ads

Slider[Style1]

Style2




Actually, I really wasn't hating on the movie at first. It was just being like any other standard, modern action flick and to me it seemed that the only reason why people weren't as taken by it (no pun intended) was because it was taking a sort of a different approach this time around and it was being less straightforward with all of its violence and story. But no, as the movie progressed it started to become obvious that this movie was truly being not only less good than its predecessor but also definitely lesser than the average genre attempt.

And I have to be honest; It wasn't like the original movie was being a classic or perfect one to begin with. The main reason why it still became as popular and respected as it did was because it was being way better than it had the right to be. I mean, it had a very standard story that it however managed to use to its own advantage. It took a very raw and straightforward approach to things, especially its action and violence. It was a very bold movie, in which Liam Neeson also suddenly got noticed as a genuine and respectable action star. But all those things aside, it also was still being a very simple movie, of which I barely remember anything of, only 4 years after its release.

This sequel is trying to do a couple of things differently, though in essence it still features a similar type of concept. I think it's a positive thing this movie tried to be different and not just a rehash of the first movie but it unfortunately wasn't anything that worked out well for the movie.

A big problem was its pacing. Normally it sounds like a good thing for an action movie to have a good quick pace to it and be a quite short one as well but this is a movie that most definitely should had been at least 15 minutes longer. Instead, everything feels rushed and things just happen too fast. Literly every time you walk out of the room for 5 minutes and return after that, the situation for its main characters have drastically changed. It doesn't feel good or natural the way the story transpires and how rapidly certain events follow up on each other.

And everything that happens in this movie is also far from being all that great or involving. No, you won't ever care very much for the Liam Neeson character and the movie feels like a very shallow one with all of its emotions and characters. There is more depth to a Chuck Norris flick, so to speak.

A thing that this movie also really could had used was a more visible main villain. This is the type of movie and story that could had used a 'James Bond' type of evil villain in it but the villain in this one is only clearly visible in the beginning and at the end of the movie and mostly does just the talking.

It was also weird to see how the violence worked out in this one, or rather said, how it didn't. This movie in no way ever felt like a raw or extreme one. Instead, it was being rather tame all and I don't even remember many people dying in this, which is an odd thing to note, knowing how raw and straightforward the first movie was being with all of its violence.

But really, I mostly watched this movie without having "Taken" constantly in the back of my mind. I judged "Taken 2" as fair and objectively as possible as a standalone movie but I just have to say that it's a far from great genre movie, with too many flaws and weaknesses in it to consider this a watchable enough one.

5/10

Watch trailer

About Frank Veenstra

Watches movies...writes about them...and that's it for now.
«
Next
Newer Post
»
Previous
Older Post

No comments:

Post a Comment


Top