I think the fact he went on a rampage (as a reaction to feeling he wasn't rewarded/acknowledged for being a good citizen all these years) can be seen as an expression of individualism. If he were a good citizen he would still keep his head down and work until retirement or death, but he rebelled against that through his little rampage.
That's - I suspect - a fantasy many in real life harbour. How many of us have looked around and wished we could say sod this, I'm leaving! / blow a hated place up / kill that rude manager / kick this queue jumper / perform a kung-fu kick to an irritating person's throat / the like?[
Going on a rampage is certainly an expression of individualism, no argument there. I'm saying that the outcome of the movie isn't an endorsement of rampant individuality; he is killed and life goes on without him having any impact on the ills of society he was rebelling against. It's the opposite, the film is an endorsement of the futility of rampant individualism. Life goes on without him, he doesn't change anything. Yes he shows individulism but it gets him nowhere. Had his actions triggered a change in soicety, then the film could have been seen as an endorsement of rampant individuality imo.
I thought Taken was atrocious. To be fair though I only made it through the first 30 mins or so before giving up. Maybe after that point it becomes excellent, but i'll never know.
Was the daughter character supposed to be mentally handicapped? She genuinely seemed to be acting like a 5 year old, and I wondered at the time whether she was supposed to be special needs or something?
I thought Taken was atrocious. To be fair though I only made it through the first 30 mins or so before giving up. Maybe after that point it becomes excellent, but i'll never know.
The first 30 mins are indeed pretty awful, but once Neeson touches down in Paris (just after the 30 mins mark - arf!) it gets a whole lot better and becomes what it is, i.e. a very persuasive bit of old-fashioned thick-ear that's smart enough to keep its plotting clear and motivation involving - two factors where many action thrillers can stumble. I like it a lot, though it didn't need sequels.
I loved it. I don't understand people who can't put logic aside when it comes to action movies, it wasn't trying to win any oscars so just enjoy it for what it is.
I agree
The film literally was a BALLS to the WALL of pure action proportions
for me , everything about taken , from the action , the filming , the east european setting etc and especially the script , felt like a steven segal film , it was like on the first day of filming steven segal didn't show up and the producers said '' i know , lets see if we can get liam neeson to give it a go''.
all the more better for it i might add , ,,,,,,,,,, but the whole thing doesn't work as a big budget classy actioner like die-hard etc,,,,,,,, it just completely smells of a steven segal project that improved 10fold for having liam in it instead , and yet is still a shit film . , the 2nd one is even worse.
the best way of describing it is , you cant pour custard over dog shit and still call it pudding
I am not saying it is bad, but I felt it relied on annoying cliches and cheaply directed action scenes. Here are my reasons;
- Liam Neeson some how manages to have super human strength and instincts that allow him to shoot and beat up multiple men at one time. It does not matter how much training you had, that is just next to impossible.
- There were too many times in the movie where he should have died, but was lucky enough to be saved from external factors (i.e. broken pipe with handcuff).
- A lot of the movie relied on sheer luck and convenience.. Like from the beginning where he some how manages to find a piece of hair, then finds peter, runs away from the police without arrest and so much more
- He dodged so many bullets...
I just cannot enjoy the movie as much, when it annoys me so much lol. Does anyone else share this feeling..?
If you analyse any action film for realism in this way then you're likely to spoil it for yourself. They're meant to be over the top, the hero is meant to be indestructible - that's what makes them an action hero. It's a shame you can't just enjoy it for what it is, but that is down to you and not the film.
Going on a rampage is certainly an expression of individualism, no argument there. I'm saying that the outcome of the movie isn't an endorsement of rampant individuality; he is killed and life goes on without him having any impact on the ills of society he was rebelling against. It's the opposite, the film is an endorsement of the futility of rampant individualism. Life goes on without him, he doesn't change anything. Yes he shows individulism but it gets him nowhere. Had his actions triggered a change in soicety, then the film could have been seen as an endorsement of rampant individuality imo.
You might as well say the heroic/sympathetic protagonist's death is an endorsement of the futility of heroism or righteousness when nothing significant changes in society as a result. Such as Fallen, The Great Silence, 300, Gladiator, Get Carter and the like. I think we're actually agreeing on the same point, but we're coming from different angles.
Everything a protagonist does - let it be for right or wrong reasons - can be futile. This suggests the only thing that really matters is the process between A and B. It doesn't matter if the protagonist takes/saves lives, or whether he survives as the outcome. What matters is how well the audience relate to the protagonist - or rather, the anti-hero or villainous protagonist - and his reasons for doing what he does.
I also think the majority in the audience already understands Foster (Michael Douglas) won't survive his rampage. They won't be happy if he does survive because it breaks one of film rules - albeit their suspension of belief - as they know people like Foster rarely survive in real life. So they allow that kind of unthinkable to develop, as in "All right, go ahead; do all things we secretly wish we could do in real life, but only as long as you won't get away with it, which justifies our refusal to do these things in real life." We see this from the general reaction to Sons of Anarchy.
Until the inevitable, some in the audience indulge their fantasy by living through Foster's rage and/or rampage. One could argue that when someone says "****, yeah!" to something Foster says or does, this is an endorsement of rampant individuality.
Was the daughter character supposed to be mentally handicapped? She genuinely seemed to be acting like a 5 year old, and I wondered at the time whether she was supposed to be special needs or something?
I'm wondering if you're mentally handicapped, seeing how you couldn't even tell whether the daughter was 'special needs'. Could you try be less insulting, please?
You might as well say the heroic/sympathetic protagonist's death is an endorsement of the futility of heroism or righteousness when nothing significant changes in society as a result. Such as Fallen, The Great Silence, 300, Gladiator, Get Carter and the like. I think we're actually agreeing on the same point, but we're coming from different angles.
I'm really only focusing on the coments the earlier poster made that idea of one man making a difference such as in Taken, Die Hard and Falling Down are endorsements of rampant individualism. I'm focusing on that point and those specific films, and dissagreing that Falling Down is an endorsement of rampant individualisim. Taken and Die Hard endorse individuality, Falling Down does the opposite. In Die Hard (and Taken) the protagonist achieves his goals and makes a difference, the film is endorsing Individuality. It's saying, "You played by your own rules, you ignored the conventional rules, saved the day and became a hero, you're the man!" In Falling Down the protagonist doesn't achieve anything and makes no difference. That is not endorsing individuality. It's saying "Conform, follow the rules of society, if you try to rebel you will be squashed"
I think you're getting too hung up on the changing of society angle. In terms of endorsing or invalidating individuality, how far reaching the consequences of the character's actions are is only relevant to his/her objectives. In Falling Down, the character was rebelling against society...he failed to make a difference. In Die Hard the protagonist's aim was to stop the terrorists, he achieved his goal.
I'm wondering if you're mentally handicapped, seeing how you couldn't even tell whether the daughter was 'special needs'. Could you try be less insulting, please?
Ahh ok thanks for the clarification. Just a badly written and appallingly acted character then. Also, so sorry to have hurt your tender feelings you PC plonker.
Comments
Going on a rampage is certainly an expression of individualism, no argument there. I'm saying that the outcome of the movie isn't an endorsement of rampant individuality; he is killed and life goes on without him having any impact on the ills of society he was rebelling against. It's the opposite, the film is an endorsement of the futility of rampant individualism. Life goes on without him, he doesn't change anything. Yes he shows individulism but it gets him nowhere. Had his actions triggered a change in soicety, then the film could have been seen as an endorsement of rampant individuality imo.
"Taken 2" Empire review LINK
I still haven't seen past that part!
Why is that?
Was the daughter character supposed to be mentally handicapped? She genuinely seemed to be acting like a 5 year old, and I wondered at the time whether she was supposed to be special needs or something?
The film literally was a BALLS to the WALL of pure action proportions
Taken was what Die Hard 4 should have been
all the more better for it i might add , ,,,,,,,,,, but the whole thing doesn't work as a big budget classy actioner like die-hard etc,,,,,,,, it just completely smells of a steven segal project that improved 10fold for having liam in it instead , and yet is still a shit film . , the 2nd one is even worse.
the best way of describing it is , you cant pour custard over dog shit and still call it pudding
If you analyse any action film for realism in this way then you're likely to spoil it for yourself. They're meant to be over the top, the hero is meant to be indestructible - that's what makes them an action hero. It's a shame you can't just enjoy it for what it is, but that is down to you and not the film.
You might as well say the heroic/sympathetic protagonist's death is an endorsement of the futility of heroism or righteousness when nothing significant changes in society as a result. Such as Fallen, The Great Silence, 300, Gladiator, Get Carter and the like. I think we're actually agreeing on the same point, but we're coming from different angles.
Everything a protagonist does - let it be for right or wrong reasons - can be futile. This suggests the only thing that really matters is the process between A and B. It doesn't matter if the protagonist takes/saves lives, or whether he survives as the outcome. What matters is how well the audience relate to the protagonist - or rather, the anti-hero or villainous protagonist - and his reasons for doing what he does.
I also think the majority in the audience already understands Foster (Michael Douglas) won't survive his rampage. They won't be happy if he does survive because it breaks one of film rules - albeit their suspension of belief - as they know people like Foster rarely survive in real life. So they allow that kind of unthinkable to develop, as in "All right, go ahead; do all things we secretly wish we could do in real life, but only as long as you won't get away with it, which justifies our refusal to do these things in real life." We see this from the general reaction to Sons of Anarchy.
Until the inevitable, some in the audience indulge their fantasy by living through Foster's rage and/or rampage. One could argue that when someone says "****, yeah!" to something Foster says or does, this is an endorsement of rampant individuality.
I'm wondering if you're mentally handicapped, seeing how you couldn't even tell whether the daughter was 'special needs'. Could you try be less insulting, please?
I'm really only focusing on the coments the earlier poster made that idea of one man making a difference such as in Taken, Die Hard and Falling Down are endorsements of rampant individualism. I'm focusing on that point and those specific films, and dissagreing that Falling Down is an endorsement of rampant individualisim. Taken and Die Hard endorse individuality, Falling Down does the opposite. In Die Hard (and Taken) the protagonist achieves his goals and makes a difference, the film is endorsing Individuality. It's saying, "You played by your own rules, you ignored the conventional rules, saved the day and became a hero, you're the man!" In Falling Down the protagonist doesn't achieve anything and makes no difference. That is not endorsing individuality. It's saying "Conform, follow the rules of society, if you try to rebel you will be squashed"
I think you're getting too hung up on the changing of society angle. In terms of endorsing or invalidating individuality, how far reaching the consequences of the character's actions are is only relevant to his/her objectives. In Falling Down, the character was rebelling against society...he failed to make a difference. In Die Hard the protagonist's aim was to stop the terrorists, he achieved his goal.
Ahh ok thanks for the clarification. Just a badly written and appallingly acted character then. Also, so sorry to have hurt your tender feelings you PC plonker.
God knows what people will make of Taken 3! Lol.
In fact, if it wasn't for Mother of Tears then it would be dead last out of about 300 films.