WWTBAM Bored

The movie, that is.

SWMBO and I went out on a date last night for the first time in ages and saw this movie. I had seen a review of it earlier, and while it's rare that I agree with every point a reviewer makes, this time the review was spot on:

Spoiler

To summarize: the movie is quite entertaining, but it wouldn't be nearly as good without Liam Neeson. The teenage girl is the most unbelievable character, which is unusual in this type of action flick. She's supposed to be 17, but she plays the girl like she's 12. Two things I found worth noting: the scene in the trailer where Neeson sticks the knitting needles or whatever they are in the guy's thighs are not in the movie -- guess Dick Cheney will have to wait for the director's cut for that one; and the thing I always made fun of the girl for -- throwing the phone down when she's taken instead of trying to hang on to it as long as possible -- is actually an instruction given to her by Neeson's character.

mrkelley23 wrote:guess Dick Cheney will have to wait for the director's cut for that one;

Curious, why the Cheney comment?

Because of his impassioned defense of "enhanced interrogative techniques," while vice-president of the greatest nation on Earth.

Good thing those guys never went for the Clintonizing of the language. Wouldn't want to substitute euphemisms for morally repugnant terms.

I've seen the previews and "Taken" is on my short list of movies to see. Just not sure if MrsJaybee will like it - she's fine with action / adventure but not so fine with lots of graphic violence - what's your opinion on that angle?

Strange that they would edit a scene shown on the previews out of the final cut - I've nevered noticed that before in a movie.

Saw it last night (first movie in several months since our post theater is closed until April, had to travel 4 hours to see a movie!). VERY violent, Jaybee but strangely just quick kills and not alot of gore. Very scary if you have a teenager interested in travelling on her own...my daughter won't be Eurailing in a few years after seeing it as my two sons did this past summer...I'm not even sure they will be going this year! I agree, MrK, Liam was really good in it, very believable.

jaybee wrote:I've seen the previews and "Taken" is on my short list of movies to see. Just not sure if MrsJaybee will like it - she's fine with action / adventure but not so fine with lots of graphic violence - what's your opinion on that angle?

Strange that they would edit a scene shown on the previews out of the final cut - I've nevered noticed that before in a movie.

I think your second paragraph relates to your first -- while there is lots of violence, as melleon says, it's mostly sanitized and not too painful to watch. While there is blood and pain, the camera doesn't take those long, lingering, almost loving looks at the gore as it does in a lot of movies.

Much of the combat is hand-to-hand and again, not terribly gory. The jabbing scene was probably edited out of the theatre version especially for viewers like MsJayBee. And it didn't decrease my enjoyment of the film at all to have it left out.

jaybee wrote:I've seen the previews and "Taken" is on my short list of movies to see. Just not sure if MrsJaybee will like it - she's fine with action / adventure but not so fine with lots of graphic violence - what's your opinion on that angle?

Strange that they would edit a scene shown on the previews out of the final cut - I've nevered noticed that before in a movie.

The film was rated PG-13 which means that excessive violence, particularly something that involves showing bodily injury, wounding or blood, is a no-no. The movie has that current hyperactive editing style in which there are a lot of fast cuts during action scenes so that it's hard to tell exactly what is happening. That suggests speed and action when what's actually going on isn't all that exciting and in my view confuses the audience. It disguises a lack of talent by actors and/or stunt people in fight scenes, a lack of speed or stunt driving in chase scenes and an overreliance on CGI effects in action scenes. It also makes action sequences seem more brutal and bloody when you don't actually see all that much on camera. I'm not a big fan but it's apparently the trend of the future. It's a shame, because old fashioned action pieces, in which you could actually see the stunt people performing their stunts, makes for real movie excitement.

Mrs. SSS and I watched the new deluxe DVD of How the West Was Won a couple of weeks ago. It's nowhere near the same experience as it was in a Cinerama theater, but what struck me was how elaborate and well staged the action sequences were. With those difficult and bulky Cinerama camera setups, editing of those scenes was at a minimum (and, needless to say there were no CGI buffalo in the stampede), but the scenes hold up remarkably well against anything you see today. The film actually won the editing Oscar, not for the amount of cutting, but for its effectiveness.

Trailers for many movies today are put together several months before a film hits the theaters. Often the score is different because the composer hasn't finished the score, so the studio uses old themes that they have the rights to (think how often you've heard the score from The Natural or Chariots of Fire in other trailers). Final edits also aren't complete in some cases, especially if the MPAA decide a film needs re-editing in order to get a lower rating (here, PG-13 vs. R). In other cases, test screenings may indicate some problems with the film, so it's shortened or certain scenes replaced with reshoots involving others. So scenes are sometimes cut from the trailer. Usually people don't notice unless there's something spectacular (such as a memorable line) in the cut scene that doesn't make it into the final version of the film.

jaybee wrote:I've seen the previews and "Taken" is on my short list of movies to see. Just not sure if MrsJaybee will like it - she's fine with action / adventure but not so fine with lots of graphic violence - what's your opinion on that angle?

Strange that they would edit a scene shown on the previews out of the final cut - I've nevered noticed that before in a movie.

This has been happening a lot with movies lately.

I noticed it with the trailer for National Treasure 2 and a couple of others as well (whose titles escape me at the moment).

I first noticed it a while ago when, of all movies, the kid's film Chicken Little came out (the father's comment "Son, I have to tell you something. In about three seconds, I am going to scream like a little girl" was nowhere in the movie!)

Mrs and I saw it Sat night both enjoyed it . Almost non-stop edge of seat action.

I saw this movie this weekend. Too over the top and too unbelievable for me. It was a violent movie but not too graphic.

silverscreenselect wrote: It's a shame, because old fashioned action pieces, in which you could actually see the stunt people performing their stunts, makes for real movie excitement.

According to GMF-the screnwriter for Octopussy-the 2 stuntmen ("Mad as Hatters-the pair of them") who fought on the airplane in the climactic scene were really thousands of feet in the air and only had one parachute between them.

If one fell off-the other one planned to dive off and catch him.

Taken was written by Luc Besson, who has written a number of very entertaining action films over the last twenty years (he occasionally directs, but not as often as he used to), including La Femme Nikita, The Professional, The Transporter, The Fifth Element, Unleashed, and the French version of the Taxi movies (not the abysmal US version). He comes up with offbeat premises and fashions a lot of good action sequences around them.

Well MrsJaybee and I went and saw 'Taken' last night and both of us enjoyed it. Interesting comment form her though:

Spoiler

Although she never read any of the posts here, she said the same thing as MRK about the girls character acting a lot younger than her age. MrsJB felt that any 17-year old who had just gone through being kidnapped, having her best friend killed, drugged and almost raped would have come back a little less 'flip' than this character did.

I agree, but then wondered if it wasn't a planned thing to have her character act young......other girls in the movie who were prettier than her wound up in the construction site 'houses' while she was considered prime enough for the Shiek. Maybe her 'youth' was meant to make the bad guys even worse by promoting a kiddie porn attitude in them.