Taken 2

[Neon Ignition]

Liam Neeson kicks ass before his little holiday from acting as he returns in the popular Taken series

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/56475

The poster is out now for this:



The film is pegged for release at the end of this year

[Fader209]

Trailer!

[buster_broon]

I bloody love Liam neeson

[SuperDanX]

Thuggin' Awesome.

[noobish hat]

Ok, I have to admit, this is looking a bit wank. It's both a downgrade from, and a rehash of the first film. Half the fun of the original was the ticking clock, and the challenge of finding the kidnappers with almost nothing to go on. Now they're coming for him? What's the point of that? And a revenge story? Is this Taken 2, or Die Hard 3? What about using almost the exact same telephone conversation set up as the first film? How unoriginal can you get.

[buster_broon]

HOW VERY DARE YOU SIR

[bash]

After seeing Wrath of the Titans I think Liam is collecting his cheque by not overly caring which film choices he makes these days. The last decent thing I saw him in was A-Team and even that was by the numbers. That guy can act so would be kool if he went for some "straight" roles every now and again. He's becoming the Irish Chuck Norris FFS

[rmoxon]

The plot was hardly the best thing about the first film. It was great becuase Liam nesson was absolubtely terrific, giving one of the best leading performances in an action film ever, and the action choreography was fantastic too, or it was in the uncut version. I don't know what the action scenes were like in the butchered pg-13 rated theatrical cut, as I've never seen it.

[JSR]

Ok, I have to admit, this is looking a bit wank. It's both a downgrade from, and a rehash of the first film. Half the fun of the original was the ticking clock, and the challenge of finding the kidnappers with almost nothing to go on. Now they're coming for him? What's the point of that? And a revenge story? Is this Taken 2, or Die Hard 3? What about using almost the exact same telephone conversation set up as the first film? How unoriginal can you get.

I agree! The premise for this one seems very, very weak. The guys he killed in the last movie were all nobodies, and now they're gonna give them depth to make the avengers cause more believable? That's cheap. And all the "cool action scenes" in the trailer is stuff I've seen before. Car in front of a train? Yawn. Will probably be a nice, dumb rental though.

[rmoxon]

I don't see what's wrong with the revenge thing. All the best sequels build on plot and character elements from the original. It's like in lethal weapon 2 where you find out that the bad guys are the ones that killed Riggs wife. Yes it's slightly contrived and was never hinted at in the first film, but it also adds an element of continutity and emotional involvement that is often sorely lacking in sequels that were not originally planned along side the first film.

It also makes it feel like a proper sequel and not just a new story that could have involved any character in the lead role.

[noobish hat]

Lethal Weapon 2 was the worst in the series because of the Riggs' wife bull****. It was cheap, heavily contrived, and totally unnecessary.

You can't build on character elements from the first film in terms of villains because, as Alex pointed out, they didn't have characters. They were nobodies.

If the sleazy 'it was all business' guy hadn't been killed in the first film, he might have made a believable villain for the sequel. A bunch of Albanians who were only there as canon fodder? Nobody cares about them or their brothers.

Also, it seems like Neeson's character is back with his wife now? Another mistep, since a big part of the satisfaction of the first film was how Mills proved himself to be badass in front of his bitch of an ex-wife and her rich fancy man. Now all that is gone.

[rmoxon]

You thought lethal weapon 2 was the worst in the series?

Ok then.

Anyway I never said that you did care about the bad guys in the first film. What I'm saying is that if they can add depth to them in the second film it gives the story another layer, which is what a sequel should do.

Just becuase you thought they were "nobodies" in the first film, doesn't mean they were actually were "nobodies" (becuase everyone has a personality and reasons for doing what they do in life, and people who care about them, or most people do anyway). Just becuase the first film chose not to explore the bad guys background and make them anything other than cannon fodder doesn't mean that the second film will take the same route.

Also I'm not sure he is exactly "back" with his wife, it appears as though he's just getting along with her now. The wife thing was another 1 dimensional element of the first film, you didn't really like or understand anyone's motivations besides Neesons character. Its also a reason why even if he was back with his wife it wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination, becuase we dont know how her mind works at all becuase the first film never bothered to explore that. As much as I liked Taken, having bad characterisation like that was not one of the things it should be praised for. If they can make you bothered about another character besides Neeson then all the better in the sequel.

[Neon Ignition]

.... Lethal Weapon 2 is the worst in the series

[rmoxon]

You're both mad.

The third and forth films were much worse than the second one. Lethal Weapon 2 did what a lot of sequels don't bother with doing and developed the characters further. It also has the best action scenes in the series and although the first is a better film the second is certainly regarded as one of the best sequels ever made for good reason, and that's becuase it built on what was already there in the first one and improved the formula in a few ways.

It also has a much better climax than the original, which features a really badly shot and edited fight scene in the rain and feels quite aticlimatic. In comparison the second film goes out on a real high note. Shame they had to make the next two films.

[Fader209]

Lethal Weapon 3 is the worst in the series by far.