Luc Besson, director of La Femme Nikita and The Fifth Element, co-wrote this action thriller that quickly hit #1 in America.
I haven’t seen it, but here are the reactions of a couple of critics I tend to trust:
(CAUTION: His full review contains SPOILERS.)
The action … mostly feels grafted on, maybe juiced up after a bad test screening. The reason, really, that I can’t completely dismiss this formulaic actioner is that Neeson brings a level of gravitas and existential sadness to Taken that is rather surprising. As with a lot of Clint Eastwood pictures (but certainly not remotely in the same class) Taken evinces a seriousness, even a weariness, that provides the best kind of showcase for what are, at base, reactionary values. When exposed to any genuine knowledge gleaned from the real world — for example, the real facts about human trafficking, its connection to larger global immigration issues and its resultant moral and political ambiguities, piffle like Taken evaporates as U.S. vs. the World paranoia, with a dash of French self-indictment thrown in. But as a kind of allegory of its own paranoia, a forbidden father-daughter love story, and a paean to privileges under siege, Taken exhibits a weight that reveals the pain and fear behind an otherwise risible xenophobia.
The scenario of a righteous butt-kicking American hopping the pond to Paris to take on corrupt French officials as well as slimy Balkan gangsters has understandably struck some critics as Europhobic, notwithstanding the Gallic talent behind the camera. That the movie apparently expects audiences to applaud or at least overlook his brutal tactics is jarring to say the least.
Equally problematic is the depiction of the trafficking of sex slaves in what is ultimately a conventional revenge thriller, which ultimately crosses into exploitation. The 2007 film Trade wavered uncertainly between being hard-hitting, socially-aware drama about human trafficking and action-adventure thrills. Taken unambiguously embraces the latter route. That probably makes it a better movie, but also a more objectionable one.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:46 am
My wife and I saw this yesterday, and I came away with a couple of thoughts:
- The first half of “Taken” is quite effective and actually kind of fun, but it quickly becomes apparent that the movie’s focus is NOT on Neeson getting his daughter back, but rather on how much damage, torture, and punishment he can deal out in his quest to her back. Which inevitably makes him a very unlikable character doing very unlikable things (to guilty and innocent parties alike), and subsequently undermines both the movie’s attempts at moral outrage as well as any warm feelings we have towards his character due to his love for his daughter.
- Liam Neeson is too good to be in movies like this. I guess he had a mortgage payment to make, or something. Not even his usual sense of gravitas can survive being buried by the implausibilities, plot holes, and character shortcomings.
- The actress who plays his daughter — whom I only know as that Shannon from “Lost” — doesn’t act like a seventeen-year-old, but rather, like someone trying really, really, really hard to pass as a seventeen-year-old.
- As I was watching “Taken”, I kept thinking, “Man, I really want to watch those Bourne movies” again. Not just because “Taken” cribs a lot from the Bourne franchise’s stylebook during the action sequences, but those movies’ moral complexities and ambiguities made “Taken”‘s clichés seem, well, tired and clichéd.