Friday 23 January 2015

Knight Owl's Review of Taken 3; It Ends Here (Thank God)



This movie makes me sad.

One of my New Years resolutions is to see more movies and write about them. I'm starting out strong, but already behind. It doesn't help that the first movie of the new year that I sit down to see is what I can only hope is the last of a franchise unable to live up to its first entry.

I can gush over Taken all day, so I'll keep it short by saying that the film was an unexpected hit and, in my opinion, a perfect action movie. Short in length, simple plot, heavy on the violence and threat thereof. It also gave new life to the career of a man I've always been a fan of but never clicked with the mainstream. Taken is inarguably one of the best action films in recent memory, and possibly one of the best ever. But as with any other moderately successful film these days, it just had to have a sequel.

Taken 2 was a shadow of its predecessor, neutering both the main character and the franchise itself as quickly as possible. The change in director was evident and not for the better. What should have been an easy path into a franchise became a sad extension of the first film, much like Quantum of Solace was to Casino Royale. I was willing to forgive Taken 2 if the third installment gave me what I wanted out of the second. Needless to say, Taken 3 failed spectacularly.

In my mind, the logical path that the Taken franchise was simple: Liam Neeson's work in the first film earns him a spot back on his old team, also established in the first film. They then go off on hijinks involving rescuing highly valued captives from shady individuals with broken wine bottles, threatening phone conversations and general badassery. Instead, Taken 3 becomes a far too convoluted whodunnit mystery a la The Fugitive with not so much action as there is a whole bunch of people on cellphones.

The plot we are given is as such: Old man Liam is framed for a murder and must go on the lam using his very particular set of skills to both evade capture and uncover who set him up and why. Even this synopsis sounds simple, but there is layer upon layer of unnecessary subplot that makes the film seem hours longer than it was. Also would have been fine, had there been as much action as the previous films. There wasn't, and the action we do get is over-edited and choppy. Extremely hard to watch. And with at least 30 minutes without the only reason to see the film (Neeson) onscreen, it's easy to forget why you're even there.

The big problem I have with this movie is simply that it falls into SO MANY TROPES, and everyone's the worse for it. First off, when I said Neeson had to 'evade capture', what I meant was that he beat the everliving crap out of every cop that crossed his path. Now, this has been a bit of a problem for me in every 'the hero's been framed' action film I've ever seen (which is an approximate fuck ton). So, you're innocent. That's great and all, but laying smacks down on every cop in line of sight might not be the best way to make your case. Now, even if your innocence for the murder is proven, you're going to jail forever on a billion counts of resisting arrest and assaulting officers. And that's after you get many batons and tazers shoved up unpleasant places.

And hey, while we're at that, you might not have to run so fast if you didn't make yourself seem so god damn guilty. Neeson makes every innocent-man-finds-crime-scene mistake you can. He fondles the murder weapon, he disturbs the body, he tries to talk the cops out of taking him in, and wraps it all up with a bunch of THROAT PUNCHING. This, ladies and gentlemen, is a man with a very particular set of skills which, I imagine, involved him being even the slightest bit covert. If anyone should have an understanding as to what's going on, it's him. Setting stuff like this up was his job, and the past two films were spent establishing that it was a job he was pretty god damn stellar at. But here he is, doing a fine job of being an asshole to the people trying to find a killer. You're losing your touch, Liam.

I know that this review has been living on the negative side of the film, but there's good reason. At the end of the day, a film franchise that was once razor sharp has completely lost its edge. Everything that I liked about Taken 3 was a direct callback from the first film (ie. Liam hiding under a body to surprise oncoming bad guy). I truly hope that either this is the true death of the franchise, or that new life is somehow breathed into it. Trust me, if you're looking for an action film on par with Taken...well, just rewatch Taken. It's still great.

Knight Owl

Tuesday 20 January 2015

Knight Owl's Most Anticipated Films of 2015

So, 2014 happened.

Like most years, it had it's ups and downs but was better than the shit heap that was 2013 by leaps and bounds, so I'll take it. For me, though, one of the bigger disappointments was in the overall releases in film over the year. Just not a lot to talk about. There was an unlikely Marvel movie that had a talking tree, a talking raccoon, and a likeable Dave Bautista that obliterated the box office. That, and a bunch of sad sequels and reboots. And so, I threw myself into TV and Mass Effect, both of which are awesome. You can see this lack of interest in my posting here, as I barely put out one post a month. Sorry to my 20-ish loyal readers, but good news: 2015 is going to be so much better on this front.

New Years' Resolutions are a thing, and one of mine is to be more reliable with my bloggity-blogs. And this is the first step of that mile. The following is a collection of reasons I'm looking forward to the year to come. I hope to bring some gems to light to some, while being painfully obvious about others. There are also some notable films not on the list (cough*Jurassic World*cough), simply because I'm not convinced they'll be any good. I'm ever willing to be surprised though. So yeah, these are some films coming out in the next year that I look forward to, with a short reason behind each because an opinion is only worth the 'why' behind it. Drink it in, folks, and get used to it. I'm back.

February 6: Jupiter Ascending


Why?: This is a hopeful return to form for the Siblings Wachowski from their work on The Matrix, as it is their first original screenplay since then. It is also a rare original genre film in a world flooded with adaptations and sequels. It looks like a healthy blend of Sci-fi and Fantasy a la Star Wars, and I'm totally on the Channing Tatum bandwagon. Even if he's playing a blond, jacked-up elf.

February 13: Kingsman: The Secret Service



Why?: Director Matthew Vaughn opted out of guaranteed money with X-Men: DOFP to do this movie. There's got to be a reason for it. He's also responsible for my favourite X-film (First Class) as well as Kick-Ass and the incredibly underrated Stardust. The British spy film looks like the Bond film that the world has been missing since 007 lost his sense of humour, and Colin Firth is a damned genius.

March 6: Chappie


Why?: The Neill Blomkamp/Sharlto Copley combo hasn't failed me yet. District 9 is still one of the best genre films of the past decade, and Elysium was proof to me that Blomkamp wasn't the one hit wonder that so many others have proven to be. Where Chappie differs is in the film's apparent light-heartedness. The synopsis is essentially Wall-E as a live action film, but also with violence. Sold.

May 1: Avengers: Age of Ultron


Why?: Do I even have to write anything here? Avengers seemed like an impossible thing to pull off, and then it happened. It can't not happen again, especially now with so much behind it. The only problem is keeping expectations reasonable Avengers 2, and not just assuming it will be much lots better than its predecessor. But seriously, I'd be happy with maintaining the status quo and not have a “Revenge of the Fallen” situation on our hands.

May 15: Mad Max: Fury Road


Why?: The sheer look of it. Watching the trailer on youtube does not do it justice. This film looks god damn insane. Tom Hardy doesn't hurt, either. I'm usually very critical of sequels/reboots coming out so long after the last installment, as Beyond Thunderdome came out 30 years and several Mel Gibson breakdowns ago. But I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to give a shit while watching this movie.

June 19: Inside Out


Why?: It's Pixar, man! My blind faith in the Disney/Pixar collaborations has faded over the past few years since Brave came out, and I'm hoping that this adorable sounding film about the personifications of a child's emotions brings me back. Also, it stars Amy Poehler as 'Joy' and Lewis By God Black as 'Anger'. Best casting ever.

July 17: Ant-Man


Why?: Guardians of the Galaxy proved that a ridiculous concept for a comic book can be turned into a great, if not worth while and lucrative film. Ant-Man will be the lay-up to Guardians in this category, because it too is a goofy concept that only works in comics. Until it doesn't only work in comics.

October 16: Crimson Peak


Why?: Guillermo Del Toro is a genius with the supernatural/horror genre, and Crimson Peak is right in that wheel house. Pacific Rim was not the smash hit I think it deserved to be, but Del Toro's reputation in the genre world speaks for itself. Now that he's done helping out with the Hobbit films, I'm hoping to see more Pan's Labyrinth-like stuff, and Crimson Peak is a step in that direction.

November 6: Spectre


Why?: I didn't love Skyfall, but do like the Craig regime of Bond films. As stated earlier, I think the franchise has ditched the funny for the sake of the violence, and it's made me wishy-washy on my opinions of the films but they are still so fun to watch. Casino Royale is easily my favourite Bond film, and with Christophe Waltz in as the big bad my hopes are high for a similar parkour-laced action flick.

December 18: Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens


Why?: JUST YES.