Taken (three and a half stars total) and another thriller, The International, came out two weeks apart and both featured one-man armies, one versus the black market and the other against the white-collared market. The former title has gone on to make over five times as much money, despite receiving a lesser cumulative rating from critics. I haven't seen the latter, but I'd like to if just for Clive and Naomi. Why are audiences more interested in putting the smack down on kidnappers than bankers right now...? That's a rhetorical question, as I haven't seen the other movie to give further commentary, but I wonder. Taken is like the Bourne series if Bourne had a kid. The difference is that after Bourne's girlfriend got killed, he still had an identity to find and the exotic settings increased and got staged better. Taken shows you a Paris you don't want to sight-see, and metaphorically it shows that America still has a chip on its shoulder against France. There's no scenery that isn't either dark or intentionally dull. Some of the editing was too choppy for me and I could have done without the first half hour because it's all in the trailer anyway. There are many "oh no he didn't" scenes, but the most character-defining comes when (spoiler) he shoots the guy's wife at the dinner table. I think that's how the rest of the world sees America. Then there's the one guy's plea that "it's just business" and the sheik's willingness to sacrifice all his bodyguards rather than give a daughter back to her father. That's how America sees the rest of the world. Am I taking this too far? Would you rather I just admit to enjoying a movie that's about nothing more than killing for at least an hour straight? Would I be a better father if I trained myself to combat terrorists for a decade or more while my child grows to adulthood with their stepfather? Tough questions, but just remember - it's only an action movie, right?
No comments:
Post a Comment