Read Negative User Reviews for Taken 3

2

EludiumQ36Apr 30, 2016

Pathetic second sequel, and hopefully the final one. Appears to have been made on the basis of a single discussion with no care for production values or plausibility. Yes, this was phoned in. And worst of all, was that this comes off as aPathetic second sequel, and hopefully the final one. Appears to have been made on the basis of a single discussion with no care for production values or plausibility. Yes, this was phoned in. And worst of all, was that this comes off as a daddy-daughter tale, so yeh, they totally flipped off their main demographic. Thank gawd this was free on an HBO preview weekend.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

3

DartboardMar 11, 2015

This movie might have been remotely enjoyable if there weren't a ridiculous amount of cuts per second. The script is implausible, the editing is amateurish, and the directing leaves no style or flair. Neeson and Whitaker maintain solid screenThis movie might have been remotely enjoyable if there weren't a ridiculous amount of cuts per second. The script is implausible, the editing is amateurish, and the directing leaves no style or flair. Neeson and Whitaker maintain solid screen presences, but that can only go so far. Do not recommend.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

2

davidhorakApr 22, 2015

Waste of time, broken vision of old concept. Anyway they shouldn't done the second movie too. Liam Neeson is very charismatic actor and has many good qualities but gosh, he's old for jumping, running and fighting as youngster. The vision ofWaste of time, broken vision of old concept. Anyway they shouldn't done the second movie too. Liam Neeson is very charismatic actor and has many good qualities but gosh, he's old for jumping, running and fighting as youngster. The vision of an old guy with belly who's doing those amazing stuff seems to be comic more than stylish. And dead bodies without holes and blood after they had been shot, is ridiculously funny.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

2

IGardenMay 13, 2015

Let us make no effort on being original, let us take snippets of overplayed and once successful cliche's, let us create a dialogue that a 5 year old would find insulting in how it contradicts reality, let us direct the actors with such littleLet us make no effort on being original, let us take snippets of overplayed and once successful cliche's, let us create a dialogue that a 5 year old would find insulting in how it contradicts reality, let us direct the actors with such little attention that the actors themselves seem to be mocking their own performance, and let us collect some money from this....hopefully. An awful film.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

3

FilmClubMar 27, 2016

Running out of kidnapped relatives for Liam Neeson’s ex-CIA killing machine to rescue, scribes Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen turn him into a fugitive framed for murder in “Taken 3,” a mind-numbing, crash-bang misfire that abandons chicRunning out of kidnapped relatives for Liam Neeson’s ex-CIA killing machine to rescue, scribes Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen turn him into a fugitive framed for murder in “Taken 3,” a mind-numbing, crash-bang misfire that abandons chic European capitals for the character’s own backyard.

In “Taken” (2008), helmed by Pierre Morel, Neeson’s Los Angeles-based Bryan Mills went after Albanian slave traders who kidnapped his 17-year-old daughter in Paris. Made as a low-budget B-movie that sent up U.S. politics and values even as it emulated American genre films, it grossed $227 million worldwide. The sequel, made four years later, reversed the pattern by having the Albanians’ vengeful relatives kidnap Mills and his ex-wife, Lenore (Famke Janssen). Despite the more elaborate action setpieces and heightened casualties, the premise remained just as basic and clear: The shocking way in which the hostages are taken, and the methodical manner in which the retired CIA agent tracked them, generated tremendous excitement.

Without someone to save, the concept of a race against time is seriously weakened. While family matters were kept short and sweet in the other two installments, “Taken 3” stretches out the kitchen-sink drama endlessly: Mills’ daughter, Kim (Maggie Grace), who was 17 when she was first kidnapped, is now a college student facing serious adult problems. Her dad, however, still believes that, after having hurled a few hand grenades and driven a stolen car through a shower of bullets, she’d still be content to play with a stuffed panda on her birthday.

Equally troubled is Lenore, who seeks consolation as her marriage to filthy-rich Stuart (Dougray Scott) is on the rocks. The possibility of Lenore and Mills rekindling their relationship is put on hold, however, when he’s forced to go on the run for a crime he didn’t commit. As he said to Lenore in the previous film: “I’ll be OK. It’s the people following me who’re gonna have a problem.”

Given that Mills walked away Scot-free from double-figure body counts in Europe, watching him evade arrest by Inspector Frank Dotzler (Forest Whitaker) doesn’t yield much in terms of suspense or surprises. Mills describes Dotzler as “very clever,” though the latter’s theory that anyone who buys warm bagels can’t be a cold-blooded killer ranks among the more illogical police deductions in recent memory. Elsewhere, detecting and blocking each other’s tracking devices is pretty much the extent of their mental sparring.

One of the series’ talking points has been its extremely negative portrayal of Albanians; “Taken 2” closed on a note suggesting the the blood feud would live on, and it would have made sense here for it to continue here, or for Mills to finally set foot in the hermit country. Alas, those characters have been ditched in favor of Russian mafiosos, who come across as pale imitations of the tattooed fiends in David Cronenberg’s “Eastern Promises.”

What has made the “Taken” franchise such a guilty pleasure so far is its take-no-prisoners stance toward bad guys and its no-holds-barred brutality, especially coming from Neeson, an actor who radiates gravitas and nobility no matter what. Although less graphic in its representation of violence than its predecessors, “Taken 3” retains a gutsy realism in scenes where Mills matter-of-factly cracks bones and splatters brains, and the shoot-’em-ups, car wrecks and explosions are noisier and more bombastic than ever. They’re also unimaginatively choreographed, with zero forward momentum. Even as the scale of each production has increased, the scope of the action has diminished: Compared with scattering hand grenades all over Istanbul, it’s mere child’s play for Mills to blow up a classroom at Kim’s college.

Without a doubt, the first “Taken” movie gave Neeson, then in his 50s, a new lease on life as an action hero. Now 62, the actor still has an imposing presence, but more often than not, he looks pretty beat and impatient to get things over with. Kim has evolved from an exasperatingly clueless brat to a feisty rescuer over two films, but there isn’t any real progression in character development or in Grace’s performance here.

Stuart, a slimy wimp as played by Xander Berkeley in the first “Taken,” served as a neat foil for our straight-talking, straight-shooting hero. Replaced here by Scott, he behaves like a badass dude who is supposed to be Mills’ equal in gun-toting prowess; it’s a wholly unconvincing transformation. As Russian mafioso Malankov, Sam Spruell behaves like a cardboard James Bond villain, showing some vicious individuality only in the action scenes.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

1

moviexpertsJan 14, 2015

Taken 3 is sucks,Liam neeson is more DIE HARD than Bruce willis in the movie . Taken 2 is far more better than Taken 3
The worst sequels ever.Some scenes is definitely make no sense

4 of 5 users found this helpful41

All this user's reviews

0

imthenoobApr 2, 2015

Absolute garbage. A majority of the film being focused on Maggie and not Liam. Not much in terms of action either for a majority of the film either. They tried far too hard to make it into a some-what serious drama/action and the terribleAbsolute garbage. A majority of the film being focused on Maggie and not Liam. Not much in terms of action either for a majority of the film either. They tried far too hard to make it into a some-what serious drama/action and the terrible plot/dialogue simply didn't work. What a terrible way to end a series, Should have just left it with the first one.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

0

leaveitJan 22, 2015

The first movie was Commando, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, but with the guy that died in Star Wars and Batman instead of Arnold Schwarzenegger. This is the third movie in that series. What do you expect? I've seen better written copy pasta.

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

0

DontBeSaltyJan 22, 2015

Taken 1 was at best a cliche revenge movie, but it was fast and punchy and it was simple, it was something new and when it came on at 8pm on Channel Ten ya mum watched it and made it most of the way through before she fell asleep. Taken 2Taken 1 was at best a cliche revenge movie, but it was fast and punchy and it was simple, it was something new and when it came on at 8pm on Channel Ten ya mum watched it and made it most of the way through before she fell asleep. Taken 2 came out shortly after and sprayed diarrhea so hard even the simple people didnt enjoy it, Taken 2 was such a shameless cash grab it's astounding that retards paid money again, this time to see Tak3n. So people never learn and this movie took the top spot at the box office perpetuating the cycle of cheap **** movies, and more specifically **** rehashes which take up over 90% of recent releases (no actually, this is a real statistic) to make money off idiots.

This movie is bad in the same way the Star Wars Christmas Special is bad, no-one wanted to see it, no-one wanted to make it, no-one gave a ****… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

1

ThegodfathersonJan 10, 2015

Taken 3 is a mess. A mess that could have been a solid sequel to the trilogy. After Taken 2, I lost all hope of the Taken sequels being any good, becuase Taken 2 was a mess as well. Taken 3 applies the same formula that made the first TakenTaken 3 is a mess. A mess that could have been a solid sequel to the trilogy. After Taken 2, I lost all hope of the Taken sequels being any good, becuase Taken 2 was a mess as well. Taken 3 applies the same formula that made the first Taken so good, and cuts, copies and pastes the same acting and writing skills used. By this time, the formula has already been worn out, but the makers DONT care about it, they just want the money. And yes, they succeed, becuase all shows were sold out. When everyone watched the movie, 79 percent of them were sleeping and the other percent of the people were talking about Liam Neeson stopping acting altogether. And I have to agree with them because, the story was boring. Not a moment, did Taken 3 fully realize it's potential and kick ass. Even the action scenes lack a sense of joy that should have made this atleast enjoyable. Well, Forest Whitaker gives a solid performance as a by the book cop, and Famke Jessen- well, you'll have to see to find out. Or, just don't see it altogether, some taut moments aside, this franchise has gotten it's rotten apple of the bunch.… Expand

5 of 9 users found this helpful54

All this user's reviews

2

GangialfJan 19, 2015

This movie could be easily improved destroying every single copy on the market.
The action scenes (3/4 of the movie) are shoot in such a weird way that it is literally impossible to follow.
To see Liam Neeson running is a pain: let's faceThis movie could be easily improved destroying every single copy on the market.
The action scenes (3/4 of the movie) are shoot in such a weird way that it is literally impossible to follow.
To see Liam Neeson running is a pain: let's face the truth, he is getting older like everybody else.
The plot is meaningless and split.
I would like to find the director and "use a certain set of skills" on him.
I won't mark it as a 0, because it is the last movie, hopefully, and they won't make more damages to the history of cinema.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

0

uguranFeb 5, 2015

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. worst movie i ever see it, taken 1 awesome movie, taken 2 its okay, but to much cgi und story awful, und taken 3`???????????????????????????? its looks like rambo mode, whats wrong with this movie. please no look this trash here.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

3

NerdConsultantJan 10, 2015

With terrible action sequences and poor story Taken 3 is a mess that is somehow worse than Taken 2 It’s decently acted and the story has some bright ideas when it’s not ripping off the fugitive, it just never fully executes them. I thinkWith terrible action sequences and poor story Taken 3 is a mess that is somehow worse than Taken 2 It’s decently acted and the story has some bright ideas when it’s not ripping off the fugitive, it just never fully executes them. I think this film could have been a lot worse than it was, but with the product that we have now, it’s not one that I would really recommend, except to huge Taken fans. The tag line of Taken 3 is “it ends here”, well thank god it ends here because it is very clear from Taken 2 and Taken 3, that this film should never have been a franchise. This whole thing kind of feels like a studio mandate, because the studio were insisting that this had to be a trilogy. I wouldn’t be surprised if I found that out. But as it stands Taken 3 is a pretty disappointing start to 2015 for me. It may have more of an identity than it predecessor, but it’s worse than its predecessor purely on the fact its action sequences are a lot worse and it’s plot has a lot more contrivances that it is very difficult to get past. I really wanted Taken 3 to bring the franchise back, but as it stands, it doesn’t work. This is a film I would recommend only renting when it comes out on DVD. If you must see it in cinemas, don’t bother with IMAX, it’s a waste of £4.00.… Expand

4 of 10 users found this helpful46

All this user's reviews

0

SmeeFeb 1, 2015

Script-1/10
Editing -1/10
Acting-4/10
CGI-1/10
Directing-2/10
Plot twists-None

Worth to watch in Cinema -NO
Worth to buy Blueray -No

overall ratings-1/10

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

3

diogomendesJan 24, 2015

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Redundancy is strong in "Taken 3", an unneeded sequel of the unneeded sequel that while contains a few moments performed by Liam Neeson and Forest Whitaker worth watching, its plot is banal and the action sequences are too frenetically edited to provoke excitement. Some people say that it's better than the second film. Well, that's no large feat. The previous movie sucked, and this one is not an exception.

Liam Neeson returns as ex-covert operative Bryan Mills, whose long awaited reconciliation with his ex-wife 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. 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.

Now, the movie opens with some armed guys who work for this veteran operative named Oleg Malankov, basically a generic antagonist whose plan is absurd. After Lenore's husband kills her, Bryan Mills does what he is best at: Goes after them, while also escaping from the cops. The action, just like in the second movie, sucks. Shaky cameras, quick zoom-in and cuts... it's bad and hurt my eyes just by seeing them. Olivier Megaton clearly doesn't understand what made the original Taken a hit. As for the actors, they're fine. Can't say they did "an extraordinary" job, but they were okay. Liam Neeson's presence prevents myself from giving a much lower score than this and I like Forest's performance. In fact, I love him as an actor.

One thing I don't understand is that the police thinks Bryan murdered his ex-wife Lenore, but they don't know he risked his whole life to save her in the previous film (not to mention, he f*cking killed hundreds of people and travelled far to save his daughter in the first film). And suddenly, Stuart is part of some illegal business with a dangerous veteran... whatever.

"Taken 3" reminds me of "The Next Karate Kid" and "A Good Day to Die Hard", it shouldn't have been made. It shouldn't have been a franchise. It's an obvious cash grab that offers little to the movies aficionado. If you're going to make a movie that serves only to generate cash, at least do it right. Stop wasting audience's time, for God's sake.

Final Score to Tak3n (God the title is so dumb): 3/10. It was a little enjoyable, but it's diminished by its moronic script, terrible direction and bad action scenes, even if Liam Neeson and the rest of the cast gave everything to make this movie right.

(Hey, at least the movie wasn't Transformers: Age of Extinction).… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

1

duncan1964Jan 23, 2015

Although still called Taken, this is really false advertising as no one actually gets 'taken' this time. Instead what we have is a remake of The Fugitive, well what we really have is a really, really, REALLY bad remake of the Fugitive.Although still called Taken, this is really false advertising as no one actually gets 'taken' this time. Instead what we have is a remake of The Fugitive, well what we really have is a really, really, REALLY bad remake of the Fugitive. Accused of killing his wife, Leeson goes on the run, presumably to his nearest bank to cash his pay cheque, closely followed by Forrest Whittaker. Shameful, lazy filmmaking that treats the audience with the utmost contempt… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

0

FranzHcriticAug 3, 2015

The first film had used up all its puff and zang, and there was little there to begin with. This is more convoluted, more incomprehensible. The action scenes are, in all honesty, boring and lacking any suspense the first film managed toThe first film had used up all its puff and zang, and there was little there to begin with. This is more convoluted, more incomprehensible. The action scenes are, in all honesty, boring and lacking any suspense the first film managed to (barely) generate. I'm thankful that this will be the last of the 'Taken' films.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

1

LowbrowCinemaApr 22, 2015

TAKEN 3 is not even a movie. I love the first TAKEN. Really love it. This flick is totally incomprehensible. Did no one making this film realize that it is Neeson and his interactions that make his films work? Instead he's like theTAKEN 3 is not even a movie. I love the first TAKEN. Really love it. This flick is totally incomprehensible. Did no one making this film realize that it is Neeson and his interactions that make his films work? Instead he's like the terminator. Action, action, action, but nothing you ain't seen before and done much better.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

2

moviemayhemApr 28, 2015

The neatest thing about Taken, the French-made chase flick that launched the action-star phase of Liam Neeson’s career, is the way it bundles together a whole lot of parental and urban fears, then sublimates them into pummeling action. It’s aThe neatest thing about Taken, the French-made chase flick that launched the action-star phase of Liam Neeson’s career, is the way it bundles together a whole lot of parental and urban fears, then sublimates them into pummeling action. It’s a movie of relentless and reckless momentum, premised on a middle-age paranoid kook’s worst case scenario.

Taken 2 tried to one-up the original’s “kidnapped abroad” setup, but ended up producing something that only felt louder, uglier, and a lot less fun. Kudos to Taken 3, then, for at least trying something new. Instead of rescuing a family member from Albanian mobsters in yet another world capital, Bryan Mills—the throat-punching, elbow-chopping ex-CIA operative most people think of as simply “Liam Neeson”—finds himself framed for murder in L.A. It’s a conventional riff on The Fugitive, complete with Forest Whitaker in the Tommy Lee Jones role, but at least it’s tapping into a set of fears and fantasies—about divorce and being replaced by a step-parent—that are distinct from those of the original.

What makes Mills compelling—aside from Neeson’s performance, naturally—is the fact that his cartoonish over-preparedness and ability to escape from any situation are rooted in anxiety. He’s the perfect father for a kid who’s been kidnapped by armed thugs, but over-protective and awkward otherwise—a fact that Taken 3 underscores when Mills, who can effortlessly elude the best and brightest of the LAPD, slumps over after learning that his now grown-up daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) is pregnant. He’s an invulnerable action hero for the same reasons why he’s a difficult parent and partner.

So what, exactly, is wrong with Taken 3? A lot of things, most of which can be attributed to the fact that director Olivier Megaton—who also helmed Taken 2—couldn’t mount an action scene if his life depended on it. Pierre Morel, the cinematographer-turned-director behind the original Taken and the parkour flick District B13, at least had the good sense to move the camera with Neeson, playing off of his size and heft to create momentum. Making good on his name, Megaton takes the quantity-over-quality approach, executing a flurry of cuts across as many sloppy angles as possible, producing a gurgling brownish soup of photochemical textures and handheld jitters. This is the sort of movie where it takes a half-dozen shots for a man to jump over a fence. It’s busy, but lacks any sense of movement, and is too visually monotonous to work on an abstract level.

Because Mills’ hyper-competence never seems exciting, it instead becomes giggle-inducing. While, at this point, co-writers Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen are clearly milking the character’s tendency to speak in super-serious declaratives for intentional laughs (how else can one explain lines like, “I put something in the yogurt to make you nauseous,” and, “I have low blood sugar because I haven’t eaten since yesterday”?), it’s safe to presume that the high point of a sequence where Mills breaks into an LAPD garage isn’t supposed to be the shot of our towering, sixtysomething hero casually sliding out of the trunk of a car. Running a solid reel longer than either of its predecessors and featuring the worst car chase in recent memory, the movie amounts to little more than generic action slop, enlivened only by brief glimmers of intentional and unintentional comedy.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

1

dyshpoMay 29, 2015

Hard to watch without feeling ashamed of Liam Neeson's career choices after doing this uber flop . How could any one even say this was ok for the box office. The villain was a cartoon running around in underwear and the other villain wasHard to watch without feeling ashamed of Liam Neeson's career choices after doing this uber flop . How could any one even say this was ok for the box office. The villain was a cartoon running around in underwear and the other villain was aged down 30 years to be barely more credible . The story was a cluster fck . All involved were set to zombie and clearly had to be liquored up to stand in front of the camera.… Expand