اختطاف

Alright, I watched the movie about a few weeks ago and after seeing its ratings on IMDb I was expecting a really good action movie with good acting, a wholesome plot and obviously some amazing action. An 8.0 rating on IMDb means it's equal to movies like 'The Matrix' or 'Die Hard'. Admittedly I'm quite a big action fan, and I do understand the concept of it not being 'realistic'. That's what films are. They're stories. Name me one movie that is completely realistic with no fantasy elements included and I'll give you a million bucks. However when I saw this movie I was bored, embarrassed during some scenes at how atrocious it was, and I found it to be completely overrated. The action was slow, the cinematography was laughable, the acting from everyone except Neeson was very sub-par and I just felt disappointed. This isn't the action movie that would start a second renaissance, of course not. That's not what I was expecting. I didn't think it'd be anything more than a tour-de-force action film that was pure entertainment and silliness wrapped into a satisfying bubble. And honestly all I got was another second-rate action movie that's not even worth the time and effort to watch unless you're an extreme fan of the genre. I mean, during the scene where Neeson runs to the boat to get his daughter... the camera cuts so many times and there's about a million shots of his car in different angles that I completely forgot what was going on. That's just an example of the many things I thought brought the movie down. I really don't see how this film deserves the recognition it has received. I've read the forums and people say "well it's an action flick... you're not supposed to take it seriously!" To that I say, why isn't Meet the Spartans in the IMDb 250? "Well, it's a parody flick, you're not supposed to take it seriously"? The same principal applies. I'm not trying to say the film isn't enjoyable because that's down to tastes. I'm just saying firstly; film technicalities (i.e. the direction, photography, musical score) were atrocious and anyone with a basic knowledge of film and its production will recognize this. Secondly; the acting of the support cast quite bad. Not Troll 2 bad, but still not something you'd expect to see in a Liam Neeson movie. More like something you'd see in one of Arnold Schwarzenegger's movies from the 80's. Thirdly; the directing was very amateurish. I felt this constant need to find Pierre Morel and hit him every time the scenes went on too long. He'd be extremely bruised right now. I really wonder how the screenplay went for this movie, too. I'm guessing the writers/artists got very proud of their ability to draw and started getting excited during the car scenes, resulting in about 200 frames of a car from as many different angles as possible. And the director just went "Hey, why not? It's action, right?". I haven't mention the plausibility of this movie, because anyone here could go to the LOTR forums and start asking how some old dude with a beard has magical powers, or why some big dude explodes when he loses his ring, and we'd all be stumped for argument other than to say the same lines I've seen being used here. But for god's sake this is a generic action movie, not an Oscar-deserving masterpiece. If someone can tell me how I'm wrong, why this movie DOES deserve its rating and explain to me what I missed, I will be very grateful. For anyone who thinks I'm talking nonsense - check out http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/taken/?critic=creamcrop and see how they rated this movie. These people are professional critics...

To save you the time in either watching this film or reading my critique of it, here is a brief summary: This film is the worst film I have ever seen. This film is atrocious. This film is so unbelievably awful that all the writers, directors, producers and cast that worked on it should be sent to the Hague and tried for crimes against humanity. In the first chapter of this film, three facts are established: 1. There exists a man. He's pretty tough. 2. He loves his daughter very much. 3. Aforementioned daughter is going to Paris. In order to establish these three facts, which any competent writer or director could do in about ten minutes, the film takes over half an hour, quite possibly the most laborious half an hour in cinematic history. As soon as the daughter reaches Paris, she is of course kidnapped. Literally AS SOON. So there is a sudden escalation in pace that doesn't leave the watcher thinking "WOW, I didn't see that coming" or "Wo, what a skillful escalation in pace" but simply "OH Jesus Christ SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD THANK GOD THAT SOMETHING FINALLY HAPPENED!" This sudden plot "twist" of course makes the liberal mother and fat, short stereotypically wealthy stepfather look villainous and the absurdly-paranoid-to-the-degree-that-he-should-seek-professional-help father, who believes his daughter is safer in Los Angeles than Paris, becomes the all-knowing hero. And of course the CIA can detect from a tiny and poor-quality voice sample the hometown of any speaker. So we learn that the daughter has been kidnapped by an Albanian gang who intend to sell her into sex slavery. This is of course the point where the film ceases to be just bad and becomes outright immoral: people trafficking with the intent of prostitution is a real and tangible problem in Europe and indeed all over the world (if you want to see an actually worthy film that deals with the issue I suggest "Eastern Promises", "Dirty Pretty Things" or "Spare Parts"). Making it the subject of a Hollywood action film in which the American hero overcomes all the odds to rescue his daughter is insulting to those women who have actually been in this situation. Particularly appalling is the scant disregard that our "hero" shows for the wellbeing of any of the other women. It left me questioning "is it supposed to be ironic? morally ambiguous? No, it's just a film that chose a very sensitive and inappropriate subject for a formula-produced action movie. As the film continues we are given more and more ridiculous scenes that insult our intelligence. One particularly stupid oversight comes when the hero walks into a brothel posing as a Parisian police officer and the villains show absolutely no suspicion of his being impostor, despite the fact that he talks exclusively in English. And the most ridiculously appalling scene comes at the very end. The girl is safe as she returns from Paris to Los Angeles. Finally, back in America, where everyone's safe! In spite of murdering and torturing so many people and shooting the wife of a leading Parisian police officer, our hero steps off the plane with absolutely no problems. Despite her best friend's death and a terrible ordeal, the girl is happy and shows no signs of trauma whatsoever. And in spite of the thousands of women who suffer in sex slavery every day of their lives, a plight which this film does absolutely nothing to enlighten the world on, we are made to believe this is a happy ending. This film is an insult to my continent and my intelligence, and a mockery of so many people who suffer in silence. But I'm European, so of course, I'm an evil people-trafficker n'all...

I decided to comment after seeing this get 8.0 here on IMDb. That's a sad commentary on something in society. This movie can be summed up as "geriatric Jean Claude." I'll also mention that if you want to produce unbelievable nonsense like this, you should try to create characters the audience can actually care about to some degree. The key point here, though, is that everything was as unlikely as possible. The daughter just happens to be kidnapped by sex slave traders. The father just happens to be some sort of "black ops" expert, etc. This really comes across as the fantasy (or nightmare) of a guy having a mid life crisis. I suggest buying a red corvette instead, but if you can't afford it, I guess you can always rent "Taken." If this is even a "fair" movie, Bronson's "Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects" should have cleaned up at the Oscars! I won't waste any more of my time on this.