Oct 11: Taken 2

"In Istanbul, retired CIA operative Bryan Mills and his wife are taken hostage by the father of a kidnapper Mills killed while rescuing his daughter."

Directed by: Olivier Megaton, Rated: PG-13, 91 minutes

Back in 2008, the world got a different look at Liam Neeson. We always knew he was a great actor and an immortal badass but with Taken, we witnessed the man become his own breed of action star, kicking more ass than we ever thought possible. It was a surprise hit, coming out in January, a month where most movies get released to die (as a side note, with The Grey this year, Neeson is easily the King of January). I remember coming out of the theater knowing I had just witnessed something incredible. The action was tight and the plot was simple enough to keep things moving. Four years later we're again given the chance to see Neeson kick ass in Taken 2. Unfortunately, it fails to deliver any of the excitement of the first film.

Even gods can fall...

Seemingly only months after the first film, Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) is on a mission (I thought he was retired?) in Istanbul. His ex-wife (Famke Janssen) and daughter (Maggie Grace) surprise him on the trip, hoping to have a nice little broken-family vacation. Unfortunately for the family, the father (Rade Serbedzija) of one of the men Mills brutally murdered in the first movie is seeking out revenge for his son as well as the others who were killed. So Papa Sex-Traffiker has Mills and his wife kidnapped and brought to some facility for some fun and torture. Of course, Mills' perpetually 16 year old daughter, Kim, manages to evade capture and through a series of random grenade tosses and drawing circles on maps, she helps save her father. Once the Kraken's released, Mills needs to track his ex-wife down and save her, while killing everyone and everything in his way.

Maggie Grace is 29. Not 17. We're not that stupid, Hollywood. 

There's so much to complain about when it comes to Taken 2. After four years since the last film, you'd assume more effort would be put into this sequel. The film feels incomplete and rushed, with so many scenes that just don't make any sense. The action is also very weak and the camerawork doesn't let Neeson shine as the action star we love him as. It's jumping around too much and you can never really focus in on what's happening, leaving much to be desired. The plot itself is also recycled as much as a plot can be and you're left wondering why a family that just suffered such a close-call tragedy in the first film could venture out of their own homes, let alone an entirely different country. Upon its announcement, I knew the film would struggle in the plot department, but I hoped that if it could at least duplicate the first film's style and action, I'd easily forgive that fact. Taken 2 does not deliver the goods and feels very watered down. 

Speeding blind through the crowded streets of Istanbul while daddy shoots bad guys is apparently the only way to practice for a driving test. F**k that subplot...

Even with it's flaws, it's always nice to see Neeson in a role that gets him even more attention. This is a guy I've loved for so many years, even turning him into my fake-cinematic father figure (I know we all have), so seeing him in a successful franchise is good. However, I know he's better than Taken 2 and I really wish he forced the film to go into another direction. On previous episodes of the As You Watch Podcast, I've mentioned that I wish the franchise would turn more into a buddy-ex-military-special-ops kind of film, where Mills teams up with his ex-CIA friends that he hangs out with in the first film (yes, they do pop up in Taken 2 but nothing really happens with them). If you must, go see Taken 2, but go into it knowing that it's a huge disappointment. Mills' specific set of skills take a back seat in this very lackluster sequel. Here's hoping that the inevitable Tak3n turns stuff around and gives us the proper sequel we deserve. 

The Good:

a soft addition to Neeson's career, with just a couple (and I mean a couple) moments where he kicks a lot of ass

The Bad:

the script is lazy, with weak action and an ending so laughable you hate life

The Ugly:

camerawork and editing that let you see nothing going on, wondering if a child spinning around in circles was given the camera

Overall: 5.5/10

Trailer:

July 8: Lockout

"A man wrongly convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage against the U.S. is offered his freedom if he can rescue the president's daughter from an outer space prison taken over by violent inmates."

Directed by: James Mather & Stephen St. Leger, Rated: PG-13, 95 minutes

I have always been a fan of the great Guy Pearce. L.A Confidential, Memento, Ravenous, and The Count of Monte Cristo are all terrific films. Unfortunately, in nearly every one of them (minus, perhaps, Memento), Pearce flies under the radar. Simply put, he's one of those great actors that's never used enough and turns out to be quite the treat when utilized. Enter Lockout, a movie that had been on my radar after I first heard about it's announcement. Written and produced by Luc Besson and starring Guy Pearce sounded like a badass idea. Unfortunately, upon release, Lockout was welcomed with mostly negative reviews and I reluctantly decided to skip it in theaters and wait for the DVD. Sadly, Lockout proves to be quite the mess and, while my faith in Besson has been tested, my "allegiance" to Pearce still holds strong. Sure, it still could be much better, but it's not at the fault of the star, but of the writers and directors. 

Monsieur Besson, why do you have to be so inconsistent? 

Guy Pearce plays Snow, a man accused of a crime he didn't commit and is sentenced to thirty years in a maximum security prison. However, as this is set in the "near future", this prison is actually resting in space, orbiting Earth. When the US President's daughter Emilie (Maggie Grace) is taken hostage by 500 released convicts (who just happen to take over when she's visiting), Snow is hired to rescue her in exchange for a pardon. Thus, Lockout follows Snow and Emilie's attempt to escape, while being chased by the violent Alex (Vincent Regan, the captain from 300), his psychotic brother Hydell (Joseph Gilgun, This is England), and their increasingly insane prisoner posse. Sure, Lockout's plot isn't necessarily the strongest idea, but it's a great setting for a hell of a lot of shit to go down. Sadly, it never really gets enough momentum to go in any direction (be it action or sci-fi) and, while the film is clearly reminiscent of the 80s "classic" Escape from New York (and more recently, Taken), it never quite stands out on its own. The already weak plot finds a way to fizzle out and, towards the end, too many subplots take hold of the story and try to change it into something smarter than it already is, rather then letting it simply be a straight-up action movie with great one-liners. 

The opening credits scene does a damn good job at introducing Snow. 

The best part of the Lockout is Guy Pearce and the two villain brothers. Pearce is perfect in the role, and it's almost as though his character was written for an entirely different film, as if he just accidentally wandered on set and said his lines. Practically every line he utters just oozes sarcastic badass, even if the writers tried a little too hard to make him like Bruce Willis or Kurt Russell. Personally, I'd love to see another movie feature Pearce's Snow, in a completely different setting with much better directors at the helm. Moving onto the villains, Regan and Gilgun are both pretty damn good in their respective roles. Regan plays the quieter, smarter, and even stronger brother Alex, while Gilgun plays the sinister, over-the-top psychotic, and scrawny little rat, Hydell. The two don't necessarily compliment each other all too well, and any brotherly love ceases to exist the moment Hydell first f**ks up, but as two separate bad guys, they add their own to the film. Lockout is a fine example of how great actors can save weak roles. Sadly, when everything and everyone around them can't do the same, it leads to quite the messy picture.

Without even seeing the movie, you can tell this little fella's a bad guy. 

I'd recommend Lockout strictly for those three performances alone. Just keep in mind that you're not going into some genius bit of storytelling with life-changing themes or epic fight sequences. The film also could look a whole lot better, as each of the very few fight scenes and shootouts are edited to death, with very little focus retained on what is actually going on. Some of the special effects look disgusting, especially in the beginning, and a lot of it felt like I was watching a cut-scene in a video game. Nonetheless, Lockout proves mildly entertaining and while I am glad I did not waste my money and time seeing it in theaters, I do not regret watching it at home. 

The Good:

Guy Pearce being awesome, with great performances from Vincent Regan and Joseph Gilgun as well. 

The Bad:

those same great performances that are thrown into a grab-bag of blah, with piss-poor directing, bad editing, and medicore special effects

The Ugly:

realizing that we may never again have the action stars we had in the 80s and 90s

Overall: 6.3/10

Trailer:

Re-watch? Maybe

Buy? No