User Reviews (365)

Add a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    To set the record straight, no one gets taken in 'Taken 3', a condition that its principal star Liam Neeson laid down before he agreed to return for this third and presumably final instalment. That is perfectly fine with us; after all, how many times can ex- Special Forces operative Bryan Mills find himself having to deploy his very particular set of skills after a member of his family is taken away from him? Indeed, that is not the issue we had with this utterly disappointing third outing, which totally squanders what audience goodwill the first movie had accumulated and its immediate predecessor had not yet depleted.

    Produced by French-based EuropaCorp, the Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen-scripted 'Taken' was one of the most notable action films in recent memory when it was released back in 2008. Key to its success was Neeson, whose viciously efficient qualities as the former CIA badass were excellent complement to the actor's natural gravitas and air of gentleman nobility. The inevitable sequel that followed four years later was a letdown to say the least; not only did it slavishly repeat the original's formula, it toned down the former's no-holds-barred brutality to make it more accessible to a younger audience, and in the process losing the former's gritty, visceral, and even transgressive edge.

    Unfortunately, fans of the original hoping that the series would go out on a bang will be sorely disappointed to know that 'Taken 3' is cast in the same mould as the sequel. There are plenty of gunshots but no sight of blood. There is hand-to-hand combat that plays out more like a playground brawl between teenagers. Even a torture scene that sees Neeson waterboard fellow co-star Dougray Scott is extremely tame in comparison with a similar and brutally memorable one in the first movie, that if one recalls involved the use of electric clamps that Neeson stabbed into his nemesis' thighs. Not that we relish the portrayal of extreme violence, but 'Taken 3' seem to know not the difference between being restrained and being dull.

    But the deadened violence isn't quite the movie's most critical flaw; that belongs unquestionably to its director Olivier Megaton. A Besson regular since 'Transporter 3', Megaton took over the reins from Pierre Morel on 'Taken 2' but has apparently learnt nothing from his previous directorial duties. If there was already a worrying ineptness to his ability to craft a proper action sequence in 'Taken 2', then this follow-up shows Megaton at his most incompetent.

    Clearly influenced by Paul Greengrass' frenetic shooting of the 'Bourne' movies, Megaton insists on flailing hand-held camera-work, frantic over-editing and claustrophobic close-ups to ruin every single action sequence in the entire f**king movie (and yes, it is indeed that frustrating to watch). A freeway car chase is reduced to a flurry of close-ups and rapid edits that bear no continuity or coherence. A confrontation in a liquor store between Neeson and some of the Russian mobsters who took his ex-wife's life is shot in such close-ups it is impossible to make out who is doing what. And worst of all, there is no climax to speak of – not when a shootout between Neeson and another group of Russian mobsters protecting their boss Oleg Malankov (Sam Spruell) is so poorly staged it makes not a single iota of sense, or when a race between a Porsche driven by Neeson and a private plane ends in an collision that takes out the plane's front wheel but leaves no one hurt.

    It is even more infuriating to think that Megaton manages to f**k up every single sequence when there aren't that many to begin with. Eschewing the simple set-up of the previous two films, Besson and Kamen have instead opted here for a more plot-driven narrative, setting Neeson up against Forest Whitaker's LAPD Detective Franck Dotzler even while the former hunts down his wife's killers. That certainly recalls the dynamic between Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones in 'The Fugitive', but 'Taken 3' is nowhere as smart and Whitaker nowhere near as keen as Jones' ever was. Though Besson and Kamen's script opts for double-crosses, hidden agendas and whodunits to keep their audience's attention, it is quite clear right at the very start just who has been pulling the strings, a mystery that once solved makes the rest of the proceedings unnecessarily protracted.

    Not that it actually matters – while Neeson went about methodically tracking down his kidnapped family in the first and second movies, he rarely exhibits the same kind of discipline clearing his name here. Too much time is spent on emotionally hollow character relationships in the first act, i.e. between Bryan and his young adult daughter Kim (Maggie Grace), or between Bryan and his ex-wife Lenore (Famke Janssen), or between Bryan and Lenore's current husband Stuart (Scott), while the second act is equally wasted on Bryan's strenuous efforts to contact Kim who is placed under the close watch of the LAPD. By the time Bryan actually gets down to investigating, almost everyone involved looks more keen on getting it over and done – none more so than Neeson, who looks tired and completely uninterested from scene to scene.

    Perhaps Neeson is all too aware that the 'Taken' franchise has completely sputtered out; indeed, 'Taken 3' plays almost like a parody of the original movie, which was to action fans a sheer unbridled delight for its realistic stuntwork and hand-to-hand combat. Both these elements are sorely and sadly missing from a movie that can't even get its priorities right, no thanks to the utter shocking ineptitude of its director. Like we said, no one in the movie gets taken, but little did we know that the title was meant to be a joke on its audience, who are literally taken for a ride here. Spare yourself the agony, frustration and disappointment, and just NOT get on in the first place.
  • 3 stars might be a little harsh seeing as I did enjoy this film, but I enjoyed it for all the wrong reasons. Seemed like a movie made by idiots for idiots. Anyone who is mildly intelligent will find it laughable.

    Where do I start, the way this film was shot was poor at best, no scene lasted longer the 3 minutes to try and achieve the same relentless pace we enjoyed from the first Taken movie. This was even worse during any action sequence where there would be about 20 different shots in a space of 30 seconds showing pretty much the same event from pointless angles.

    The dialogue, so cheesy, they put in every cliché line from any action movie you can think of, one dimensional characters sounding like idiots. There was a moment in this film where Mills plugs in a USB into a LAPD computer and the computers voices says "You are currently accessing the LAPD hidden files" just in case people in the cinema missed this.

    This movie treats its audience like they are slow, and I feel you actually have to be to enjoy it for what it is. Some of the actions sequences were so unrealistic even a 9 your boy would find it a push to believe let alone us adults. Poor way to end a dying trilogy. Hopefully it will now stay dead.
  • In Los Angeles, Lenore St. John (Famke Janssen) is murdered with sliced throat in the apartment of her ex-husband Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) and he is accused by the police of murdering her. Detective Franck Dotzler (Forest Whitaker) pursues Bryan while he investigate who might be the killer and protects his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace). Bryan discovers that the Russian gangster Oleg Malankov (Sam Spruell) is the responsible of Lenore's death and together with his team of friends and Lenore's husband Stuart St. John (Dougray Scott), he hunts him down. But why Lenore was killed?

    "Taken 3" is a movie with awful camera, edition and direction and senseless plot. The edition is annoying with several cuts, but the plot is ridiculous. When Bryan is arrested at the gas station, no police officer is interested to see the surveillance camera footage. Why should he drug his daughter instead of putting a note in the yogurt scheduling a meeting with her in the toilet? How did he escape from the explosion in the elevator? Oleg's building is surrounded by security system, but a van parks in the parking area and no guard comes to check. Stuart spends lots of time in the van and it is not strange for the security guards. Why Stuart need to flee abducting Kim? Did Bryan's friend die in the van? Bryan causes several accidents on the highway certainly with injured people; destroys a parking building and cars; destroys an airplane; but in the end everything is OK. My vote is four.

    Title (Brazil): "Perseguição Implacável 3" ("Implacable Search 3")
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Whoever edited and filmed this, should visit a doctor ASAP.

    The editing is atrocious, you can't see anything during the action scenes. Moves and hits are usually lost and you can't see who is hitting who, where, how. If you think Taken 2 was bad, this movie takes the spot at clearly trying to do the worst to suck badly.

    The movie is also slow and it's less focused on action, if compared to the previous ones.

    By the way, if nobody is taken, then why is it called Taken? Is it because my money was TAKEN by a crappy movie?

    Bad guys appear in the first 5 minutes and then come back only after the 1 hour mark. That means we got almost 1 hour of pure nonsense.

    Our hero destroys at least 20 cars, obviously killing innocent people. Nothing happens to him, he's called a hero, he is free to walk away, Such cool guy that Brian Mills!!!

    This movie is a turd and you should avoid. Ah, it doesn't even have a real conclusion. If Taken 4 gets made ( you know it'll get made ), we know his grandchild is gonna be Taken. I'm serious, he now has a freaking grandchild to take care.
  • One of the worst movie editing I've ever seen in my life for an action movie. That killed the movie for me. I think they should just withdraw Taken 2 and Taken 3 and admit that they should have stopped at the first one.

    This movie was so boring, and when you expected to see some action scenes, you were getting yourself in the paranoid mind of a director who wanted to experiment on the poor audience. My eyes still hurt from the crappy editing of this movie.

    Guys please stop here, enough, no more Taken sequels. With each one of them you're killing the hype that the first one created.
  • thesar-22 April 2015
    Warning: Spoilers
    Oh, sure, there are a ton of sequels that both "take" down a series, but also "take" it too far. Taken 3 is the A Good Day to Die Hard of the series and by God, I hope both movies end the two franchises.

    I recently gave Taken 2 another chance after not liking it the first time it was released. Wow. If anyone thought that movie was bad, just watch the third chapter I initially was hoping would be the Last Crusade of the series. False. And I actually like Taken 2 the second time a whole lot more than the first viewing.

    This absolutely atrocious sequel that has nothing to do with the series, let alone anything to do with "TAKING," is basically a sometimes action script that was altered to piggyback on the successful series. Yes. Just like Troll 2 and just about as bad.

    After an incredibly stale opening that, again, feels nothing like a "Taken" movie, it continues with basically, the same dumb opening of Alien 3. What follows is an amazingly predictable movie where a wrongfully accused 62-year-old actor acts like someone as athletic as someone a third of his age and can escape explosions as easily as Batman dodging a nuclear explosion in under 5 seconds. It's no wonder Liam Neeson starred in The A-Team movie – he never has a scratch on him after unbelievably surviving multiple car wrecks that would easily kill 999 out of 1,000 people.

    What this movie should've done was to fire Liam, hire Jason Statham, rename this as Transporter 4 and acknowledge the silliness like that series did.

    The decision is clear: Watch 2008's Taken and repeatedly. No need to see #2 or #3. Dear God, please let there be no fourth Taken. I can't possibly "take" this anymore.

    * * *

    Final thoughts: Lesson learned – to clear your name from a crime you didn't commit, kill as many people in cold blood while leaving more than enough evidence behind – not to mention, admitting to the police that you murdered someone – and then you can live happily ever after. For shits and giggles, run a car into a plane taking off that's holding the very person you're trying to protect. Don't worry, it'll survive the explosion, as, um, most planes do.
  • You'd have to be an idiot to trust the opinion of someone who can't review a movie without waffling for 20 minutes. Listen to me; you won't be sorry. This is not a good movie. Taken was pretty good; Taken 2...not so much. This one is just bad; It's just an old guy running around, shooting at stuff. None of the clever stuff from the other 2 movies is here. Nothing that made Taken good is in here. Nothing that made Taken 2 at least recognizable as a Taken movie is here.

    If you ignore me and watch it anyway, I will look for you, I will find know the rest. Actually, if you'd sat through this movie, you'd probably welcome the sweet relief. I meant to end this review right after "This movie is bad", but IMDb apparently likes people to waffle, and there is a 10 line minimum.
  • Spectacular and moving following starred by the retired CIA operative Mills (Liam Neeson) with plenty of action-packed , thrills , suspense , violence and high body-count . This is a nice sequel released six years after the first , here Liam Neeson returns as ex-covert operative Bryan Mills, whose long awaited reconciliation with his ex-wife Lenore (Famke Janssen married to financer Stuart St. John : Dougray Scott ) is tragically cut short when she is brutally murdered . Consumed with rage, and framed for the crime, he goes on the run to evade the relentless pursuit of the CIA, FBI and the police (law enforcement : Forest Whitaker , Don Harvey , Dylan Bruno) . For one last time, Mills must use his "particular set of skills," to track down the real killers, exact his unique brand of justice, and protect the only thing that matters to him now - his daughter. Meanwhile , his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) is pregnant and really affected for the killing . Shortly after , Mills is rescuing his daughter from the vicious killers . Then , Bryan enlists his daughter to help him and attempts to clear his name and he swears revenge and retaliation against the murdererers . He confronts his nasty enemies in order to find it out and is forced to once again take up violent means to survive . Mills takes the law on his own hands and acting as a merciless revenger . As he faces off a feared villian called Oleg Malinkov (Sam Spruell) , an ex-soldier who was in the Russian army when they invaded Afghanistan . First, they took his daughter. Now, they're coming for him. It Ends Here. They want revenge, They chose the wrong guy. This time, they come for him.

    Nail-biting and extremely violent film with a phenomenal Liam Neeson as an implacable avenger daddy .This stirring film contains intrigue , thrills, chills, frenetic action, shootouts , long run time car pursuits , car crashes , and violent fights . From start to finish the noisy action and fast movement are unstopped . Liam Neeson acting as hard-rock , two-fisted retired agent is top-notch , doing all his own fight sequences for the movie , he is the wronged father who must lay his life on the line to protect his intimate family against time and an army of ominous Russian mobsters . Being well accompanied by Maggie Grace as daughter and Famke Janssen in a brief acting as his ex-wife , repeating efficiently their previous roles . Secondary cast is frankly good, such as : Forest Whitaker , Dougray Scott , Sam Spruell , Don Harvey ,David Warshofsky , Jon Gries , and Leland Orser , among others . Nice cinematography by cameraman Eric Kress , using Steadicam and zooms with numerous locations from Los Angeles . The musician Nathaniel Mechaly creates a thrilling , moving soundtrack fitting to frantic action . Lavishly produced by the successful French producer and director Luc Besson from his production company Eurocorps . The trilogy is formed by ¨Taken 1¨ (2008) by Pierre Morel with Maggie Grace , Xander Berkeley , Holy Valance , Katie Cassidy ; in which a gang of human traffickers abduct Kim who barely has time to call her dad and give him information about an Albanese kidnapper and then Bryan seeks vendetta . ¨Taken 2¨ (2012) by Oliver Megathon with D.B. Sweeney ,Luke Grimes , Jon Gries , Rade Serbedzija , set in Istanbul in which Bryan and Lenore are abducted by the Albanian father of a kidnapper Mills killed while rescuing his daughter. And this final "Taken 3" movie in the trilogy, at least this is what is expected at the time of production and release . This trilogy was shot as an R-rated film, but edited down to a PG-13 for its theatrical reléase .

    The flick was compellingly directed by Oliver Meghaton who had previously directed other nice action films, such as ¨Taken 2¨, ¨Transporter 3¨ with Jason Statham , ¨The red siren¨ with Asia Argento and ¨Colombiana¨ with Zoe Saldana , also produced by Luc Besson . Megaton was formerly a graffiti artist and took his name from his birthday : the 6th of August 1965 is the 20th anniversary of the dropping of the Hiroshima A-bomb . Rating : 6.5/10 . Better than average sequel , well worth seeing . The picture will appeal to explosive action fans and Liam Neeson fans .
  • In the beginning, former special forces expert Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) found that his daughter was taken in Paris while, in the sequel, he himself was taken in Istanbul. Clearly Neeson took a bit of persuading to play the role a third time, but it would appear that three factors persuaded him: first, he didn't want to do any travelling this time (so all the shooting -in both senses of the word - is in the overly-familiar Los Angeles where he goes "down the rabbit hole"); second, apparently he didn't think anyone should be taken this time (and the writers obeyed the injunction until near the end when they just couldn't resist any more); and third, he wanted the money.

    This is a movie which divides the critics and the public: the former have been very condescending about it but the later enjoy Mills using his special skills again and again (and you can't really blame them). The bad guys here are (mostly) Russians who have terrible accents and awful clothes (especially underwear), but it is always a pleasure to see Forest Whitaker (an intelligent member of the LAPD who knows the significance of a warm bagel). The tag line in the advertisements for "Taken 3" is "It ends here" and I think that would be a sensible decision (although I wouldn't guarantee it).
  • Taken 3: Liam Neeson is the king of action movies. He is the ultimate badass. Every action movie I have seen with Liam Neeson, I have enjoyed. Every single film... except Taken 3. Liam Neeson tried but ultimately the movie was terrible. The film suffers from a near non- existent plot that thinks a lot of car chases and explosions is enough to make this movie passable- it was not.

    Not often in an action movie do I find myself getting bored, but it happened here. During one of the unmemorable scenes of the car chase, I found myself wondering what Liam Neeson's character Bryan Mills is trying to accomplish here. The answers was nothing. I thought long and hard about it throughout the film and came to the conclusion there was no actual point to the chase. It added nothing to the plot and Bryan Mills could have easily gotten rid of the cops before they even hand-cuffed him because of his "very special set of skills" which he exhibited numerous times throughout the film. Hollywood should know that, although Liam Neeson is awesome in every way, he is not a substitute for a well- throughout plot.

    The script was even worse. The dialogue throughout the movie was terrible. None of the lines added any depth to the characters. We already knew the returning characters but the new characters could have been horrendously murdered and the audience wouldn't have really cared because the director didn't give any depth to them. Worst of all Forest Whitaker's character Detective Franck Dotzler was said to be smart numerous times, but the grand conclusion he makes at the end of the film is something the audience figured out in ten seconds. I don't want to give away the big surprise but it has to do with "very tasty bagels."

    I honestly felt bad for Liam Neeson during this movie. His acting was as good as it could be, but the script and plot were terrible. He had to carry the movie from the very second it started. I know he had a contract to do the film, but I would have demanded a rewrite if I was him because it was about a thousand times worse than the original Taken. Again, Liam Neeson was still incredible as always and only because of him, watching the movie was not a total waste of time.

    This movie might be an entertaining movie to watch on DVD or video on demand. That is a big might though. I do not recommend you see this movie in theaters and you should only watch it if you are having a really boring Sunday afternoon.

    For more of my reviews, go to my website at
  • Taken 3 is a step down from Taken 2, itself a lesser film than the original. But that is to be expected and forgiven. The title could be considered an unimaginative misnomer, but it makes marketing sense.

    Aside from the part of Stuart (husband to Famke Janssen's Lenore), the casting is consistent. The addition of Forest Whitaker as a smart cop is for me something of a saving grace since Taken 3 offers up absurdities without question. On reflection, however, the plot has enough coherence to do the trilogy justice. Moreover, it is a joy to see Liam Neeson in this role again.

    The director Olivier Megaton has an irksome penchant for frenetic, up-close, disorienting action sequences whereby shots are rarely longer than two seconds. He was a little better in this regard for Taken 2, which had the benefit of superior choreography.

    Another personal point of contention is the casting of Sam Spruell as the top Russian villain. He has not an imposing physical constitution and quite frankly brings to mind Jim Carrey, who sported the same haircut in the Dumb and Dumber movies. Not at all what I want in a villain.

    I generally enjoy the films I see, and this one—notwithstanding the negatives—is no exception. However, I would not recommend it for people who are more stern in matters of taste.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This review contains some spoilers.

    The biggest problem with this movie is the central premise: if the police are trying to arrest you for a crime you did not commit, you can create whatever level of death and destruction you deem necessary to escape and prove your innocence. At the end of the movie, the main police character, Forrest Whitaker, tells Mills (Liam Neeson) that Mills' hacking the police computer is a crime and Mills could be arrested. They both have a quiet chuckle and Neeson is "free to leave". After assaulting a number of police officers, wrecking several police cars, stealing a police car, throwing officers out of moving cars, shooting the obligatory dozen bad guys and causing a freeway crash that is supposed to be one of the highlights of the movie, hacking the police computer would be the least of Mill's problems.

    Prior "Taken" movies require some suspension of your disbelief. One guy creates total havoc and kills several dozen bad guys and then walks away with family member in hand. This is theoretically possible because Mills leaves the country after all the death and destruction. This movie takes place in America. In the world where Taken 3 takes place, if you uncover an evil plot and confine your killing to the guys who have the right tattoos, Forrest Whitaker will smile genially and send you on your way. This movie requires that you be a complete idiot.

    Then there are the mistakes. Brian Mills finds the body of a main character in his bed whom he tries to revive by patting the wrist! One suspects the character was poisoned. Later, we are told the character's throat was cut. Yet no blood anywhere!

    Don't get "Taken". Stay away from this stinker.
  • Why am I subjecting myself to this anymore? If you have seen Taken 2, you know exactly why this rhetorical question is necessary to question my sanity. If you thought Taken 2 could not be beaten in terms of stupidity, laughable dialogue, totally unbelievable (in the literal sense of the word) and ridiculous characters, and yes, unfortunately, forgettable action, then think again! Taken 3 takes it up a notch, gives you even more of the aforementioned features, and gets you to believe that getting pregnant when you're married is no longer a thing to celebrate but to fear. Oh yeah, this movie went there...

    The title is extremely misleading. It should not have been named Taken 3, as there is no abduction (so it should have been more aptly titled Untaken 3). There are simply a bunch of boring car chases, gun shootouts, and tiresome combat sequences. You have seen it all before in bigger and better movies. If you are familiar with the characters from either the first or second movie, there are no new faces of any consequence this time around. The convoluted and entirely uninspired plot is supposed to be based on Bryan Mills' (Liam Neeson) attempts to find the ones responsible for his wife's murder (which police were made to believe he perpetrated), yet somehow the movie has more to do with his countless run-ins with the police - who I must say are the worst set of law enforcers I have ever seen on film - and the ensuing chase sequences, and, of course, as always, Mills ends up escaping them. There is one such altercation that occurs in the movie which only happens because Mills wanted to meet his daughter, tell her he loved her, and to repeat the same words he had mentioned to her earlier in the movie. Thud! This movie might not have you glued to your screens on account of its heart-pounding action, but it just might get you rolling on the floor laughing at its hysterical storyline - if you are into that sort of thing.

    It is all too apparent that Liam Neeson has had enough with this franchise. It must be a huge relief to him to know that the producers will not be extending another invitation to him for Taken 4, as this was a box office bomb. Along with the wishes of audiences worldwide, he must be hoping to soon find greener pastures and not let this debacle be the end of his reign as the supreme Hollywood action star of the last five or so years. For all my love of this guy, I am beginning to think it might be better for him to seek different roles other than action figures, as many have started to tire of seeing him on screen as a fighting man. I would love to see him do more in the lines of Schindler's List. He has some seriously good acting chops, and he should not squander them on the likes of Taken 3.

    There is nothing else left to say about Untaken 3. Do give it a miss, regardless of whether or not you are an action movie fan. If you are able to find even a smidgen of entertainment from this contraption then I envy you. I would not be surprised if you could watch a movie about snails crawling and somehow be entertained. Alas, for me, I will choose my action movies more carefully from here on out.
  • krycek1923 April 2016
    Warning: Spoilers
    And I really hate the sequel. So let me explain why I'm giving the final chapter 7 stars.

    The first Taken was genius. It was violent and gritty and exciting and didn't feel like a PG13 movie.

    Then came the obvious money-grabbing sequel, which was terrible. Ridiculous plot and shaky cam witch ruined the action-scenes.

    I was never gonna see this as it is the same guy that directed the sequel. But then I found a site I could stream it from and I figured what the hell.

    And I was really surprised. Sure it has flaws in the plot and the acting is terrible from the otherwise hot and usually great Maggie Grace. But it's a great action-movie. The shaky cam is almost gone and the action scenes are really well done. And the plot of who killed Lenore was interesting enough to make me watch the movie to the end without ever being bored.

    Forest Whitaker is miscast and plays once again the dumb cop-leader who is always one step behind the hero. Basically he plays the exact same character as he did in The Last Stand. Here he is just even more stupid.

    Giving Bryans buddies from their bodyguard company something to do for a change is nice.

    The cinematography is nice as well as the musical score. It seems like the director really wanted to make up for the horrible second movie. And bring back some of the stuff that worked so well in the original, And he did.

    For a PG13 movie this feels like an R-rated movie. It has plenty of bloodshed and the f-word is said many times. Nice to see that in a PG13 movie that usually don't allow blood or the f-word. But it gives the movie more edge. And bloodshed when people are shot is just more satisfying to look at.

    And the fact that this takes place only in the US and not in Europe is a nice change as well.

    I can definitely recommend this movie.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Before anyone says, it's Taken 3, what do you expect? I expect people who make millions of dollars as supposed storytelling to perform the fundamentals of basic storytelling, that's what I expect.

    I remember Taken 2 being disappointing, but I don't remember it being as bad as Taken 3, a film that is full of nonsensical moments. From the opening scenes, you just know the screenplay was written by Besson & Kamen over a weekend in their Beverly Hills mansion, and by the closing scene, you know that is exactly what happened.

    What I don't get is how Neeson and Whitaker allow themselves to deliver such tripe. Virtually nothing in this film makes sense, I won't go into too many details, unless you get distracted by MTV editing, you'll be shaking your head literally every other minute. But the last scene in particular literally made me shout out at the TV.

    Neeson is seemingly framed for his wife's murder (the motive of which makes no sense by the end, even the framing itself is laughable), and there are two elements involved some text messages and some bagels. Whitaker at the scene of the crime sits looking at them both, and if you have decided to watch this film with any part of your brain turned on, you'll be screaming at him for not working out the obvious. The film apparently plays in real time, because just over an hour later Whitaker reveals "yeah i knew you were innocent from the beginning, because of the bagels".. he may as well have said "we knew you were innocent, but we needed to chase you otherwise there'd be no excuse for you to trash a whole load of police cars, potentially risk the deaths of many innocent people, destroy an elevator shaft, and for you to kill more Eastern Europeans so Luc Besson can buy a bigger mansion to write his next masterpiece in".

    There's a part shortly after Whitaker leaves the crime scene, and Dougray Scott asks Whitaker if he knew about the events of Istanbul, Whitaker may as well say "well, duh, off course i've seen the last movie, who hasn't, $600million at the box office, why you think I'm here bro, we going to make some bank!! Just look at me and say stuff, don't worry about what you're saying though, no one cares, they're tweeting each other, waiting until Neeson shoots someone. Look, I made my character carry around a chess piece and play with a rubber band to give my character appear to have some depth, even though i'm literally the worst detective ever". Literally a few scenes later, Whitaker explains to his pawns that there are no records on Neeson since he joined Special Forces in his 20's, but is magically aware of the events of the last film. Forget the fact this man seemingly went to a lot of trouble and risking his life many times to save his wife, he now decides to go buy some bagels then kill her?

    I felt embarrassed that I got roped into watching the film, purely based on how good the first movie was. Thankfully I didn't pay any money, though 2 hours of anyone's time has to be worth something? This is the logic of such film franchises "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me", it's literally as if the film-makers are saying "we're even now". Anyone versed with films knew the moment they heard about "Taken 2", that it was the pure example of a sequel that wasn't going to be any good, the first film had no right to be as good and enjoyable as it was. The sequel is literally as pointless as you can imagine, it is just an excuse to see Neeson kill people, and for the most part that side of things is fun.

    The sad news was that the sequel made more money than the original, despite the poor critical reception. The next sequel was inevitable, and we, the film going audience basically told Besson and Co. "you made an awful, pointless film, yet we rewarded you with money, please give us another even more awful film and we will give you more money, don't worry about the script, just make sure Neeson kills people in a cool manner".

    There was no need for a good script, I doubt Besson and Kramer even wrote it to be honest, they most likely got some poor grad student to write it within a week, and paid them to take the credit, so they could say in the marketing that it was written by the same guys that wrote the original we loved so much, and Luc Besson, we really liked his films from 20 years ago. "Just make sure there are 3 acts, midpoint all that stuff they expect, and Neeson needs to kill at least 10 people from Russia or the Ukraine, who cares, make sure they sound like bad men. And the twist with this one is that Neeson will be on the run, because his wife has been 'taken' away from him.. get it?! genius right".

    Only problem is he only kills 9 people.. one of them can't bear the stupid dialogue anymore and kills himself.. no really, it's the most believable and honest moment in the film, it happens 5 minutes after Neeson develops the power of teleportation and escapes a car while it rolls off the side of a small cliff.

    1 star for making an actual film the 2nd star is for tricking me into watching this utter piece of tripe.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I do not know where to start. Taken 1 was Brilliant! Taken 2 was bad. Taken 3 bad.

    The premise is worth for **** just like Taken 2. They are such amateurs that they make the husband of Lenny the bad guy?! That and extremely bad editing and camera movement made this close to a B movie. Also there are so many stupid choices! I will limit them to 10.

    1. When they mention phone numbers with 555 it takes people out of the movie experience. That is a stupid move and the first reason Olivier shouldn't be directing ****.

    2. Mills randomly shows strangers picture of his daughter.

    3. When they block logos with stickers it takes people out of the movie experience. That is a stupid move and the second reason Olivier shouldn't be directing ****.

    4. Police predict Kimmy will take the bugged sweater and use it for days so they can listen.

    5. Audi is labeled A8 in the police report when that car does not exist. It is a R8. (not a big deal, but you are making a multi million dollar movie you should not make stupid mistakes like that.

    6. What is it with Megatron and his boner for beeping computers. Computers do not beep when lights flash. Idiot.

    7. Security cameras do not have blinking red lights on them and definitely not BEEPING noises! Idiot!

    8. Ex CIA operatives do not let arms dealers stand freely in situation rooms.

    9. Phones do not randomly beep indicating there is an airport near you.

    10. Brian Mills would never let Lenny be married to an arms dealer. Olivier would know this if he had bothered to watch the brilliant Taken 1 before ruining the franchise.

    To sum up I highly recommend everyone who watches Taken 2 and or 3 to do so as independent movies without any connection to Taken 1. Olivier Megaton should not be making movies of this caliber. He should not be making movies at all. I do not understand why Luc Besson has EVER ALLOWED THIS ABOMINATION to make sequels to his movies.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Saw it as part of a double showing after Kingsman. Talk about chalk and cheese.

    All I can do is condemn with faint praise: I've seen worse.

    I was more bored with all the tired clichés than anything else.

    They showed the villain early on then, dragged a rather nonsensical red herring across the trail, followed by a pretty crap twist that distracted you only because given the rest of the plot, ANYTHING was possible.

    Then it turns out the bad guy actually is the bad guy and because it really doesn't add up, Liam and the Cop hastily waffle up some half ass explanation. I presume for the benefit of the dim wits in the Focus Group who didn't get the feeble plot, nor that the feeble plot was actually simply feeble.

    I'd lost interest well before that despite they hadn't done all the Action Sequences, still had a few to trundle out, and the obligatory last chase after the villain grabs the girl and drags her along for no reason at all.

    It's hard to catalog all the clichés, especially in the action scenes. Stop me if you've seen the wrong way speed chase down the freeway, with the inevitable tumbling heavy objects flattening everything in their path before bouncing over our hero.

    The super bad Russian ex-commando, the one everyone kills themselves to avoid, simply can't hit Liam Nielsen for love nor money. Inside a lounge room! Because all he has is a super gun that fires a zillion bullets a second!

    Liam runs through it all unscathed. Everything around him gets shredded to demonstrate just how dangerous these guns are!

    At that point "we're going to need a bigger gun!" would have raised an easy laugh.

    The ending was pretty lame and just seemed to run out of puff. After which it looks like they are setting Liam up to save his granddaughter as the next target. That is at least a couple of "Takens" too far for me.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    * Includes Spoilers *

    Just been to see Taken 3 at the cinema - not impressed at all. It didn't feel like a Taken film, in the same way Die Hard 5 was nothing like a Die Hard film.

    Performances were alright, but the script writing was notably bad and the action scenes where heavily cut with each shot taken about 0.1- 0.2 seconds of screen time, a punch you'd be looking at 7-10 different shots, including some of shadows or walls or fingers.

    There were no stand out action moments, at least not for the right reasons, and no "MacGuyver" moments. Freight containers can apparently fly into the sky if a lorry stops, cars can reverse at 100mph (or 160km/h), the best of the best, most paranoid, CIA super soldiers forget to lock the front door of there house. Super Spetsnaz (or spetnats in the film) soldiers evidentially can't hit a target 10m in front of them. Wounds heal on dead people and form a nice scar only hours after being killed and there is no blood at all, whether you've fallen off a building, been stabbed with a bottle or shot in the liver.

    I'm boring myself just writing about it.

    Not the worst film, decent production values, but it's slow, uneventful and catered for the 12 rated audience.
  • I mean...Just wow!

    The term 'flogging a dead horse' has never been more appropriate for any film in history.

    Firstly I'll say this isn't officially the worst film ever made. It's marginally better than Batman vs Superman, though that is like saying suffocation is mildly more enjoyable than drowning.

    After 'Taken's' success the studios have decided to force two sequels down our throats much like Marvel Studios have done with the Avengers, as they believe we both want and need to see them. Well I've got some news for them, and not to paraphrase Nigel Farage's immigration speech, but we don't want them, we never wanted them, its time for them to go.

    Now while Taken 2 hurt and made me need to pop a few paracetamol tablets to remove the headache it caused - I feel after Taken 3 I'm going to need emergency care. Never before has a film made me feel more like I was in need of a hernia exam. As a matter of fact I imagine a hernia exam would have been more fun.

    1) If we start off with the plot. Now just imagine a blank piece of paper. Okay your pretty much filled in on that section.

    Now onto the acting. Liam Neeson plays every Liam Neeson character post 2001. Secondly, the villain has the stereotype that matches a loud Italian. What is original however, is the writers decision to use Russians as the bad guys in the movie. Who would have thought!? Now they at least deserve creativity points and a Smiley Sticker for that.

    But the best of the best my dear friends, is of course the big man. Forrest Whitaker. I mean his name is quite ironic seeing how the character he plays has the brain functionality to that of Forrest Gump. I mean the guy LITERALLY picks up a bag of BAGELS and smells them in case it may have something important to do with the case. Lucky for him isn't it - but I'll get to that later. But all in all Forrest Whitaker plays probably the most worst character ever made in a movie. I now actively hate Forrest Whitaker!

    There was a point in the movie where I felt his character actually liked the fact that Bryan Mills escaped and was causing havoc. In his mind he has been watching too many cat and mouse detective shows and though 'Now's my time to shine…let me get my chess piece'. So he decides to carry this chess piece throughout the movie to symbolize how he's playing a 'game' with Bryan Mills. (Slaps forehead*) Moreover, he seems to always know Bryans plans.

    There's a scene when Mills is locked up in a car by the police and Whitaker calls up to warn them that 'hes playing a game – get out of there'. So lets rewind that thought. The head detective of this case tells the police who have their suspect in custody to 'let him go' as he has a 'feeling' that Mills has a plan to escape. Now I'm no detective but I would start to question my bosses actions if he told me to let go the prime suspect over a hunch. But luckily for plot purposes – it works out exactly as Whitaker had anticipated.

    Also, I want to give a shout out to the editing department for actively trying to create epileptic fits in the cinemas. One of the best parts of the movie is when Mills tries to contact his daughter while he's on the run so he ACTUALLY poisons her so he would meet her in the girl's bathroom. I mean one could just send a note to his daughter to meet her in the toilet but obviously Liam Neesons trying to go for Father of the Year so the audience will let it slide. Sorry actually the best part could be when Mills survives a car crash that falls 100ft down a hill and explodes. How do the writers explain such phenomenon? Some clever plot twist I hear you ask? Well of course the writers solve this with a 5 second flashback showing Liam Neeson kneeling in a nearby hole on the hill to explain how he survived.

    Little issue here – that still doesn't explain how he actually escaped the car crash? I mean its like them explaining James Bond surviving a plane crash by showing a flash back of him eating ice cream in Florence. Oh he didn't die as he was here all along.

    Now some films wrap up a mystery by some old file evidence, confession or last minute witness. How does Forrest solve the case? Bagels, apparently. They were warm.

    I mean one has to ask themselves what kind of guy goes out for warm bagels, and comes back and commits a murder? This was a genuine line from the film. Read that back and look in the mirror knowing people were PAID to write that. Do you feel good about yourself? Do you? Also, apparently bagels are all you need to get people off a crime. Mills destroyed half the city – killed a bunch of guys, beat up policemen, poisoned his offspring but its okay as he remembered to keep his bagels at an appropriate room temperature. Happy days for all!

    So to sum up a warm pastry saves the day. Now you know if you're ever planning on committing a murder for god's sake take a visit to your local bakers. It may save your life. It seems the only thing TAKEN from this film was my FREE time. And on that note enjoy the rest of your day.
  • Let's review.

    (Quoting from my IMDb reviews of the first two) Taken 1 was one of those unexpected surprises that keeps the wheels in Tinseltown turning. It turned Neeson, a very competent actor, into filmdom's oldest and newest action hero. A neat trick. It was actually a very well made product and even with all the attention, still under-rated. It was better than people thought.

    OK, to be clear. Neeson was not getting any younger and when offered Taken 2, he took it. Sorry for the pun. Taken 2 was not so much a film as an IQ test. If you thought it was in the same class as Taken 1, you failed the test. Sorry. The truth hurts.

    To atone for Taken 2, Neeson did the Tombstone flic. It was great and showed the world he was still an A-list actor. Apology accepted.

    Hollywood never ever leaves money on the table. Which brings us to Taken 3. Not really a Taken movie, more of what you would expect if they wanted to do a TV series on the Neeson character and they started with a long pilot.

    It is much better than Taken 2 but then again so is footage of your dog's birthday party.

    It is not bad. Depends on your expectations.

    High expectations, you will not be happy.

    Bored and want to spend time with Liam?You could do worse.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Not being a proper sequel (no one is actually being taken) is awkward. Imagine Eddie Murphy as a chef in Beverly Hills Cop 4...

    The plot is good but quite expected. The fight scenes are standard, nothing original. I expected more fight scenes and gadget usage by Brian Mills. I didn't like the bits of humor in the film, for example a cop eavesdropping Kim in university and not appreciating the lecture. I liked Lenny - it's a shame she is off in case there will be Taken 4 (you never know...)

    Actor I enjoyed the most in this film: Forest Whitaker. Actor I enjoyed the least in this film: Maggie Grace.

    Summary: good action film, worth watching.
  • Taken 3 continues with the story of Bryan Mills(Liam Neeson). Bryan's ex-wife, Lenore St. John(Famke Janssen) is murdered. The law enforcement authorities suspect that Bryan is the one who murdered her. Now, it is up to Bryan to evade the cops led by Franck Dotzler(Forest Whitaker), find his ex-wife's true killers to clear his name & protect his daughter, Kim Mills(Maggie Grace).

    Taken 3 is an action packed & thrilling movie. The action sequences are tense, edge of the seat & have been superbly crafted. Taken 3 is better than Taken 2(2012) but, doesn't quite reach the heights of Taken(2008). The chase sequences are breathtaking, especially in the climax of the film. A note on the performances. Liam Neeson is outstanding as Bryan Mills. Forest Whitaker is great as Franck Dotzler. Famke Janssen is impressive as Lenore St. John. Maggie Grace is spectacular as Kim Mills. Grace's performance is one of the highlights of the film. Dougray Scott is good as Stuart St. John. Taken 3 is a must watch for action movie buffs & fans of the Taken franchise. The series ends with a bang. You will not be disappointed.
  • Wow...after reading some of the reviews, anyone would think they were reviewing an Academy Award nominated film. Whatever happened to watching a movie for fun and escapism and having a good time, because this film is certainly all that.

    I took my 15 yr old daughter along as well and she loved it, as did I. Yes nobody was taken but who gives a toss. What else would you suggest the movie be called that is part of the same franchise and has the same character? Seriously some of these reviewers need to get the plum out of their mouth and stick with watching other types of movies more suited to writing 25 paragraphs of hate. They clearly have no interest in the action genre.

    Go and see it and enjoy it for what it is...a great action movie with a pretty good story and don't go with the idea that it's going to win any Academy Awards.
  • At First When I saw the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and a few on IMDb, critics and people were giving Taken 3 a negative review and boasting about how bad it is and that they're should be an end to the Taken Series. Being a Liam Neeson Fan I still decided to go see the movie. Let Me tell you they're are a few vague scenes but the movie with a good cast has turned out to be fine totally opposite as too what the critics are telling us. I cannot understand how it's directing is incoherent, as said by the people. Liam Neeson being an experienced actor knows what he's doing. But then everybody has his own opinion. So in opinion, go out there and watch Taken 3; trust me it's great.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Well, once again Megaton grabs the weapon of mass destruction that happens to be Liam Neeson and this time drops him in the heart of Los Angeles, though since in this film he has been framed for murder and in most instances he is being chased by the LAPD he unfortunately isn't able to go on the killing spree that he did in the previous movies. I guess that is not surprising because it looks like they have wanted to try something different from the previous movies so as to wrap up this action packed extravaganza.

    I don't want to say too much about this film though because there are quite a few twists in it and I really don't want to give all that much away because, honestly, it is a pretty good hour and a half of Liam Neeson running around outsmarting the LAPD. Okay, they had to throw an intelligent cop into the mix because otherwise he would pretty much be leaving the boys in blue (do they actually wear blue, or is that just a saying that is used down here in Oz?) scratching their heads and wondering where on Earth (or in Los Angeles) this highly trained ex-government operative is.

    There were a couple of things that I found a little annoying, one being a little confused recognising the main antagonist because he looked almost identical to a couple of other characters in the film. Also, there was a part of the movie where he suddenly jumps to a car chase, and I was wondering what actually tipped him off to pick this particular guy as the antagonist, and then start following him. It seemed as if it went straight from him escaping the police at the university to the antagonist, for some completely unknown reason, saying 'lets go to Malibu' and then having the Russian thugs running Neeson off the road. I guess they needed an excuse to have Neeson going from outsmarting the cops to actually killing bad guys (because come on, we can't have him killing cops who are just going about their job, even if they are chasing the wrong guy).

    Still, Taken 3 is still a pretty cool movie, and as mentioned, moves away from having a family member kidnapped to having Neeson framed for a murder he didn't commit. However, we couldn't have Taken 3 with Neeson just running away from cops, we had to have Eastern Europeans running around with Eastern European accents and Eastern European thuggishness for Neeson to kill, and we also had to have a machine gun fight to top it all off. However, the other thing that baffles me is why is it always Los Angeles? I'm sure that there are heaps of other cities in the United States for Neeson to run around doing what Neeson does best, but I guess it has more to do with all of the film studios being based here than any lack of variety (though Hollywood's imagination can be quite limited at times).
An error has occured. Please try again.