Escape to the Movies: Taken 3 - The One Where Liam Neeson Beats People Up

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Taken 3 - The One Where Liam Neeson Beats People Up

Don't get Taken in by Taken 3.

Watch Video
 

JackgarPrime

New member
Jul 17, 2012
17
0
0
And so, what has been so aptly christened by a certain other site that does a lot of movie reviews as "Fuck You It's January" has begun.
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,258
0
0
It's times like this when I'm glad that some December US releases are pushed into the UK's January releases so I still have to indulge in the likes of Birdman and Foxcatcher.

I'm not so sure what the point of Taken 2 was, so I think I'll believe Bob's interpretation of it being an action film with Taken skin on.
 

walsfeo

New member
Feb 17, 2010
314
0
0
If the number of responses to your posts drop, it's because the website is sluggish when pushing the "comments" button.

It would have been nice if Taken 3 were like Die Hard 3 - but yeah, January.

When I was a kid I loved the Paddington Bear books. I'm shocked an pleased if it turns out they didn't butcher the bear.

What is the deal about the dance? What did Marvel do this time?
 

SnakeoilSage

New member
Sep 20, 2011
1,211
0
0
I really don't get the whole "dad's always right" angle. He's former-CIA and he's a concerned father. Of course he's going to have reservations about his daughter going anywhere without an escort. The fact that he's proven right is just grounds for making the movie in the first place. Would you be happier if this somehow balked "traditional gender roles" and the very real threat of human trafficking just so his daughter can return home safe and Famke Jannsen can turn to Liam after two hours of them playing chess just to go "HA!" And then a big splash of "VISIT EUROPE" tops off the film.

Because if so sign me up. Sounds like pure Oscar bait. I can't wait for part two where the family visits Turkey and then there's a quietly heated debate where the fathers of the bad guys from the first film (and the bad guys from the first one since they technically didn't do anything bad in your magical gender-equal version of Taken) meet Liam in traffic and Liam won't merge over. Then "VISIT TURKEY" appears on the screen and we all laugh.
 

Ickabod

New member
May 29, 2008
389
0
0
Yeah I don't get what Marvel did where they messed up either? What did they do?
 

Darth_Payn

New member
Aug 5, 2009
2,868
0
0
walsfeo said:
If the number of responses to your posts drop, it's because the website is sluggish when pushing the "comments" button.

It would have been nice if Taken 3 were like Die Hard 3 - but yeah, January.

When I was a kid I loved the Paddington Bear books. I'm shocked an pleased if it turns out they didn't butcher the bear.

What is the deal about the dance? What did Marvel do this time?
Bob's once again harping on Marvel and allowing Edgar Wright to split from the Ant-Man project, and hiring another director to finish it. Sounds like he already declared it Marvel's first big failure before it's released.
 

Spyre2k

New member
Apr 9, 2013
52
0
0
I'm confused regarding his comments on Ant-Man at the end. Where did marvel screw up? All I've seen is the trailer and I thought it looked pretty good. The only comment I can think of is when they guy ask if it's to late to change the name.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
Lol, I love this review. It really shows how bitter Bob has become. I love the riffing on the first film which... is supposed to make the point that the women should have just listened to him, they should have "Taken" his advice? I don't buy that one bit. It's more a movie about a guy who sacrificed his relationship with his family to do his "dirty job" and for once that "dirty job" puts him into a position where he can then save his family. The second one was a pretty strait forward sequel with a direct link to first, though it was far less cathartic to watch. The third I'm going to see because "it's January" which actually means they aren't releasing much of anything at all and less that "it's total crap".

Also, you fell asleep in it... I can't help but feel you should not actually be reviewing it at all because your opinion is that it's still crap despite not having been conscious for the whole movie. If I fall asleep during a movie and then find the portion I do see not satisfying, I don't go around telling people it's a crap movie, I actually try to see the whole thing before I give my opinion. Journalistic integrity doesn't extend to your show all of the suddenly being about a first impression of a medium that first impressions are useless on.
 

walsfeo

New member
Feb 17, 2010
314
0
0
Darth_Payn said:
walsfeo said:
If the number of responses to your posts drop, it's because the website is sluggish when pushing the "comments" button.

It would have been nice if Taken 3 were like Die Hard 3 - but yeah, January.

When I was a kid I loved the Paddington Bear books. I'm shocked an pleased if it turns out they didn't butcher the bear.

What is the deal about the dance? What did Marvel do this time?
Bob's once again harping on Marvel and allowing Edgar Wright to split from the Ant-Man project, and hiring another director to finish it. Sounds like he already declared it Marvel's first big failure before it's released.
Oh, gotcha.

The commercial looked... alright, if not inspiring. I'll be there to see Ant Man on opening weekend, but I won't be terribly shocked if it is a bit of a hot mess. That would be a shame because if there was one franchise that could afford to pull an "iffy" movie, it'd be MCU. If the movie is less that what they think their fans would love just pull it and release digitally. Or give first viewing of it to ABC as a bribe to keep Agents of SHIELD on the air.

I don't think Ant Man will suck, but won't be all that shocked if it is seen as a misstep.
 

Paradoxrifts

New member
Jan 17, 2010
917
0
0
And that's one diatribe too far. I'm hitting the ejection button and escaping from Escape To The Movies. There is just not enough fun in these videos to justify wading through all of the negativity. If people enjoy this then all the more power to them, but I'm out. Can anyone suggest a replacement?
 

T8B95

New member
Jul 8, 2010
444
0
0
Baresark said:
Also, you fell asleep in it... I can't help but feel you should not actually be reviewing it at all because your opinion is that it's still crap despite not having been conscious for the whole movie. If I fall asleep during a movie and then find the portion I do see not satisfying, I don't go around telling people it's a crap movie, I actually try to see the whole thing before I give my opinion. Journalistic integrity doesn't extend to your show all of the suddenly being about a first impression of a medium that first impressions are useless on.
Disagree with you there. If a movie, specifically a balls-to-the-wall action movie such as this one, causes part of its audience to fall asleep in the movie theatre (and said audience doesn't happen to include my mother), that has to be an indictment of the movie on some level. Yeah, maybe the bit he slept through was the best, most engaging, and most profound piece of cinema since No Country for Old Men (unlikely), but the movie still can't get full points because IT PUT ITS AUDIENCE TO SLEEP. And if the rest of the movie is trash, the chance that the small part the audience slept through is good is rather slim.

OT: It's a completely superfluous third movie in a series that let's be completely honest, didn't even need a second. Did anyone actually expect it to be good?
 

jabrwock

New member
Sep 5, 2007
204
0
0
Darth_Payn said:
walsfeo said:
What is the deal about the dance? What did Marvel do this time?
Bob's once again harping on Marvel and allowing Edgar Wright to split from the Ant-Man project, and hiring another director to finish it. Sounds like he already declared it Marvel's first big failure before it's released.
They are setting the tone that you're not supposed to take this one as seriously (self deprecation, lamp-shading how silly the idea is, etc). Probably setting the expectations bar a bit low, ala Guardians. So if it succeeds, they do a victory lap. If it tanks, or is just mediocre, then nobody was really expecting anything from it anyway.

Their hedging their marketing bets in case the change in director backfires.
 

Trishbot

New member
May 10, 2011
1,318
0
0
Femke Janssen is turning into the female version of Sean Bean.

Great actress... but she just KEEPS DYING in practically every franchise I've seen her in.
 

Falseprophet

New member
Jan 13, 2009
1,381
0
0
SnakeoilSage said:
Would you be happier if this somehow balked "traditional gender roles" and the very real threat of human trafficking
The very real threat of human trafficking that disproportionately targets poor, vulnerable immigrant women from Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America--basically anyone except rich, white American tourists 5 minutes after they get off their plane? Seriously, was the lothario who gave them a ride from the airport the dumbest human trafficker in France? Even if she didn't have a CIA superspy for a father, it was obvious someone with enough money to afford the ritziest apartment in Paris would be looking for her. Taken can also refer to the people who took this nonsense seriously.

It can be a fun action movie and still be a moronic reactionary power-fantasy for bitter, aging dudes who'd shit their pants if someone pulled a gun on them in real life. That defines most of the 80s action film canon in a nutshell.
 

Elijah Newton

New member
Sep 17, 2008
456
0
0
Falling asleep in the theater seems pretty appropriate to me - not a lot going on here.

I'm holding out for another sequel where they cross over with Fast and the Furious so we can all get Taken 4: A Ride.
 

hentropy

New member
Feb 25, 2012
737
0
0
SnakeoilSage said:
I really don't get the whole "dad's always right" angle. He's former-CIA and he's a concerned father. Of course he's going to have reservations about his daughter going anywhere without an escort. The fact that he's proven right is just grounds for making the movie in the first place.
That last sentence doesn't really make sense. Yeah, a paranoid "I toldya so" macho father-knows-best fantasy is the basis of making the movie, and that's a bad thing. As someone else mentioned above me, rich white tourists are pretty much the people human traffickers avoid like the plague, because CNN goes DEFCON-1 whenever a pretty white American sniffles overseas. It's not a movie about the realistic danger of human trafficking, it's a transparent power fantasy for men who go apeshit whenever their daughters so much touch a boy without an interview.

The funny thing is Bob basically said that was fine, as most of the movie is just action, and it still holds up on those points and can be fun to watch.
 

Kededro

New member
Nov 18, 2009
11
0
0
Paradoxrifts said:
And that's one diatribe too far. I'm hitting the ejection button and escaping from Escape To The Movies. There is just not enough fun in these videos to justify wading through all of the negativity. If people enjoy this then all the more power to them, but I'm out. Can anyone suggest a replacement?
Unfortunately, a lot of the similar reviewers that were ever good to begin with have all gone in the same direction these past few years. I gave up following Bob's Twitter long ago because he had turned into one of those too-liberal-for-their-own-good types, but his videos were still pretty good. Now, it's all just leaking into this and "The Big Picture", and I think I am out as well.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
T8B95 said:
Baresark said:
Also, you fell asleep in it... I can't help but feel you should not actually be reviewing it at all because your opinion is that it's still crap despite not having been conscious for the whole movie. If I fall asleep during a movie and then find the portion I do see not satisfying, I don't go around telling people it's a crap movie, I actually try to see the whole thing before I give my opinion. Journalistic integrity doesn't extend to your show all of the suddenly being about a first impression of a medium that first impressions are useless on.
Disagree with you there. If a movie, specifically a balls-to-the-wall action movie such as this one, causes part of its audience to fall asleep in the movie theatre (and said audience doesn't happen to include my mother), that has to be an indictment of the movie on some level. Yeah, maybe the bit he slept through was the best, most engaging, and most profound piece of cinema since No Country for Old Men (unlikely), but the movie still can't get full points because IT PUT ITS AUDIENCE TO SLEEP. And if the rest of the movie is trash, the chance that the small part the audience slept through is good is rather slim.

OT: It's a completely superfluous third movie in a series that let's be completely honest, didn't even need a second. Did anyone actually expect it to be good?
That's fine. I don't agree. I loved 300 (from a macho manly perspective), but I can fall asleep in 300 if I'm tired. My guess is that Bob (who seems to make no moves to take care of himself, physically speaking), is actually quite tired all the time. That is what happens when you don't exercise and eat crap food all the time, especially when you hit your 30's.

Also, clearly this franchise didn't need anything beyond the first movie. I can't agree with you more on that.
 

Scarim Coral

Jumped the ship
Legacy
Apr 30, 2020
18,155
1
3
Country
UK
I take it Bob has never seen or read Paddington Bear before? Ok sure that doesn't mean the film itself will automatically be good but still I am fond of that bear when I was a little.
 

WarpedLord

New member
Mar 11, 2009
135
0
0
Scarim Coral said:
I take it Bob has never seen or read Paddington Bear before? Ok sure that doesn't mean the film itself will automatically be good but still I am fond of that bear when I was a little.
I think it's mainly just surprising because the trailers made it look like typical kiddie-movie slapstick garbage (see also: Smurfs, Scooby Doo, Underdog, Alvin and the Chipmunks, etc). Really, though... my first though when I hit that blurb was... "I don't know, Bob... isn't it your job to tell us if it's good???"
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
SnakeoilSage said:
I really don't get the whole "dad's always right" angle. He's former-CIA and he's a concerned father. Of course he's going to have reservations about his daughter going anywhere without an escort. The fact that he's proven right is just grounds for making the movie in the first place. Would you be happier if this somehow balked "traditional gender roles" and the very real threat of human trafficking just so his daughter can return home safe and Famke Jannsen can turn to Liam after two hours of them playing chess just to go "HA!" And then a big splash of "VISIT EUROPE" tops off the film.
You are arguing with the interpretation of a movies outside cultural context, based on an in-universe justification.

It's like if someone said that Darth Vader's helmet is inspired by traditional Japanese Kabuto helmets, and you would reply "Nah, actually it's shaped that way to fit his breathing equipment inside it".

One does not exclude the other. Just because something has in-universe justification, doesn't mean that the idea for it came up without a reason.

Taken is not a documentary, it's not like the creators where forced to follow Liam Neeson in a former-CIA concerned father role in the first place, and then got stuck with the inevitable consequences. They consciously wrote that setup instead of a billion other possible ones.

That it ended up being vaguely plausible, just means that the plot is not broken. But beyond that, we can ALSO discuss what the motives might have been to set up that one narrative out of all possible ones, and yeah, "pandering to disgruntled patriarchs with power fantasies about restoring their authority" sounds a pretty spot on guess.
 

Demagogue

Sperm Alien
Mar 26, 2009
946
0
0
That was beautiful... the ad that played before MovieBob's clip was the trailer for Taken 3...
 

MailOrderClone

New member
Nov 30, 2009
118
0
0
While I don't really have anything to the Taken 3 discussion, I did want to drop in and say that I appreciated the disclaimer at the start of the video. It may have been halfway a gag, but it is always welcome to get that sort of information out in the open, as well as a welcome bit of insight into just how dull Bob thought the film was.
 

Realitycrash

New member
Dec 12, 2010
2,779
0
0
I never get the FUCKING point of bleeping out 'fucking', especially since we are allowed to swear here. The entire word isn't even bleeped, we can still very much tell by its syntactic positioning in the sentence, that it begins with 'f' and ends with 'ing' that yes, you, Moviebob, are indeed saying 'Fucking'. So what's the deal here? Is there really such a dense Escapist-reviewer policy which mandates bleeping? Well it obviously doesn't/didn't cover Yahtzee...Or Jim Sterling.
Is it because MovieBob is indeed adverse to swearing? Well, obviously not, since he was swearing, and we can tell he is swearing. So...Someone, anyone, just...Tell me.
 

WhiteTigerShiro

New member
Sep 26, 2008
2,366
0
0
WarpedLord said:
I think it's mainly just surprising because the trailers made it look like typical kiddie-movie slapstick garbage (see also: Smurfs, Scooby Doo, Underdog, Alvin and the Chipmunks, etc).
I dunno, I didn't get that impression from the trailer at all. The movie looks well animated for the most part, and the humor looks generally clever; like when the guy is calling his insurance company to ask if they cover bears, or when Paddington is walking through the subway station trying to figure out how to act human. Also it has a cute bear! :D

Meanwhile trailers for Alvin and Smurfs definitely made me groan at how bland they looked, and the cheap attempts at pop humor just made me roll my eyes. I mean, I get that they're kid's shows, but they can still have clever jokes. Also, neither of them had a cute bear.

Really, though... my first though when I hit that blurb was... "I don't know, Bob... isn't it your job to tell us if it's good???"
Well, the movie isn't out yet, so it's possible it hasn't been previewed in his area yet and he was just offering-up his reaction to the opinions he's heard so far.
 

ToastiestZombie

Don't worry. Be happy!
Mar 21, 2011
3,691
0
0
Paradoxrifts said:
And that's one diatribe too far. I'm hitting the ejection button and escaping from Escape To The Movies. There is just not enough fun in these videos to justify wading through all of the negativity. If people enjoy this then all the more power to them, but I'm out. Can anyone suggest a replacement?
Yep, even when he says "it's fine" at the end it doesn't diminish the completely pointless attack on divorced fathers that manages to turn "caring for your children's safety" into "lousy slob father power fantasies for escapism after alimony payments".
 

The Real Sandman

New member
Oct 12, 2009
729
0
0
Paradoxrifts said:
And that's one diatribe too far. I'm hitting the ejection button and escaping from Escape To The Movies. There is just not enough fun in these videos to justify wading through all of the negativity. If people enjoy this then all the more power to them, but I'm out.
Too true. I've been watching Bob's content since he was first an independent Youtube channel years ago, and in these past couple years his content has been getting more preachy and bitter, and not in an enjoyable way.
Paradoxrifts said:
Can anyone suggest a replacement?
I find Red Letter Media's review show Half in the Bag [http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag/2014-episodes/] to be a good choice for comedic reviews.

Lately I've been watching/listening to Mark Kermode on the kermodeandmayo [https://www.youtube.com/user/kermodeandmayo] Youtube channel for "professional" reviews, although he can be quite funny as well.
 

Ark of the Covetor

New member
Jul 10, 2014
85
0
0
Oh christ on a bike, will all you blubbing precious wee men give it a rest already? Every week I pop in to the thread to see if there's any interesting discussion of the movie, and it's the same cabal of whingers complaining that Bob isn't being right-wing enough for their tastes. If you're genuinely incapable of tolerating a reviewer analysing the movie from a political perspective you don't share, might I suggest you check out the Family Research Council or something? Seems like more your speed.
 

kuolonen

New member
Nov 19, 2009
290
0
0
I don't really mind Bob calling taken out for the jerkoff-powerfantasy that it is (and seriously, taken is very blatant one at that), but how about calling it out on "Bob's favorite movie" -list as well. Machete would be a good start.
 

The Choke

New member
Nov 5, 2014
52
0
0
"I was so bored that I fell asleep, so for all I know the movie wasn't that bad."

Bob, if it was so boring that you fell asleep, it was bad.
 

The Real Sandman

New member
Oct 12, 2009
729
0
0
Ark of the Covetor said:
Oh christ on a bike, will all you blubbing precious wee men give it a rest already? Every week I pop in to the thread to see if there's any interesting discussion of the movie, and it's the same cabal of whingers complaining that Bob isn't being right-wing enough for their tastes. If you're genuinely incapable of tolerating a reviewer analysing the movie from a political perspective you don't share, might I suggest you check out the Family Research Council or something? Seems like more your speed.
The tolerance is strong in you.

There is a world of difference between analyzing art from a political perspective and going on a big ol' ranting spree. My political views rarely, if ever, stop me from enjoying movies, TV shows, or indeed internet commentators with differing views. You can disagree with someone or something politically and still enjoy them.

I disagree with Escapist contributor emeritus Jim Sterling on a few topics, but I still find him a pleasant and knowledgeable fellow, and I absolutely LOVE his content! And when he does get politically riled up, he states or argues his views in a mature and affable manner. Where Bob as of late will just descend into hostility and hyperbole.
 

8BitArchitect

New member
Sep 24, 2014
25
0
0
Taken 3 was not as good as Taken 2, which was not as good as Taken. It didn't seem to fit well as a sequel to 2, it contained a number of instances which brought me out of my suspension of disbelief, and it didn't have the singular drive that the first (and even second) film did propelling you toward the end.

All that said, it was still a decent to good action movie. The chases were decent, the fights were great (Taken has the best 'real' fights I've seen outside a martial arts movie, although I'm not a huge movie buff, so my scope is somewhat limited), and the sneaking and snooping worked reasonably well (even if they detracted from the action occasionally).

Rating this a one star movie when you didn't even see the whole thing is pretty unfair, since falling asleep in the middle of the movie is obviously on you.
 

vagabondwillsmile

New member
Aug 20, 2013
221
0
0
Ark of the Covetor said:
Oh christ on a bike, will all you blubbing precious wee men give it a rest already? Every week I pop in to the thread to see if there's any interesting discussion of the movie, and it's the same cabal of whingers complaining that Bob isn't being right-wing enough for their tastes. If you're genuinely incapable of tolerating a reviewer analysing the movie from a political perspective you don't share, might I suggest you check out the Family Research Council or something? Seems like more your speed.
Says the person with the most hyperbolic, disproportionate, and dare I say angriest response in the entire thread.

It's a discussion about a silly action movie with a silly story -- there are multiple view points being presented with multiple ways to examine the material; and most everybody is respecting each other.

Feel free to join in.
 

Shjade

Chaos in Jeans
Feb 2, 2010
838
0
0
ToastiestZombie said:
Paradoxrifts said:
And that's one diatribe too far. I'm hitting the ejection button and escaping from Escape To The Movies. There is just not enough fun in these videos to justify wading through all of the negativity. If people enjoy this then all the more power to them, but I'm out. Can anyone suggest a replacement?
Yep, even when he says "it's fine" at the end it doesn't diminish the completely pointless attack on divorced fathers that manages to turn "caring for your children's safety" into "lousy slob father power fantasies for escapism after alimony payments".
aka: what the Taken series is.

Nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.
 

rorychief

New member
Mar 1, 2013
100
0
0
The snarky remarks regarding Liam Neeson's recent proclivity for taking dumb movie roles seems a little misinformed. I'm getting a sense of smug oh the mighty have fallen from Bob, like he's enjoying claiming jaded authority over predicting the failing trajectory of Neeson's career. The guy's wife died and throwing himself into his work is obviously a way of coping. He's taking random roles indiscriminately not because he's desperate to stay famous or has bills to pay, but because widowers need to keep busy and working is familiar comforting routine.
I don't expect Bob have to enjoy his movies, but I feel like maybe he hasn't researched enough from the way he talks about what a novel gimmick it was for Oskar Schindler to take on an action movie. As though this switch in Neeson's pattern of selecting roles just happened to coincide with the death of the most important person in his life. I'm surprised by Bob. He's not normally caught short like this.

Sincerely, a defensive irishman.
 

VonBrewskie

New member
Apr 9, 2009
480
0
0
Thanks for that disclaimer at the beginning Bob. It's only fair. But if it made you fall asleep, that's a problem. I'd bet you try really hard not to waste your time. I just watched your things Bob doesn't know about and won't cover edition of the Big Picture very recently. again. Second time I think. Seemed familiar. This movie seems to fall into that place where you could use some shut-eye, but you'd rather it be in your own bed. You're fighting a good fight man. I appreciate your efforts. Know that when movies are concerned, your opinion is very important to me. I want to pay people for good film. I wait to see what you say. Others too, but you are pretty much a primary source for me Bob. Might as well be anyway. I respect your opinion boss. You know what the f*** you're talking about.
 

Metalrocks

New member
Jan 15, 2009
2,406
0
0
wasnt to fond of the first movie. it was alright but cant say it knocked me over. didnt bother to watch part 2 and from the looks of it, part 3 is no better. skip for me. unless someone lends me the movie, then i would watch it.

and i highly doubt that peddigton bear is any good. saw the trailer of it and not a single person in the cinema was laughing, as much as having a chuckle. it just looked so wrong and nothing inspiring.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
hentropy said:
SnakeoilSage said:
I really don't get the whole "dad's always right" angle. He's former-CIA and he's a concerned father. Of course he's going to have reservations about his daughter going anywhere without an escort. The fact that he's proven right is just grounds for making the movie in the first place.
That last sentence doesn't really make sense. Yeah, a paranoid "I toldya so" macho father-knows-best fantasy is the basis of making the movie, and that's a bad thing. As someone else mentioned above me, rich white tourists are pretty much the people human traffickers avoid like the plague, because CNN goes DEFCON-1 whenever a pretty white American sniffles overseas. It's not a movie about the realistic danger of human trafficking, it's a transparent power fantasy for men who go apeshit whenever their daughters so much touch a boy without an interview.

The funny thing is Bob basically said that was fine, as most of the movie is just action, and it still holds up on those points and can be fun to watch.
I find your comment off base. Human Trafficking is not color blind. It's not typically blind to money, but the idea is that they no one can really do anything about an American girl in a foreign country disappearing. They are tied to that countries police force, or maybe Interpol gets involved, which doesn't mean much. If this movie took place in America, you may have a point, but you are living in some kind of fantasy to think that "white women" are spared conditions represented in this movie. It may happen less to "white people", but it does happen. Roughly 25% of all the human trafficking in America, for instance, is on white people. Mostly children, and mostly women. No one can argue that race is not tied into it historically, it definitely is, but it's misleading to pretend it's not a problem that can affect you regardless of race.

A far as the premise behind the movie, I don't know if it's a bad thing that it's some sort of power fantasy. People enjoy and engage in watching fiction such as this because they know in real life they could not handle having a gun pointed at them, most humans can't, hell most police and soldiers can't which is why they always try to point their gun first. Also... did you just compare a fictional story about a girl being sold into sex trafficking to a guy being unhappy with the new boyfriend because he doesn't approve. Not even in the same zip code.

That said, I do respect your opinion. I wouldn't mind a deeper movie at all when it comes to this type of thing. I think that maybe The Equalizer might be more up your alley so far as action-y movies go. It's really excellent and Denzel Washington does a great job in it. He is just helping people, which is nice, including some victims of sex trafficking. Though, be warned, the girls who represent that population are white, but they are also Russian, which is predominantly white as I understand it.
 

Grabehn

New member
Sep 22, 2012
630
0
0
The only good thing that came from this movie for me was that the some company in charge (afaik) of the trailer's subtitles screwed up, so when the "call" happens, Neeson's character basically says "I will do NOTHING".
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
Shjade said:
ToastiestZombie said:
Paradoxrifts said:
And that's one diatribe too far. I'm hitting the ejection button and escaping from Escape To The Movies. There is just not enough fun in these videos to justify wading through all of the negativity. If people enjoy this then all the more power to them, but I'm out. Can anyone suggest a replacement?
Yep, even when he says "it's fine" at the end it doesn't diminish the completely pointless attack on divorced fathers that manages to turn "caring for your children's safety" into "lousy slob father power fantasies for escapism after alimony payments".
aka: what the Taken series is.

Nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.
Are you calling a spade a spade though? The idea is that the movie appeals to those people because it's an accurate description of how their lives have gone and how they feel, which is not calling a spade a spade. It's like assuming that all divorced fathers are dead beats who have no love for family outside some weird control issue that are related in direct proportion to the size of alimony payments.

Also, I don't know if you are familiar with that system, but it's 100% broken and not based on anything other than someone's opinion at the time. There are people who get divorced and one party is forced to pay the other party alimony for the rest of their lives, no matter if that person gets married, wins the lottery, or anything of the like. Notice my use of party and not a sex descriptor because it can go both ways, though it's more common for the man to end up paying than the woman. It does happen though and it's ridiculous.

I will point out that Liam Neeson's character never once made anything about money in any of the films. He just wanted to be close to his daughter, but also respected her new fathers imposed limits on him.

No, I can't see this as anything other than Bob being mega bitter about anything movie related. I feel like he also likes to lash out at films aimed towards anyone besides the his generation or younger (of which I'm a part of). If you watch some of his recent reviews, he is always energetic about bashing a film, but rarely is anything besides descriptive to good films. He didn't use to be that way, I feel like he used to put little energy towards bashing and be really involved in reviews of good movies, which is a better Bob in my book.

But that is just my opinion. I don't intend for it to be taken as anything but my opinion.
 

hentropy

New member
Feb 25, 2012
737
0
0
Baresark said:
hentropy said:
SnakeoilSage said:
I really don't get the whole "dad's always right" angle. He's former-CIA and he's a concerned father. Of course he's going to have reservations about his daughter going anywhere without an escort. The fact that he's proven right is just grounds for making the movie in the first place.
That last sentence doesn't really make sense. Yeah, a paranoid "I toldya so" macho father-knows-best fantasy is the basis of making the movie, and that's a bad thing. As someone else mentioned above me, rich white tourists are pretty much the people human traffickers avoid like the plague, because CNN goes DEFCON-1 whenever a pretty white American sniffles overseas. It's not a movie about the realistic danger of human trafficking, it's a transparent power fantasy for men who go apeshit whenever their daughters so much touch a boy without an interview.

The funny thing is Bob basically said that was fine, as most of the movie is just action, and it still holds up on those points and can be fun to watch.
I find your comment off base. Human Trafficking is not color blind. It's not typically blind to money, but the idea is that they no one can really do anything about an American girl in a foreign country disappearing. They are tied to that countries police force, or maybe Interpol gets involved, which doesn't mean much. If this movie took place in America, you may have a point, but you are living in some kind of fantasy to think that "white women" are spared conditions represented in this movie. It may happen less to "white people", but it does happen. Roughly 25% of all the human trafficking in America, for instance, is on white people. Mostly children, and mostly women. No one can argue that race is not tied into it historically, it definitely is, but it's misleading to pretend it's not a problem that can affect you regardless of race.
There have been quite a few high-profile cases of women going overseas, going missing, and it becoming 24-hour news for quite some time. It's extremely rare for tourists of any color to be abducted at all. The plain fact is that police departments in every first world country have a hard time combating human trafficking BECAUSE the people being trafficked are poor, vulnerable, and many times born into the life or went into it at an early age. France is not some dystopian hellhole where tourists disappear and the police throw up their hands and barely investigate the issue. However, when someone is trafficked into France without anyone knowing, sold or transferred or made to work some place underground, it is much more difficult for authorities to combat.

So while the scenario presented might be possible, as many unrealistic things are, it's not really what happens and is presented in such a way for sensational, xenophobic reasons, trying to manipulate someone's feelings into thinking that no one is ever safe unless they're in the loving embrace of daddy America. And literal daddy. Man On Fire at least depicted a scenario that was a legitimate and reasonable fear about rich Americans going to Mexico.

A far as the premise behind the movie, I don't know if it's a bad thing that it's some sort of power fantasy. People enjoy and engage in watching fiction such as this because they know in real life they could not handle having a gun pointed at them, most humans can't, hell most police and soldiers can't which is why they always try to point their gun first. Also... did you just compare a fictional story about a girl being sold into sex trafficking to a guy being unhappy with the new boyfriend because he doesn't approve. Not even in the same zip code.
Ahh, the old "projected comparison" fallacy. Someone should really come up with a cute name for when someone accuses you of comparing two obviously unequal things when that was never implicitly or explicitly implied.

My point was that the kind of person the movie is meant to appeal to is the kind of person who is overly paranoid of the women or other family in their lif doing things that they see as unwise. See, Mary? You keep dating that guy I don't approve of and you'll end up on some underground catwalk with some middle-easterner staring you up and down!

There's nothing wrong with power fantasies, letting people fantasize about being more powerful or competent than they are. There is something wrong with stoking people's unwarranted fears about this or that for entertainment reasons. I think Red Dawn is a pretty cool movie, I'll watch it if I see it on and of course it has a special place in the zeitgeist, but part of that place is that the war the movie portrays is incredibly absurd in many ways and people recognize that. There's no problem with liking the movie, but it's also important to know that it was a product of a time and a way to turn people's unreasonable fears into entertainment, but it wasn't a joke back then, and could have stoked anti-Communist sentiment even more, if that were possible, and had real-life consequences. I think movies like Taken largely fall in the same category. Nonsensical movies that were products of overblown fears that turned out to actually be enjoyable in some way.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
hentropy said:
Baresark said:
hentropy said:
SnakeoilSage said:
I really don't get the whole "dad's always right" angle. He's former-CIA and he's a concerned father. Of course he's going to have reservations about his daughter going anywhere without an escort. The fact that he's proven right is just grounds for making the movie in the first place.
That last sentence doesn't really make sense. Yeah, a paranoid "I toldya so" macho father-knows-best fantasy is the basis of making the movie, and that's a bad thing. As someone else mentioned above me, rich white tourists are pretty much the people human traffickers avoid like the plague, because CNN goes DEFCON-1 whenever a pretty white American sniffles overseas. It's not a movie about the realistic danger of human trafficking, it's a transparent power fantasy for men who go apeshit whenever their daughters so much touch a boy without an interview.

The funny thing is Bob basically said that was fine, as most of the movie is just action, and it still holds up on those points and can be fun to watch.
I find your comment off base. Human Trafficking is not color blind. It's not typically blind to money, but the idea is that they no one can really do anything about an American girl in a foreign country disappearing. They are tied to that countries police force, or maybe Interpol gets involved, which doesn't mean much. If this movie took place in America, you may have a point, but you are living in some kind of fantasy to think that "white women" are spared conditions represented in this movie. It may happen less to "white people", but it does happen. Roughly 25% of all the human trafficking in America, for instance, is on white people. Mostly children, and mostly women. No one can argue that race is not tied into it historically, it definitely is, but it's misleading to pretend it's not a problem that can affect you regardless of race.
There have been quite a few high-profile cases of women going overseas, going missing, and it becoming 24-hour news for quite some time. It's extremely rare for tourists of any color to be abducted at all. The plain fact is that police departments in every first world country have a hard time combating human trafficking BECAUSE the people being trafficked are poor, vulnerable, and many times born into the life or went into it at an early age. France is not some dystopian hellhole where tourists disappear and the police throw up their hands and barely investigate the issue. However, when someone is trafficked into France without anyone knowing, sold or transferred or made to work some place underground, it is much more difficult for authorities to combat.

So while the scenario presented might be possible, as many unrealistic things are, it's not really what happens and is presented in such a way for sensational, xenophobic reasons, trying to manipulate someone's feelings into thinking that no one is ever safe unless they're in the loving embrace of daddy America. And literal daddy. Man On Fire at least depicted a scenario that was a legitimate and reasonable fear about rich Americans going to Mexico.

A far as the premise behind the movie, I don't know if it's a bad thing that it's some sort of power fantasy. People enjoy and engage in watching fiction such as this because they know in real life they could not handle having a gun pointed at them, most humans can't, hell most police and soldiers can't which is why they always try to point their gun first. Also... did you just compare a fictional story about a girl being sold into sex trafficking to a guy being unhappy with the new boyfriend because he doesn't approve. Not even in the same zip code.
Ahh, the old "projected comparison" fallacy. Someone should really come up with a cute name for when someone accuses you of comparing two obviously unequal things when that was never implicitly or explicitly implied.

My point was that the kind of person the movie is meant to appeal to is the kind of person who is overly paranoid of the women or other family in their lif doing things that they see as unwise. See, Mary? You keep dating that guy I don't approve of and you'll end up on some underground catwalk with some middle-easterner staring you up and down!

There's nothing wrong with power fantasies, letting people fantasize about being more powerful or competent than they are. There is something wrong with stoking people's unwarranted fears about this or that for entertainment reasons. I think Red Dawn is a pretty cool movie, I'll watch it if I see it on and of course it has a special place in the zeitgeist, but part of that place is that the war the movie portrays is incredibly absurd in many ways and people recognize that. There's no problem with liking the movie, but it's also important to know that it was a product of a time and a way to turn people's unreasonable fears into entertainment, but it wasn't a joke back then, and could have stoked anti-Communist sentiment even more, if that were possible, and had real-life consequences. I think movies like Taken largely fall in the same category. Nonsensical movies that were products of overblown fears that turned out to actually be enjoyable in some way.
That is a great name for that fallacy, it should go in the books perhaps. But, it could also easily be represented as a straw man as well I think.

Either way, you seem to be making a broad sweeping generalization about people who enjoyed that movie. It's not meant to appeal to anything of the sort in my opinion because it appeals to so many more, hell, Bob liked it for what it was. For instance, it in general appeals to men because men like to go and watch a "bad ass" do bad things to "bad people". At worst you are looking at the... what is that trope.... the woman in the refrigerator? But you have no basis to make a generalization about who Taken is meant to appeal and for that matter, neither does Bob, but he is in a hyper-negative rut these days. There are far too many people who liked it to make that generalization, though it probably would not be a far stretch to say it was mostly liked by men (which is a genre that has broadly appealed to mostly men up until now). Also, no one can say with any level of fact what a movie is about except for the writers and directors. You can choose to see it that way but that also ignores a large portion of how the movie went about. For instance, he was against the trip, but he condoned it, which also makes him responsible her getting kidnapped since he could have prevented her from going in the first place.

I'm calling in the availability heuristic. You know about those cases of white women disappearing because they were on the news, you don't know about how often it happens and you don't ever hear about it. It's a problem that affects people independent of race, though social status is a fair attack. But rich people get targeted for being rich in hopes of a large ransom, so that is a side effect of being rich (Those poor bastards!). I just don't think the movie is about what you think it's about. All action movies have done this in my lifetime. Die Hard is about a bunch of essentially bank robbers who are willing to kill just about everyone for some money. The movie Broken Arrow was about a lost nuclear weapon. The Rock was about a chemical attack on the San Francisco. You literally always put people in danger for an action movie. Your example also works at showing you that the premise of action movies is always putting someone or many people in danger. I can't even think of an action movie that does not use the general fears of the population as a premise for one guy to get away with anything. If you can, I'm more than happy to hear examples that don't do this. With that mind, Taken was no different than all other action movies so I'm not so sure you final assessment is warranted. I was just kind of happy the premise was used for an action movie rather than another Hostel movie, they were disturbing.

Also, with your point about what Red Dawn could have caused is a little off base in my opinion. Sure, it could have caused anti-communist hysteria (if it wasn't possibly already going on?), but it didn't, or at least didn't increase the amount of overall anti-communist feelings. I don't think it's fair to judge something on what could have happened versus what actually did happen.
 

Dandres

New member
Apr 7, 2013
118
0
0
Liam Neeson did say in an interview that he was not going to do a Taken 3 if someone was actually taken again. He said it had been done enough.
 

Ghadente

White Rabbit
Mar 21, 2009
537
0
0
"it ends here" tagline for the movie... i sure hope it does because it should have ended after the 1st one
 

tyriless

New member
Aug 27, 2010
234
0
0
kuolonen said:
I don't really mind Bob calling taken out for the jerkoff-powerfantasy that it is (and seriously, taken is very blatant one at that), but how about calling it out on "Bob's favorite movie" -list as well. Machete would be a good start.
Machete is not a good movie (it was a waste of my money) but if you are going on the basis of it being a jerkoff-powerfantasy it has one crucial difference: the movie is utterly self-consciously silly. I haven't bothered to see part 2 and part 3 of the Taken franchise, but the first one plays it as a straight thriller. It tries to be grounded in real world problems to build up the tension and have us empathize with the protagonist by giving him a father's worst nightmare.

Machete is pure schlock (aka Moviebob's greatest weakness) and the director knows it and he makes very clear that you should know it too. Machete's masculinity is blown to cartoonish proportions in every scene: he catches bullets with his teeth, scowls in every scene, grunts out one liners, and the ************ has sex so hot that he fries an egg under his bed. That's less powerfantasy and much more parody.

One other thing I would like to mention that bothers me about Taken is that the movie completely gives no fucks about the friend who was also kidnapped. I know the focus is about the daughter, but damn, some poor girl just got sold into sex slavery and that puts one hell of a dampening on the original films "happy ending".
 

Piorn

New member
Dec 26, 2007
1,097
0
0
So it's just Die Hard, i.e. an unlikely actor in a surprisingly solid action movie that keeps on making sequels after everyone stopped caring, all over again?
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,258
0
0
Piorn said:
So it's just Die Hard, i.e. an unlikely actor in a surprisingly solid action movie that keeps on making sequels after everyone stopped caring, all over again?
Well Die Hard 3 kicked arse, Taken 3 no so much it seems.
 

Shjade

Chaos in Jeans
Feb 2, 2010
838
0
0
Baresark said:
The idea is that the movie appeals to those people because it's an accurate description of how their lives have gone and how they feel, which is not calling a spade a spade.
...no. The idea is that the movie appeals because it's an INaccurate description of their lives in which they're actually the heroes who know best and if their wives would've just listened to them everything would've been better for everyone. Which, in most cases, probably isn't true.
 

Rad Party God

Party like it's 2010!
Feb 23, 2010
3,560
0
0
Yup, the first film was actually pretty good and I still like it, the second one was fun, but it got a little ridiculous when it decided to take an Austin Powers joke and took it seriously enough to turn it into it's entire premise. "Sleepy Bob Disclaimer" should be a new low score.

Elijah Newton said:
I'm holding out for another sequel where they cross over with Fast and the Furious so we can all get Taken 4: A Ride.

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist :p
 

hentropy

New member
Feb 25, 2012
737
0
0
Baresark said:
hentropy said:
Baresark said:
hentropy said:
SnakeoilSage said:
I really don't get the whole "dad's always right" angle. He's former-CIA and he's a concerned father. Of course he's going to have reservations about his daughter going anywhere without an escort. The fact that he's proven right is just grounds for making the movie in the first place.
That last sentence doesn't really make sense. Yeah, a paranoid "I toldya so" macho father-knows-best fantasy is the basis of making the movie, and that's a bad thing. As someone else mentioned above me, rich white tourists are pretty much the people human traffickers avoid like the plague, because CNN goes DEFCON-1 whenever a pretty white American sniffles overseas. It's not a movie about the realistic danger of human trafficking, it's a transparent power fantasy for men who go apeshit whenever their daughters so much touch a boy without an interview.

The funny thing is Bob basically said that was fine, as most of the movie is just action, and it still holds up on those points and can be fun to watch.
I find your comment off base. Human Trafficking is not color blind. It's not typically blind to money, but the idea is that they no one can really do anything about an American girl in a foreign country disappearing. They are tied to that countries police force, or maybe Interpol gets involved, which doesn't mean much. If this movie took place in America, you may have a point, but you are living in some kind of fantasy to think that "white women" are spared conditions represented in this movie. It may happen less to "white people", but it does happen. Roughly 25% of all the human trafficking in America, for instance, is on white people. Mostly children, and mostly women. No one can argue that race is not tied into it historically, it definitely is, but it's misleading to pretend it's not a problem that can affect you regardless of race.
There have been quite a few high-profile cases of women going overseas, going missing, and it becoming 24-hour news for quite some time. It's extremely rare for tourists of any color to be abducted at all. The plain fact is that police departments in every first world country have a hard time combating human trafficking BECAUSE the people being trafficked are poor, vulnerable, and many times born into the life or went into it at an early age. France is not some dystopian hellhole where tourists disappear and the police throw up their hands and barely investigate the issue. However, when someone is trafficked into France without anyone knowing, sold or transferred or made to work some place underground, it is much more difficult for authorities to combat.

So while the scenario presented might be possible, as many unrealistic things are, it's not really what happens and is presented in such a way for sensational, xenophobic reasons, trying to manipulate someone's feelings into thinking that no one is ever safe unless they're in the loving embrace of daddy America. And literal daddy. Man On Fire at least depicted a scenario that was a legitimate and reasonable fear about rich Americans going to Mexico.

A far as the premise behind the movie, I don't know if it's a bad thing that it's some sort of power fantasy. People enjoy and engage in watching fiction such as this because they know in real life they could not handle having a gun pointed at them, most humans can't, hell most police and soldiers can't which is why they always try to point their gun first. Also... did you just compare a fictional story about a girl being sold into sex trafficking to a guy being unhappy with the new boyfriend because he doesn't approve. Not even in the same zip code.
Ahh, the old "projected comparison" fallacy. Someone should really come up with a cute name for when someone accuses you of comparing two obviously unequal things when that was never implicitly or explicitly implied.

My point was that the kind of person the movie is meant to appeal to is the kind of person who is overly paranoid of the women or other family in their lif doing things that they see as unwise. See, Mary? You keep dating that guy I don't approve of and you'll end up on some underground catwalk with some middle-easterner staring you up and down!

There's nothing wrong with power fantasies, letting people fantasize about being more powerful or competent than they are. There is something wrong with stoking people's unwarranted fears about this or that for entertainment reasons. I think Red Dawn is a pretty cool movie, I'll watch it if I see it on and of course it has a special place in the zeitgeist, but part of that place is that the war the movie portrays is incredibly absurd in many ways and people recognize that. There's no problem with liking the movie, but it's also important to know that it was a product of a time and a way to turn people's unreasonable fears into entertainment, but it wasn't a joke back then, and could have stoked anti-Communist sentiment even more, if that were possible, and had real-life consequences. I think movies like Taken largely fall in the same category. Nonsensical movies that were products of overblown fears that turned out to actually be enjoyable in some way.
That is a great name for that fallacy, it should go in the books perhaps. But, it could also easily be represented as a straw man as well I think.

Either way, you seem to be making a broad sweeping generalization about people who enjoyed that movie. It's not meant to appeal to anything of the sort in my opinion because it appeals to so many more, hell, Bob liked it for what it was. For instance, it in general appeals to men because men like to go and watch a "bad ass" do bad things to "bad people". At worst you are looking at the... what is that trope.... the woman in the refrigerator? But you have no basis to make a generalization about who Taken is meant to appeal and for that matter, neither does Bob, but he is in a hyper-negative rut these days. There are far too many people who liked it to make that generalization, though it probably would not be a far stretch to say it was mostly liked by men (which is a genre that has broadly appealed to mostly men up until now). Also, no one can say with any level of fact what a movie is about except for the writers and directors. You can choose to see it that way but that also ignores a large portion of how the movie went about. For instance, he was against the trip, but he condoned it, which also makes him responsible her getting kidnapped since he could have prevented her from going in the first place.

I'm calling in the availability heuristic. You know about those cases of white women disappearing because they were on the news, you don't know about how often it happens and you don't ever hear about it. It's a problem that affects people independent of race, though social status is a fair attack. But rich people get targeted for being rich in hopes of a large ransom, so that is a side effect of being rich (Those poor bastards!). I just don't think the movie is about what you think it's about. All action movies have done this in my lifetime. Die Hard is about a bunch of essentially bank robbers who are willing to kill just about everyone for some money. The movie Broken Arrow was about a lost nuclear weapon. The Rock was about a chemical attack on the San Francisco. You literally always put people in danger for an action movie. Your example also works at showing you that the premise of action movies is always putting someone or many people in danger. I can't even think of an action movie that does not use the general fears of the population as a premise for one guy to get away with anything. If you can, I'm more than happy to hear examples that don't do this. With that mind, Taken was no different than all other action movies so I'm not so sure you final assessment is warranted. I was just kind of happy the premise was used for an action movie rather than another Hostel movie, they were disturbing.

Also, with your point about what Red Dawn could have caused is a little off base in my opinion. Sure, it could have caused anti-communist hysteria (if it wasn't possibly already going on?), but it didn't, or at least didn't increase the amount of overall anti-communist feelings. I don't think it's fair to judge something on what could have happened versus what actually did happen.
Unrealistic plots aren't anything new, and not problematic in and of themselves. But take this example: an all-European movie production sets its movie in the US, and the main plot is that a rich European tourist gets gunned down in broad daylight by take your pick: drug gang member, mentally ill, police officer, etc. on 5th avenue outside of Tiffany's. Some Americans might see that as an attempt to stoke anti-American fear due to the disproportionately high number shootings we have. I've talked to Europeans who say that it is a real fear when traveling to the US. Most Americans would probably point out that it is quite an unrealistic portrayal. The vast majority of people don't live in fear that they will be victims of a shooting, and it would be very unlikely in the touristy part of New York City. The American would still have the right to call it out as bullshit, even if it's an otherwise very well-made action/suspense/thriller.

Some might see that as more than just an attempt to make an action movie, but to use people's irrational fears as a way to engage them, which isn't the right thing to do as it could confirm those fears or make them worse. Red Dawn was probably more of a product of long-standing fears about war with Communists, but at the same time it also confirmed those unrealistic fears that the war was coming to Colorado any day now unless you vote for hawks.

I can certainly see how people might have watched Taken and gotten a very wrong idea about France and how safe it is to go there, and people using the movies to claim or otherwise feel that funny-speaking Europe is far too perilous for Americans.

I never claimed that all the people who enjoyed the movie was of the same type, only that it was written, in part, to appeal to people with a certain mindset that they have to keep their women on a short leash because they'll do stupid stuff if (like going to the crime-ridden hellhole of Paris) you let them. Obviously they don't hold these views outwardly or explicitly. It's perfectly possible to not care about those parts and just love the actiony bits. All me or Bob or anyone else is saying is that the confluence of story factors in which the "danger" is provided is problematic as it portrays real things somewhat outrageously and sensationally. People who already have a mindset feel justified or backed-up in their beliefs when they see them being confirmed and backed up in Hollywood movies.

It's been some time since I watched The Rock, but as far as I remember it might be a little dumb and unrealistic, but doesn't attempt to push a certain worldview about countries or individuals.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
Shjade said:
Baresark said:
The idea is that the movie appeals to those people because it's an accurate description of how their lives have gone and how they feel, which is not calling a spade a spade.
...no. The idea is that the movie appeals because it's an INaccurate description of their lives in which they're actually the heroes who know best and if their wives would've just listened to them everything would've been better for everyone. Which, in most cases, probably isn't true.
Eh, rewatch the review. Bob basically gives his opinion on what the Taken franchise is. He doesn't say it's meant to be that way. I just think that is him being bitter and you holding onto every word he says as fact.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
hentropy said:
Unrealistic plots aren't anything new, and not problematic in and of themselves. But take this example: an all-European movie production sets its movie in the US, and the main plot is that a rich European tourist gets gunned down in broad daylight by take your pick: drug gang member, mentally ill, police officer, etc. on 5th avenue outside of Tiffany's. Some Americans might see that as an attempt to stoke anti-American fear due to the disproportionately high number shootings we have. I've talked to Europeans who say that it is a real fear when traveling to the US. Most Americans would probably point out that it is quite an unrealistic portrayal. The vast majority of people don't live in fear that they will be victims of a shooting, and it would be very unlikely in the touristy part of New York City. The American would still have the right to call it out as bullshit, even if it's an otherwise very well-made action/suspense/thriller.

Some might see that as more than just an attempt to make an action movie, but to use people's irrational fears as a way to engage them, which isn't the right thing to do as it could confirm those fears or make them worse. Red Dawn was probably more of a product of long-standing fears about war with Communists, but at the same time it also confirmed those unrealistic fears that the war was coming to Colorado any day now unless you vote for hawks.

I can certainly see how people might have watched Taken and gotten a very wrong idea about France and how safe it is to go there, and people using the movies to claim or otherwise feel that funny-speaking Europe is far too perilous for Americans.

I never claimed that all the people who enjoyed the movie was of the same type, only that it was written, in part, to appeal to people with a certain mindset that they have to keep their women on a short leash because they'll do stupid stuff if (like going to the crime-ridden hellhole of Paris) you let them. Obviously they don't hold these views outwardly or explicitly. It's perfectly possible to not care about those parts and just love the actiony bits. All me or Bob or anyone else is saying is that the confluence of story factors in which the "danger" is provided is problematic as it portrays real things somewhat outrageously and sensationally. People who already have a mindset feel justified or backed-up in their beliefs when they see them being confirmed and backed up in Hollywood movies.

It's been some time since I watched The Rock, but as far as I remember it might be a little dumb and unrealistic, but doesn't attempt to push a certain worldview about countries or individuals.
Eh, I rewatched the video. It's Bob's opinion that is what the movie is about. I don't agree and I think most people are with me on that. If you want to see it that way, that is fine. I think your hypothetical situations are not realistic. I know lots of people who visit America from other countries and anyone being afraid they are going to get shot in the streets of NYC are just xenophobic. No movie made them that way, that is just how they are. More than likely it's an unhealthy observance of fact by statistic that lead to that.

If you think the franchise is meant to say that, it's fine. It doesn't hurt anyone for someone to think that. I don't agree, that's really it. To me it's just an action movie that uses a trope as the instigating incident for Liam Neeson's character to run to France and show a bunch of scummy sex traffickers what for. I don't think anyone is afraid to travel to other countries because of a movie. The racial and economic status of people who are actually stuck in that horrible world is completely inconsequential because the franchise is not trying to show an accurate portrayal of that situation, they are trying to give the main character a good enough reason not to call the police and wait for Interpol to get back to him on it. In this case that main character is a white estranged father of that girl. In the Equalizer the bad ass is a black man who lives by himself and has a particular set of skills that he can use to help anyone he feels needs it. These things are harmless in and of themselves and are not trying to push an agenda or say something about a certain subculture of people. In truth, it's giving the film makers to much credit for trying to make the movie meaningful in some way besides the fantasy of it.
 

Nurb

Cynical bastard
Dec 9, 2008
3,078
0
0
Ark of the Covetor said:
Oh christ on a bike, will all you blubbing precious wee men give it a rest already? Every week I pop in to the thread to see if there's any interesting discussion of the movie, and it's the same cabal of whingers complaining that Bob isn't being right-wing enough for their tastes. If you're genuinely incapable of tolerating a reviewer analysing the movie from a political perspective you don't share, might I suggest you check out the Family Research Council or something? Seems like more your speed.
You are like the tea party of liberals with your fanatic "everything that disagrees with me is conservative" views and need to purge everyone who isn't your little group.
 

chocolate pickles

New member
Apr 14, 2011
432
0
0
'The universe conspires, in form of Scary Foreign Terrorist Types, to teach the ungrateful women in our hero's life how desperately necessary his presence is.'

I'm not sure if you were being serious with this part, but i don't really think that was the point of this series - remember that bit in two where Neeson got captured, and basically had to rely on his daughter to find him and give him a gun?
 

m19

New member
Jun 13, 2012
283
0
0
So salty Bob. I'm sorry for whatever happened to you that made you so venomous towards men.
 

Tribalism

New member
Mar 15, 2010
87
0
0
I watched this review and like others, I've noticed a trend in Bob's content. I'd address the points in a longer post, but frankly, I don't want to. My personal belief is that the best course of action for Bob is to watch movies from an objective standpoint primarily and detach from the agendas or political motives he may hold. If he's not the target audience for a film, if they don't push his buttons, don't view it. Few of us come here to view videos from Bob where he makes a 5 minute rant about his white male guilt, we come here for film reviews. What irked me with this review is how slapped together it was.

A 4 minute review. 28 seconds of rambling at the start. A long clip from Taken 1 that wasn't a driving point for the review. Until 1:27, the review hasn't even started. At 2:00, he starts reviewing parts of Taken 1 which may affect your viewing experience of Taken 3*. By 2:20 he's made sweeping claims about the entire franchise. By 2:42, he's stopped having his little political rant and begins to address Taken 3. By 4:25, he's done.

That's a whopping 1m 43s devoted to criticism leveled at Taken 3 and even then, it's a phoned in "this fits my agenda/political views, I need views, I'll just rant about this".

The film might be bad, I don't doubt that, but I want to hear why it's bad. You've got 4+ minutes of airtime, let's hear it. Tell us why it's good, what works and what doesn't and why it doesn't. Taken 3 mildly interests me because I enjoyed the first one. I came into this review wanting to hear more about it and left sorely disappointed. I'm transitioning over to other reviewers because I'm getting VERY tired of Bob's inability to review even partially objectively. I know that opinions and subjectivity come as part of the film reviewer package, but few come as preachy and condescending as Moviebob.

*That is if your politics and white male guilt are so fiercely ingrained in you that you can't enjoy a generic action film without thinking "huh, wouldn't this franchise be better if Neeson was served humble pie rather than being a badass".
 

WiseBass

New member
Apr 29, 2011
46
0
0
@hentropy
The plain fact is that police departments in every first world country have a hard time combating human trafficking BECAUSE the people being trafficked are poor, vulnerable, and many times born into the life or went into it at an early age.

This. Even Neeson himself just recently wrote a letter about how unrealistic the whole situation is when some teacher told him the movie had made her students scared to go to Europe.

Basically, traffickers don't generally traffic people who actually have someone who might come looking for them. They target the vulnerable - illegal immigrants in particular (in Europe and elsewhere) tend to be targeted for human trafficking and sexual slavery. In fact, they often don't even need to kidnap women for it - they just have recruiters in very poor countries convince women to come with them for a job in a rich country (which may or may not be sex work) and then ensnare them once they have them.

In any case, I'm not surprised they went with the "Fugitive" storyline. Hasn't Neeson more or less killed off anyone tied to or involved in the original kidnapping of his daughter? There's no one left.
 

daxterx2005

New member
Dec 19, 2009
1,615
0
0
I was under the impression Paddington was a stuffed bear in the books, now he's a live bear?
Am I entirely wrong, or did they change something >.>
 

RoonMian

New member
Mar 5, 2011
524
0
0
tyriless said:
No, Liam Neeson finds her in the Albanian sleazeball headquarters dead from OD.


WiseBass said:
@hentropy
The plain fact is that police departments in every first world country have a hard time combating human trafficking BECAUSE the people being trafficked are poor, vulnerable, and many times born into the life or went into it at an early age.

This. Even Neeson himself just recently wrote a letter about how unrealistic the whole situation is when some teacher told him the movie had made her students scared to go to Europe.

Basically, traffickers don't generally traffic people who actually have someone who might come looking for them. They target the vulnerable - illegal immigrants in particular (in Europe and elsewhere) tend to be targeted for human trafficking and sexual slavery. In fact, they often don't even need to kidnap women for it - they just have recruiters in very poor countries convince women to come with them for a job in a rich country (which may or may not be sex work) and then ensnare them once they have them.

In any case, I'm not surprised they went with the "Fugitive" storyline. Hasn't Neeson more or less killed off anyone tied to or involved in the original kidnapping of his daughter? There's no one left.
It was even worse. In the first movie the French domestic intelligence service was in on it, even his own friend. Like France was the worst banana republic.
 

Heartsib

New member
Jul 2, 2014
45
0
0
daxterx2005 said:
I was under the impression Paddington was a stuffed bear in the books, now he's a live bear?
Am I entirely wrong, or did they change something >.>
Paddington was always a real bear in the stories. You might be thinking of Winnie-the-Pooh.
 

Ralancian

New member
Jan 14, 2012
120
0
0
The Real Sandman said:
Paradoxrifts said:
Lately I've been watching/listening to Mark Kermode on the kermodeandmayo [https://www.youtube.com/user/kermodeandmayo] Youtube channel for "professional" reviews, although he can be quite funny as well.
Wheat you actually need to do is listen to the weekly podcasts of their radio 5 live show (they are available outside the UK I just don't know how). http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/kermode

By far the most informed and most accessible film criticism available. Yes I don't always agree with the good doctor but at least you can understand why he hates a film and he at least judges everyone on it's own merit just if they offend him for his politically sensibility it' because that's what actually happens in the film.

I've stopped even watching Bob's reviews now and just read them less irritating that way. However the fact he hasn't reviewed to of the best films of the last year The Imitation Game and The Theroy of Everything (which are going to be huge awards season) but can do an entire episode on trailers just shows how far down he has come. He also missed out one of the bigger horror films even though that suppose to be partially his things (Babadook). He's not watched Boyhood either form what I can tell and that's many other critics favorite film of last year (sure he'll rag on other critics but he never seams to watch the films they liked).
 

the7ofswords

New member
Apr 9, 2009
197
0
0
Well, that's about what I expected.

As far as the Ant-Man poster, it immediately brought to my mind the famous "Think Small" Volkwagen ad campaign from the late 1950s:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_Small
 

The Real Sandman

New member
Oct 12, 2009
729
0
0
Ralancian said:
The Real Sandman said:
Paradoxrifts said:
Lately I've been watching/listening to Mark Kermode on the kermodeandmayo [https://www.youtube.com/user/kermodeandmayo] Youtube channel for "professional" reviews, although he can be quite funny as well.
Wheat you actually need to do is listen to the weekly podcasts of their radio 5 live show (they are available outside the UK I just don't know how). http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/kermode

By far the most informed and most accessible film criticism available. Yes I don't always agree with the good doctor but at least you can understand why he hates a film and he at least judges everyone on it's own merit just if they offend him for his politically sensibility it' because that's what actually happens in the film.

I've stopped even watching Bob's reviews now and just read them less irritating that way. However the fact he hasn't reviewed to of the best films of the last year The Imitation Game and The Theroy of Everything (which are going to be huge awards season) but can do an entire episode on trailers just shows how far down he has come. He also missed out one of the bigger horror films even though that suppose to be partially his things (Babadook). He's not watched Boyhood either form what I can tell and that's many other critics favorite film of last year (sure he'll rag on other critics but he never seams to watch the films they liked).
I do listen to the podcast! :D

I guess you brought up another thing. Bob has this great opportunity to introduce an unfamiliar audience to some really interesting movies they might not have had heard about or had previous interest in.

Nightcrawler, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Inherent Vice, and the ones you noted are movies I think a lot of people on this site would want to check out if Bob did a video review of.

I find it a bit off putting that he saves the full video review spotlight for such "widely hyped and exciting hits" as 22 Jump Street, Leprechaun: Origins, The Equalizer, John Wick, Ouija, Dumb and Dumber To, and a freaking trailer review, rather than any of the other films mentioned above. It wouldn't matter if Bob were positive or negative about the films, they would just make for more interesting reviews.
 

daxterx2005

New member
Dec 19, 2009
1,615
0
0
Heartsib said:
daxterx2005 said:
I was under the impression Paddington was a stuffed bear in the books, now he's a live bear?
Am I entirely wrong, or did they change something >.>
Paddington was always a real bear in the stories. You might be thinking of Winnie-the-Pooh.
Nah, I figured out what I was thinking of. It was Corduroy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corduroy_%28book%29

How long until this becomes a movie :3
 

Shjade

Chaos in Jeans
Feb 2, 2010
838
0
0
Baresark said:
Shjade said:
Baresark said:
The idea is that the movie appeals to those people because it's an accurate description of how their lives have gone and how they feel, which is not calling a spade a spade.
...no. The idea is that the movie appeals because it's an INaccurate description of their lives in which they're actually the heroes who know best and if their wives would've just listened to them everything would've been better for everyone. Which, in most cases, probably isn't true.
Eh, rewatch the review. Bob basically gives his opinion on what the Taken franchise is. He doesn't say it's meant to be that way. I just think that is him being bitter and you holding onto every word he says as fact.
You're free to think that if you like.

The "fact," however, is that I called it "the idea," not holding anything up "as fact." Nor have I made any appeal to emotion.

Sorry, Baresark, but judging by your initial reply - the one I got in my inbox, the one you apparently deleted and replaced with this rather more tame (if still misguided) post later - you seem to have more emotional investment in this franchise and Bob's review of it than I do. Not necessarily a bad thing, but something to think about, maybe.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
Shjade said:
Baresark said:
Shjade said:
Baresark said:
The idea is that the movie appeals to those people because it's an accurate description of how their lives have gone and how they feel, which is not calling a spade a spade.
...no. The idea is that the movie appeals because it's an INaccurate description of their lives in which they're actually the heroes who know best and if their wives would've just listened to them everything would've been better for everyone. Which, in most cases, probably isn't true.
Eh, rewatch the review. Bob basically gives his opinion on what the Taken franchise is. He doesn't say it's meant to be that way. I just think that is him being bitter and you holding onto every word he says as fact.
You're free to think that if you like.

The "fact," however, is that I called it "the idea," not holding anything up "as fact." Nor have I made any appeal to emotion.

Sorry, Baresark, but judging by your initial reply - the one I got in my inbox, the one you apparently deleted and replaced with this rather more tame (if still misguided) post later - you seem to have more emotional investment in this franchise and Bob's review of it than I do. Not necessarily a bad thing, but something to think about, maybe.
That is correct. I decided that it's not worth debating over. And it's not. Both you and Bob are well within your rights to think whatever you want about the movie, just don't be surprised if it appeals to people for other reasons than what you think. I don't have much an emotional attachment to the movies as much as I did to my argument, or to be more precise I found myself arguing for the sake of it when no one is going to change anyone's opinion here. I don't see what you and Bob see, we are just different.
 

Creedsareevil

New member
Mar 25, 2014
52
0
0
Taken 2 at least was a follow up to NeesonDad basically murdering his way through a dozen mooks (who had families too!) by showing that the families of those mooks are not amused.

It was an extra round that was not needed, but welcome.

Now 3 is just... not needed.