from Amazon
Monday, December 07, 2009
Movies: Taken (Liam Neeson)
(Not a sports-post.)
It’s playing on HBO this week (or was anyway… might still be). Whenever I finish watching a movie, I go see what Roger Ebert says. And, he pretty much nails it every time. And, this time, is no different. I love Ebert. I love that he’s an old guy who’s been doing this forever, but can sound fresh. That he can say things clearly, give a movie review without giving away much but still tell you alot. I’m not sure if I’ve ever really disagreed on any movie with him. In a pinch, he’s my go-to guy.
He gives Taken 2 1/2 stars, and that’s about right. It’s 3 if you don’t want to think too much, and just want to enjoy the ride. It’s 2 if you have to start thinking about the plausibility. IMDB has it as 7.9, and pretty much any movie at 8.0+ is a “must-see”. So, clearly, the IMDB viewers are like me: just want to have fun. I love the idea behind Rotten Tomatoes (experts, rather than lay folk like us), but there’s too much to sift through. The overall 57% doesn’t do this movie justice. I mean, it echoes Ebert’s rating, but I don’t think you can just go with the number with reviewers. I’d prefer that reviewers give out two ratings: those that requires plausibility and those where you can get past the implausibility. With Taken, you definitely can get past it (if you don’t look too much).
And, I love this:
The movie proves two things. (1) Liam Neeson can bring undeserved credibility to most roles just by playing them, and ...
Darn right. Liam Neeson has it. Who else can train Batman, be in Love Actually, Schindler’s List and Excalibur, and make out with Peter Saarsgaard? Dustin Hoffman? Sean Connery? Gene Hackman? Denzel Washington (maybe, but he’s WAY too leading-man-ish… hard for Denzel to be a bit player)? Tom Hanks? Maybe Russell Crowe?
Trying to pick out his worst roles. Hard to really. I probably saw a third of those movies. But even in low-ranked movies (like Nell), he’s got great charisma for it.