Taken 2

[SkyNet]

So, the first movie is up there in terms of bad assery... it hits Die Hard levels of awesome! So I was really looking forward to a sequel, not for the story, but to see Liam Neeson running around being a bad ass again!

The reviews for this movie have been god awful, so I decided I wasnt going to see it in theaters, but then earlier tonight hit and a few buddies and I were sitting around doing jack shit so we decided to go check out this flick.

I'll say this about the movie: It wasn't as bad as the reviews say.. but it is no where near as bad ass as the first movie. I thought it took forever to get the story started, then when it finally did, there wasnt much in the way of bad ass, there was some cool stuff, but not bad ass! Then the last 20 minutes or so, that is when it gets to be bad ass!

Spoiler:

But there were 2 kills that were laughable: 1, when Neeson kills a dude, and then he like runs his arm across his face, it just looked weird! And then the killing of the main bad guy, really anti climactic... he just shoves his head against the wall into a spike or something.. c'mon, more bad ass please!

This director Olivier Megaton has proven himself to be an inadequate action director. Luc Besson needs to not ever hire him again.

[anakinsrise]

Originally Posted by SkyNet

Spoiler:

But there were 2 kills that were laughable: 1, when Neeson kills a dude, and then he like runs his arm across his face, it just looked weird! And then the killing of the main bad guy, really anti climactic... he just shoves his head against the wall into a spike or something.. c'mon, more bad ass please!

Spoiler:

I dont even think it was a spike the guy just fell back softly to the wall .I swear i had to bite my tongue to stop my laughter.

Neeson is great as usual and there are a couple of good action sequences ,but this is basically
a watered down version of Taken.It was shocking and laughable at how lackluster and anti climatic
most of the movie was.
Scale of 1-10 a 5

[Badbird]

Really disappointed by this one. It had none of the suspense or tension of the first movie. It felt so by the numbers and uninspired. The whole rooftop chase and grenade tossing sequence was just silly. As densely populated as that city is, she probable killed at least 30 people, or destroyed priceless, thousand year old architecture.

And then it was all over before you knew it. I had no idea that was the climax of the movie. It felt like there was going to be another fifteen minutes.

I can't say I hate it; it's just an average movie. They should have just left it alone.

6/10

[JoeChar4321]

The whole rooftop grenade tossing sequence was something I liked. The movie could have used far more of him using his "specific set of skills" and his wits instead of all that choppy shaky cam mess and see spot run action.

This sequel simply doesn’t have the pizzazz or impact of the original. Honestly, there’s nothing extraordinary on display but despite a host of implausibility’s, at least they didn’t go too far over-the-top like other sequels to tend to do when following up a beloved action adventure film. (Example: Die Hard 2) If they are going to miss, I’m glad they didn’t miss with silly cartoon action. The story sets up fine and I appreciated the extra exposition and look in to the character’s lives. It certainly does respect the first film. In fact, it feels like Taken 1.5 as a toned down extension or extended cut footage version from the first film. A lot of the time, those cut footage scenes are cut for a reason.

Rounding up for fondness of the character... 7/10

[ilovemovies]

It's not especially memorable and doesn't bring anything new to the table, and there really isn't much of a plot. And it's nowhere near as cool and memorable as the first one. There was a real sense of urgency the first movie had that is missing here. And I think the movie kind of peters out the moment Bryan and his daughter get to the US Embassy. That said, it is what it is, and for what it is, it delivers what you want from it. Neeson is as badass as ever. Obviously, his performance in The Grey is far more memorable but that movie is just in a different plane than this one. I had a good time for the most part.

6/10

[P1NSTR1PEZ]

Just a garbage movie.

It's lazy and poorly produced, offers nothing of substance. Neeson looks old, the action scenes are not exciting and it adds nothing to the story. it rehashes old plots, not creates new ones. Very unfortunate and now a third film is coming.

Here's my full review - http://afterthecut.com/2012/10/10/review-taken-2/

[Viazon]

I dont always mind sequels. I just dont like it when they have a sequel for something that really doesnt need one. This was purely one of those movies done to capitilize on the success of the first one and make money. I quite liked Taken but I just dont have any interest in watching this one.

[ericdraven]

They tried to make him a poor man's Bourne, but failed. Plus I actually thought Paul Greengrass directed this with all the shaky cam.

[Mr.HyDe807]

I probably enjoyed the first one more than I should, due to my brother's friend coming by with a screener. Considering the overall "mehh"-ness with the WOM that this one is getting, I'm not in any rush to see it.

[bigred760]

I couldn't help but think that Liam Neeson was more like MacGyver in this movie than a badass bodyguard with a "particular set of skills." This is just one of those sequels that half-asses everything that was done well in the first. The story, the characters, and especially the action are all much weaker in this second installment and I spent most of the movie wondering when it was going to be over.

4/10

[Erroneous]

Saw this on the plane too. I was surprised I really liked it. I was expecting a carbon copy of Taken 1, but it really brought new elements into the movie and I liked it. I would see aq part three, but I hope they do not make one.