Skip to main content

When a dog has a bone the last thing you want to do is take it from him.


Taken 2
(2012)

Liam Neeson’s creepily-obsessive, death-dealing, ex-CIA dad returns in a sequel just as horribly written as the first, but bereft of Pierre Morel’s crisp action staging. Replacing him is the ludicrously surnamed Olivier Megaton, who previously fouled up Transporter 3 (following Louis Letterier’s agreeably OTT second installment).

Megaton cuts the action scenes for maximum shakycam confusion, with the fight sequences in particular suffering. On the plus side, the film is short (even in its extended form) and there’s no pretence at plot twists or turns. This is a straightforward revenge/capture/escape affair; as it is, each new scene piles on the illogicality of the premise so you don’t want the scriptwriters confusing themselves further.

The most inventive sequence has Neeson instructing blubby daughter Kim (Maggie Grace; pushing 30, still learning to drive and victim of the most disturbing case of fatherly overprotectiveness seen in many a year) in how to find the location where he and ex-wife Famke Janssen are held captive (this time he’s taken; see the twist there?) It’s still not up to all that much, thanks to the Megaton bomb, however. Anyone recalling Janssen’s thigh manoeuvres in Goldeneye will be disappointed to see her consigned to such a nothing part, but I guess she has to eat. I had a vague hope that Grace would need to become a kick-ass action heroine, going the whole hog and rescuing daddy, but alas she continues in shrieking mode throughout.

The popularity of Taken was slightly mystifying, other than it fulfilled a Charles Bronson-esque wish-fulfillment fantasy. Neeson’s Bryan Mills had carte blanche to wipe out those dirty foreign sex-traffickers; whether his rage was actually borne of the thought that someone else might do to daddy’s little girl what he wished to do himself is open to inferred subtext. Luc Besson is certainly no stranger to devising scenarios suggestive of inappropriate relationships between men and girls (Leon).

Notably, the original film opened in the US later than the UK, where it did little business and received dismissive reviews (rightly so); it only developed a following on DVD. I’m unsure if this means we need American audiences to define our tastes or not…

What gets me is that I could half believe the whole thing is a huge joke; Taken 2 repeats, almost note-for-note (well, there’s no horse, but there is a hugely important driving lesson), Bryan’s emotionally ill-equipped fumbling for connection with Kim. And it’s written and performed with such incompetence you do wonder if they’re gently taking the piss out of the viewer. In particular, the dialogue is astoundingly tin-eared yet all-the-more mirthful for that (Bryan’s undaunted desire to get Kim to read a guide book on Istanbul is played so straight you’d hope Neeson was verging on corpsing at any moment).

Neeson is horrified that his daughter has a boyfriend, so tracks him down. He looks a bit weasely (although he appears not to be pushing Grace into doing the nasty, no doubt sensitive to her traumatic experience in being nearly proffered to unsavoury un-Americans for their delectation) but is all-but forgotten about for the rest of the film. I’m hoping he’ll be revealed as a covert Albanian super-villain in Taken 3. It’s inevitable that the only male in Kim’s life must be her father.

Neeson stumbles through the framing scenes like a blind man, but it’s unclear if he plain cannot believe the quality of the script or if this is a carefully-calibrated performance that testifies to Bryan’s unease outside of his comfort zone of eye-gauging and neck-breaking. Either way, Neeson seems borderline comatose when he isn’t bringing pain. His scenes with his best buddies show no effort on the part of the writers, unless they are cleverly drawing attention to the banality of such interludes and their essential irrelevance, other than to cover the base of “the protagonist has pals”. Leland Orser, in particular, deserves better material. And D.B. Sweeney is now so far off anyone’s radar that he amasses about a minute of screen time. There’s a moment at the end where Brian’s cracking a laugh and he’s not fooling anyone. But who knows, perhaps this is the genius of Luc Besson at work? Unintentionally funny shit is better than straight-out tedious shit.

If I were to discover that Besson and Kamen are huge fans of Aunt Julia and the Scriptwriter, it would at least go some way to confirm that there were humorous intentions at the heart of Bryan Miller’s struggles. As with Peter Falk’s character in that film, the choice of Albanians as the villains is almost charming in its arbitrary xenophobia. Who could possibly be offended at making Albanians villains, least of all Albanians themselves? After all no one knows anything about them. Except, on the basis of the Takens, that they have a penchant for robbing the US of its virginal daughters and an unquenchable loyalty to their kin. 

There might have been some potential in the latter plot point, as Rade Serbedzija’s doting father doesn’t care what his son did to deserve Bryan’s wrath; he was his son! But Serbedzija’s character is so irredeemably evil there is no room for discussion on the rights and wrongs of Mill’s measures. Particularly when the uber-Albanian promises that all manner of unspeakable treatment awaits Kim. Serbedzija has become somewhat ubiquitous, popping up all over the place in supporting roles (he was an Eastern European villain in 24 at one point, inevitably), and good as he always is there’s nothing he can do with this part.

In terms of giving the audience what they want, possibly it wasn’t the best idea of Besson and co-writer Robert Mark Kamen (between them responsible for the likes of Tranporters, District 13s, Taxis, Lockout and Colombiana) to lock up Bryan for the first 50 minutes. If you do, his vengeance better be pretty damn good when he breaks loose. Which it isn’t.

And, while one would be foolish to expect much in the way of plot logic in a film like this, it’s nevertheless worth noting that Taken 2 consistently beggars belief. Kim throws grenades randomly, in the middle of a bustling city, to attract her father’s attention. A high-speed chase – with learner Kim driving, of course - to the US Embassy is bizarrely free of consequence (not least the time it takes the fully-armed guards outside to reach Bryan and Kim once they have broken in – we never actually see them taken into custody). Bryan’s climactic “big fight” is with a tubby Albanian wearing a shell suit, who stands a good foot shorter than Neeson. Perhaps Megaton’s only option was to render the fight incomprehensible.

So, roll on Taken 3. Laughter is good for the soul.

**

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?