12a is pretty much a 15 but the cinemas don't like shitty teenagers mucking up their cinema's so they invented 12a so that the teenagers have to take their mum or dad......or even a random tramp on the streets.
Liam Neeson has become so lazy and uninspiring with his movie choices in recent years. He seems like a nice bloke but his acting career deserves all the bashing it gets. He has become another Nicholas Cage. No one takes him seriously anymore as an actor, and his films may make a lot of money at the box office, but it doesn't make them great or memorable.
I liked Taken 2 but it didn't measure up to the first film and had obviously been watered down to allow for a 12 certificate to encourage a broader audience, as I said though I still found it very entertaining, it was very similar to the first in terms of plot but it offered pretty much what it said on the tin so you couldn't complain really.
I did think there was really nowhere for this film series to go after the second but if they've moved in a slightly different direction that's fine. I don't expect the third film to be better than the first and it doesn't surprise me that again it's been tamed down to allow younger viewers, this may displease a lot of people but ultimately it's all about what the film does at the box office so they take whatever steps needed to maximise viewing numbers, I can appreciate that.
I still expect the third instalment to provide a entertaining action packed movie.
Watched this today. Well what can i say apart from a very average action film. When i say average, i mean VERY average.
All the way throughout the movie i was just thinking Neeson you're getting too old for this shit. It just doesn't work anymore with him. Forest Whitaker spends all his time staring at things! Like that makes him smart? Lol.
It's not out and out terrible, it just isn't very good. It's Taken by numbers. I hated Taken 2 with a passion but my god it's better than this. At least the violence in Taken 2 seemed brutal, in this it's just boring. How he killed the villain i have no idea, there was no wound on his body or any blood i could see so i don't know how he actually died! People get stabbed, shot and cut but you don't see it. There's no blood in the film at all.
The action and violence is the weakest out of all 3. The film is also the weakest entry out of the franchise. Please let this be the last.
Ergh, this will be shite. Cutting it from a 15 to a 12 means it wasnt exactly aiming high to begin with. Bored with this new wave of tame, clean action movies. Dredd was such an amazing film only because it understood that the best action films tend to go over the top with the action, thats its hallmark.
Quality wise I thought this fell somewhere in between the first (9/10) & second (5/10) films.
The story wasn't bad and the stakes were relatively high this time around but although action & fight sequences were reasonably plentiful throughout they were admittedly hampered by the distributors targeting a lower rating.
Not a classic by any means but it did more than enough to get a 7/10 from me...
Taken 3 was terrible and worse than the second film!
It was an action film without any blood.Some of deaths made me laugh at how stupid they looked as its amazing how you can blow someone head off without any blood
The last time I was this bored in the cinema was the last Transformers film and I will be suprised if I see a worse film this year!
Opening day gross of $14.7 million in the US and on course for a $38 million weekend gross. So clearly people haven't been put off by the terrible reviews.
I'm still to see it, but I'm incredibly disappointed about it being so diluted to attract a younger audience. It's already been defined as a cash-grab, and this cut just emphasises it further. Absolutely ridiculous. Hopefully they'll release a darker version on DVD.
Just got back from seeing it and absolutely loved it. Really entertaining from start to finish. I have no idea why it is getting bad reviews. It is a perfectly good action film. The first film is the best one but I would say this is better than the second one.
I can accept plot holes in outrageous movies but this just took the piss.
The no blood thing as mentioned above was stupid. Throat slit? No blood. Shot in the head? No blood. Guy shot twice whilst topless, no blood just 2 small holes. I don't want over the top gore but come on!
The way he was framed was ridiculous. After seeing the CCTV they should have realised he was innocent and left him to it. Plus the call from the witness heard her screaming he is killing me yet she has no marks on her body and had her throat cut. Surely that must seem dodgy.
I can accept plot holes in outrageous movies but this just took the piss.
The no blood thing as mentioned above was stupid. Throat slit? No blood. Shot in the head? No blood. Guy shot twice whilst topless, no blood just 2 small holes. I don't want over the top gore but come on!
The way he was framed was ridiculous. After seeing the CCTV they should have realised he was innocent and left him to it. Plus the call from the witness heard her screaming he is killing me yet she has no marks on her body and had her throat cut. Surely that must seem dodgy.
It was just watered down nonsense.
There's another thread about Asian movies and one of the comments I made is about the brutality in Asian martial arts/action movies.
They're not made for the kiddies (although I reckon teens would enjoy them if they can handle subtitles) and even though sometimes OTT it's OTT in the right way.
Saw this last night and agree that while not in the class of Taken 1 it was watchable nonsense.
Very corny and predictable, but some quite good action scenes and lines.
The one thing that struck me though was,much as I like him,how old Liam looked!
Not the worst film I've seen and at 100 minutes long it didn't drag.But certainly no classic and probably not recommend it to anyone other than a staunch Liam Neeson fan.
Comments
12a is pretty much a 15 but the cinemas don't like shitty teenagers mucking up their cinema's so they invented 12a so that the teenagers have to take their mum or dad......or even a random tramp on the streets.
Yep. Will force myself through another 2 hours of nonsense then. Joy.
Did he really do that video himself? If so I take my hat off. Love ir
Ha ha, brilliant!
I did think there was really nowhere for this film series to go after the second but if they've moved in a slightly different direction that's fine. I don't expect the third film to be better than the first and it doesn't surprise me that again it's been tamed down to allow younger viewers, this may displease a lot of people but ultimately it's all about what the film does at the box office so they take whatever steps needed to maximise viewing numbers, I can appreciate that.
I still expect the third instalment to provide a entertaining action packed movie.
All the way throughout the movie i was just thinking Neeson you're getting too old for this shit. It just doesn't work anymore with him. Forest Whitaker spends all his time staring at things! Like that makes him smart? Lol.
It's not out and out terrible, it just isn't very good. It's Taken by numbers. I hated Taken 2 with a passion but my god it's better than this. At least the violence in Taken 2 seemed brutal, in this it's just boring. How he killed the villain i have no idea, there was no wound on his body or any blood i could see so i don't know how he actually died! People get stabbed, shot and cut but you don't see it. There's no blood in the film at all.
The action and violence is the weakest out of all 3. The film is also the weakest entry out of the franchise. Please let this be the last.
The story wasn't bad and the stakes were relatively high this time around but although action & fight sequences were reasonably plentiful throughout they were admittedly hampered by the distributors targeting a lower rating.
Not a classic by any means but it did more than enough to get a 7/10 from me...
And in this one, we needed to see more of the Baddies.....first 20 mins too, was very boring - the action, when it kicked in, was good but not great.
7/10
It was an action film without any blood.Some of deaths made me laugh at how stupid they looked as its amazing how you can blow someone head off without any blood
The last time I was this bored in the cinema was the last Transformers film and I will be suprised if I see a worse film this year!
3/10
I can accept plot holes in outrageous movies but this just took the piss.
The no blood thing as mentioned above was stupid. Throat slit? No blood. Shot in the head? No blood. Guy shot twice whilst topless, no blood just 2 small holes. I don't want over the top gore but come on!
The way he was framed was ridiculous. After seeing the CCTV they should have realised he was innocent and left him to it. Plus the call from the witness heard her screaming he is killing me yet she has no marks on her body and had her throat cut. Surely that must seem dodgy.
It was just watered down nonsense.
Let's not worry about all those murders he committed eh Forest
They're not made for the kiddies (although I reckon teens would enjoy them if they can handle subtitles) and even though sometimes OTT it's OTT in the right way.
http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/liam-neeson-is-willing-to-return-for-taken-4-490
Very corny and predictable, but some quite good action scenes and lines.
The one thing that struck me though was,much as I like him,how old Liam looked!
Not the worst film I've seen and at 100 minutes long it didn't drag.But certainly no classic and probably not recommend it to anyone other than a staunch Liam Neeson fan.