down Paris" in his pursuit.

"I WILL TEAR DOWN THE EIFFEL TOWER IF I HAVE TO!" Neeson replies, again almost bloodlessly.

Liam Neeson turned in an excellent performance in "Schindler's List," as the morally confused, yet ultimately upright, Oscar Schindler. I thought he was okay in "The Phantom Menace," and I blamed any failures on his part on the directing of George Lucas (who deserves the scorn of the entire world for that series of abortions, plus his destruction of the Indiana Jones series). In "Taken," however, Neeson simply wasn't up to his usual standard. I wonder if this was perhaps a "paycheck" movie?

All that being said, I enjoyed myself because this entire movie was so ludicrous and laughable. I later told a friend that it should be shown to film students as an example of how not to write a film. Further, I learned some very valuable things:

1. Jeeps cannot be hurt by any man-made weapon. 2. Nor can strung out, incoherent prostitutes lying in the back seat. 3. CIA agents travel with their own medical drips, needles, etc., to help bring addicts down so as to question them. 4. Albanians in France do not notice if, when claiming to be a French agent, you speak to them in slightly-British accented English. 5. You can leave France after committing multiple murders and other felonies with nary a whisper.

There are other lessons contained therein, of course, but these are the ones that stood out in my mind.