20th Century Burton - Another Mini-Marathon

20th Century Burton - Another Mini-Marathon

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of

Batman

Batman Returns

Mars Attacks!

and Sleepy Hollow

Plus a Bonus Review of Catwoman

Despite my disappointment at Big Fish not being as good as I remembered it, I quite enjoyed my last batch of Tim Burton reviews, so I decided to do another, focussing entirely on his earlier output that made me such a fan. A number of Burton's pre-2000 films were reviewed here, so here are the others… with one exception. When it comes to Full Educations, one rule I will have is that I don't have to have reviewed films that aren't freely available on UK DVD or Blu-Ray, though it won't categorically mean that I haven't seen them. Burton's debut feature film is one of those, as Pee-Wee's Big Adventure is quite hard to get hold of in this country. For the record, I have seen it, but not recently enough for me to feel that I can review it. From what I remember, it's OK… ish.

In 50 Words or Less: Regardless of how much of a Batman purist you are, there can be no denying that this film paved a huge portion of the way for comic book films to come. It's not perfect, but considering the period it came out in, it's still impressive.

In the review after this, I'm going to express an opinion that won't be popular. In preparation for it though, I will say right now that I am a big fan of Tim Burton's Batman films. I'm happy to accept that Christopher Nolan's films are the most faithful and also consider myself to be a big fan of those films, but Burton's films have become lumped in with the same period that produced the, shall we say, less good Joel Schumacher films. They really don't deserve to be. Though they may take liberties with the source material and even outright change some characters to be barely recognisable from their illustrated counterparts, they still stand as decent stories and excellent comic book films from a time when there were far less of those around. This one is the more simple of the two, as it's all about Batman (Michael Keaton) VS The Joker (Jack Nicholson). The film's priority is having fun and (surprisingly for a Burton film) while many of the scenes are naturally set at night, it doesn't feel like he's overly concerned with maintaining a darker tone. With a much larger focus on Nicholson than there is on Keaton, the sad past of Bruce Wayne is frequently pushed aside in favour of the more fun Joker, apparently equipped with his own collection of Prince music. Is that a correct decision? Not completely. The title of this film is Batman and yet that character gets sidelined at the first hurdle in favour of the noticeable obsession that Burton has with his villains. Keaton is a solid turn, but a real fleshing out of the character feels absent. Meanwhile, the Joker gets a huge fleshing out, giving us far more backstory than should ever be necessary for the character. Nicholson doesn't adapt into the role, but instead turns the character into more of a Jack Nicholson performance. That's not always a bad thing, but Heath Ledger's performance has really dated this one. That doesn't make it a terrible performance, as Nicholson is often what instils this film with life. I just feel like he should have tried a bit harder to do something different. For these reasons, if you're coming into Batman with fresh eyes, it won't seem as good as it did back at the time of it's release. The narrative will be familiar and the action set pieces won't entirely dazzle, but that's because this is a 26 year-old film and all those films that make it feel dated wouldn't exist without this one laying a lot of the ground work. Whether you like it or not, this film is an important one.

FOUR out of five

In 50 Words or Less: My absolute favourite Batman film... and I love a lot of the others.

Here's the unpopular opinion. This is the best Batman film ever made. Again, I acknowledge the fact that Burton's faithfulness to the canon (other than the name, the Penguin is a brand new character) is Berlusconi levels of lacking, but when it comes to simple enjoyment, this takes the top spot for me. It's got that rebellious streak that I wanted from the first film, with Burton taking full control of the vision that he wants. All of his trademarks are there: gothic architecture, playful Danny Elfman score, macabre sense of humour, yet the film still wants to do right by the characters that Burton so loves. With the feared Penguin (Danny DeVito) emerging from the sewers in an attempt to be accepted by society, he begins a crooked path towards the Mayor's office, backed by "so shady it's untrue" businessman Max Schreck (Christopher Walken). Naturally, Batman's keeping an eye on them, but also has to contend with a considerably less clean-cut vigilante in the emerging Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer). The presence of three villains often sets off alarm bells in this day and age (see a number of Spider-Man films), but Batman Returns shows how it can work. By establishing firm links between all three of them, it helps in tying in their motives. However, Daniel Waters' script is proficient to properly develop their characters separately. Despite having slightly less focus than the other two, Catwoman probably fares best and this is down hugely to Pfeiffer's outstanding performance. Anne Hathaway was good, but Pfeiffer shows how it's really done. DeVito and Walken come close to matching her though. The different take on the Penguin will (and does) jar with purists, but DeVito brings out so many different facets of this character that I can't help but feel a fascination with it. Schreck, on the other hand, is a walking stereotype, but a Walken performance is rarely unworthy of checking out. This is no exception. With all these villains though, does this affect Batman? Yes, particularly in the opening, as he barely gets a show in for the first half hour, during which it's all about setting up the villains. This is fairly indicative of the film as a whole, as Keaton once again feels like he's playing second fiddle to the villains, but this time it works better for me. He still has a lot of fairly killer lines and the dynamic between Batman and Catwoman is outstanding here. Only half of that is down to Pfeiffer. I'm not saying that Batman Returns is the best thing that ever happened to Batman on the big screen, but there's only so many times I can watch the Nolan films before I have to put them away for a while. If I want a Batman fix, it's this film that I'm usually going to bust out. Purists be damned.

FIVE out of five

In 50 Words or Less: It's a big budget B-movie about Martians killing the human race. Whether or not that sounds like your kind of thing pretty much determines whether or not you will like this film. It is my kind of thing.

Perhaps I'm underestimating the power that a B-movie homage held in the mid-1990s (I was 9 when this film came out), but giving a 100 million dollar budget to Mars Attacks! has regularly struck me as one of the strangest financial decisions the American film industry has ever made. Like it was ever going to make that one back. This is the sort of film that seems destined for a cult following, which is not a bad thing, but that rarely equates to monetary greatness. That niggle aside, I like Mars Attacks!, but I'm happy to accept that many won't and don't. A cast of A-listers gather together (often in very small roles) to create a Hollywood blockbuster version of a cheap-ass Ed Wood style alien invasion film. That becomes the film's main joke and it works, rarely becoming wearing as it's always willing to bust out yet another huge star just to keep the madness flowing. It's not it's only trick though, as there's the stabs at social and political satire too. These hold about the same level of subtlety as killing an ant with a chainsaw, but again suit the film. Everything that is thrown in here creates the film that the filmmaker's wanted to make. What that means is that your enjoyment of it will all hinge on whether or not it sounds like something you would enjoy. If it doesn't, I doubt there is anything here to convince you otherwise. This isn't up there with the greatest sci-fi pastiches ever made and if you want one that I think may well strike a chord with just about anyone, then I personally direct you towards Galaxy Quest. Mars Attacks! is always a film I will be willing to watch and I will always enjoy it. I'm just not confident enough to guarantee that you will feel the same way.

THREE out of five

In 50 Words or Less: Another Burton film that's not as good as I remember it, treading that dangerous line between homage and rip-off, but straying a little close to the wrong side. It's always fun, but inconsistent when it comes to being anything more than that. Inconsistent also being the state of the acting.

I'm starting to get a little alarmed by revisiting these Burton films because first Big Fish became a victim of fonder memories than there perhaps should have been and now Sleepy Hollow has suffered a similar (if not quite as strong) fate. This time though, I can put my finger on exactly why it is. When I first watched Sleepy Hollow, I loved it, but also held a deep disregard for the idea of watching most things created before my own birth. Now that I've grown up (a little), I've discovered the likes of Hammer Horror. This means that I now realise that, though Sleepy Hollow is an intentional homage to those types of films, some of that homage does tread perilously close to rip-off territory. The film is, of course, an adaptation of the story of the headless horseman, as quirky police constable Ichabod Crane (Johnny Depp, somewhat staggeringly there are four Burton reviews, yet only one Deep performance in this post) is sent to investigate murders that have befallen the titular haven for fog. With his faith in science and his disdain for the resident's tales of the horseman, Crane is not there to make friends, but soon learns that he probably should have listened in the first place. Sleepy Hollow is good fun (a phrase that I'm apparently clinging to at the moment) and holds enough imagination and excitement to warrant a watch, but it is flawed. Depp is supposed to be annoying to the other characters, but this annoyance passes it's way to the viewer somewhat. Crane is a colossal wuss and this becomes tiresome. I'm pretty sure I'd be shitting myself every bit as much as he does, but I don't want to watch that on the screen. This also reveals the film's love of the human ability to faint, something that a number of characters (not just Crane) do often. It holds some amusement the first couple of times, but quickly becomes evident as the film's primary (and deeply lazy) method of transporting characters from scene to scene. The irritation of Depp's character isn't helped by the presence of Christina Ricci as the primary love interest because she is not good at all in the role. In fact, considering that she's often a solid hand, it's alarming just how stilted she is, as though she's far too focussed on mastering her accent and has forgotten to actually perform. No consolation prize then, because her accent isn't any good either. Maybe it's me becoming more of a film snob as the years progress, but Sleepy Hollow doesn't have the spark that it once held for me. I hate saying that because it riddles this review with negativity, but when a film you previously loved suddenly becomes nothing more than good, it can only feel disappointing.

THREE out of five

Bonus Review

In 50 Words or Less: I'm considering taking back the ZERO out of five I gave to The Counsellor. That will likely make this the worst film I've reviewed to date.

I'm not sure that anyone ever expected Catwoman to be good. It just seemed like a foregone conclusion that it would be awful. On the other hand, I'm not sure that anyone outside of the filmmaker's knew that it was going to be this bad and, if they did, they must be held accountable. Catwoman is not just a bad film. It's a film that's so inconceivably awful that if anyone involved thought they were producing something otherwise, they deserve a slow lowering into a pit of pissed off piranhas*. The film's director goes by the moniker of Pitof, instantly putting him on the same level as McG (he of Terminator Salvation fame). That's not a good start, but going on the basis of filmmaking skills, McG has the upper hand plus twelve more. It's like Pitof has bought in people who previously demonstrated some skill, then turned to them and said "You know what would be really funny? If we made a really bad film and people paid to see it, whilst we make lots of money!"

…DIDN'T DO A RIGHT FAT LOT FOR YOUR CAREER, DID IT PITOF? The awfulness of Catwoman can be summed up by a simple plot synopsis. Cosmetics company employee Patience (I had none) Phillips (Halle Berry) discovers the side effects caused by the latest product from her evil employees and is killed by a result. Resurrected by the a cat created from the worst CGI you've seen this century, she becomes Catwoman and seeks revenge against her employers, one of whom (Sharon Stone) literally has rock hard skin as a result of the use of her own product. Halle Berry famously declared the film "a piece of shit" when accepting her Razzie for Worst Actress. That's not a lie, but obviously attempts to divert from just how much she deserved that award. When Sharon Stone is delivering a better performance than you in anything other than Casino, you have to have screwed up somewhere. The film throws in characters and plot strands that are so under-developed that you almost feel like you're watching a sequel to The Room and the bizarre scenes between Berry and love interest cop Benjamin Bratt conjure up similar memories too. Finally, there's the fight scenes. Taken 2 and 3 got similar criticism last week, but when I say that they are heinous in Catwoman, I mean it in a far worse way than anything I ever threw at the Taken films. It's not that there is no justification for a Catwoman film, it's that there is simply no excuse for it to exist in the state that it does. Think Batman And Robin or Daredevil are the worst superhero films ever made? Catwoman will prove you wrong. I've said that a ZERO out of five will only go to films that I find harmful to film on a moral level. However, I want to stress that this is...

…perhaps the most emphatic ONE out of five I've given to date.

*I joke of course. No one deserves to die for making a bad film. Just suffer.

Next Time (14th May)

A Slight Delay

Just a quick note: Wednesday's review has been delayed due to unforeseen circumstances (no one died!). It will now be on 30th April.

I'd offer to make it up to you, but I can't be arsed and I'm pretty sure you'll live!

Bad Skills - Neither The Neeson We Need, Nor The Neeson We Love

Bad Skills

How Liam Neeson became an action poster boy… and why he needs to stop

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of

Taken

Unknown

The Grey

Taken 2

Non-Stop

A Walk Among The Tombstones

and Taken 3

After positive feedback to the new 50 words or less feature, I'm going to continue latching on to feedback with what is one of the most obvious "crowd pullers". I hereby guarantee that every week there will be at least one destruction of a terrible film. There will still be good reviews, as I never want to be that guy who throws out a constant barrage of negativity and nothing else, but even I have to admit that the bad reviews are a lot more fun.

I have temporarily resigned myself to the idea that Liam Neeson films aren't going to be getting any better any time soon. Somehow, someway, he's managed to become the one staple of the "old farts with guns" category that's survived, outlasting the box office clout of stalwarts such as Schwarzenegger and Stallone. I'd love to say that's because of his superior acting talent, but after watching these 7 films (I'm not parting with a tenner of my money for a cinema trip to Run All Night), I'm starting to question whether even The Expendables franchise might be too good for him.

Notes: I'm sticking to films entirely sold on the presence of Neeson (and Neeson alone) as an action star here, thus removing films such as The A-Team, Third Person and Battleship.

In 50 Words or Less: The film that started it all is neither the classic or disaster that different people would have you believe. It's a technically terrible, but trashily enjoyable, action film and nothing more. Still, enjoyable is enjoyable.

Badass Liam No. 1

In Detail: If the rest of the films here are like an extended lavatorial visit, then Taken is the vindaloo that put you there. You don't know why you're doing it, you know you probably shouldn't be doing it, but for a brief moment of absolute madness, you kind of enjoy it. See, it's not hard to understand why this whole craze started because I can remember watching Taken when it first came out. A confused combination of laughter and disbelief permeated the air, along with the ever-lasting question of REALLY!?, but there was still something fun about it. If Chuck Norris jokes ever died off, it was beginning to appear that Neeson may be the unlikely successor. Here's a challenge though for you. Assuming you have already seen this film (and potentially the other two), name his character. Without looking it up. I'm working on the basis that you can't. This is a character that has become so indelibly etched into modern day film that you could give every one of Neeson's characters the same name and people probably wouldn't notice because:

1. It may as well BE the same character.
2. No one pays the blindest bit of attention to what he's called anyway.

At the end of the day, Taken is a film about a father (he's called Brian Mills, by the way) hunting for the traffickers who have kidnapped his daughter (Maggie Grace). He will find them, he will kill them, but he won't surprise you in the slightest. It's an entirely throwaway piece of fun, in which the safest assumption to take with any characters is American: good (except for Neeson, who's supposed to be American, but still sounds Irish), Foreign: bad. The action scenes are fast and nasty and the dialogue is so laugh out loud awful that it becomes a highlight in it's own right. When it came out, there was perhaps a feeling that this wouldn't end in the standard predictable manner (after all, there had to be some artistic reason why Neeson would take this on). That actually helped with making this enjoyably, but with a knowledge of how much of the norm this became, that feeling will be dead (even if you are watching for the first time) to almost anyone now. However, without that awareness of the beast that this film would create, I'd be lying if I didn't say I enjoyed it.

THREE out of five

In 50 Words or Less: No one can remember who Liam Neeson is apart from some bloke trying to kill him. It's not quite the same brain-dead paint by numbers action film as a lot of his others, but instead a mentally handicapped action thriller, coupled with poor performances from anyone not named Diane Kruger.

Badass Liam No. 2

In Detail: I'm not lying though when I say that Unknown marked the point where I grew fed up of Neeson finding and killing. That's right, only two films in. With character name once again surplus to requirements, Neeson plays Dr Martin Harris (dum dum dum dum dum), who suffers a bout of reverse amnesia when he awakens from a taxi crash to find that no one (not even his wife), remembers who he is and another man (Aidan "How-Long-Is-It-Since-I-Was-In-A-Decent-Film" Quinn) appears to have taken his place. Neeson not happy, but Neeson now run because there is at least one person who seems to know what's going on and that person is trying to kill him. Unknown is going for the taut, exciting thriller feel and though the tone of the film is right for that, the plotting isn't. It just gets more and more ridiculous, meaning that where a lot of similar films wait until the 3rd act before they collapse, this one's halfway there in the first 10 minutes. Neeson is incredibly whiny in this film. His constant cries of "I'm Martin Harris! This man is an impostor!" rattle the eardrums until you're just begging for a vital character to get killed in the vain hope that it ends. Now, I'd be lying if I said this was entirely without merit because there are some OK action scenes (OK's as far as I'll take it) and a little bit of my inquisitive nature took hold at points, but everything's a little bland and the performances rarely help. Diane Kruger's a solid presence and Neeson's not terrible (just terribly bland). Some supporting performances absolutely stink though, most notably January Jones as Neeson's wife, who displays the emotional range of an unassembled box of flatpack. I have to say though that I do know a few people who do like Unknown, so sod it, go watch the damn thing for all I care. It's your 2 hours you're wasting.

TWO out of five

In 50 Words Or Less: A surprisingly great film, as Neeson action mixes with Neeson acting. Well developed characters give us something to actually care about and the battle of men versus wolves drips as much tension as it does testosterone. It's not a classic, but it's a damn sight better than the alternatives.

In Detail: The Grey doesn't look like it's going to be any different. It contains the trifecta of every generic Neeson film. Poster comprising of Neeson and not a whole lot else?

Badass Liam No. 3

Check. Said actor gruffing up his voice to the point where he may as well have just gargled a cup of cactus spikes? Check. Deeply unimaginative tagline? Live or die on this day. Yeah, I'd say that's the third strike. Be fooled not, because The Grey's really good. It helps that it's a little different. Neeson is still presented as the vision of manliness that we all should aspire to be, but he is doing no finding and little killing here. In fact, he's closer to hiding, as his group of oil workers find themselves stranded in Alaska after a pretty brutal plane crash. This time, Neeson's the foreigner, as said plane happened to invade the lair of some (every bit as hungry as they are nasty) wolves. There are two things that set this film aside from everything else here. The first is the director. I'm a huge fan of Joe Carnahan. He may not have a perfect record (Smokin' Aces), but he has always found some way to entertain me and often properly thrill me. He's also not short on testicular fortitude and is very willing to divert from the formula just that little bit that helps keep the audience engaged, but also separate his films from similar ones. This leads me on to the other area of real success: the script. Also written by Carnahan, along with Ian MacKenzie Jeffers, it's a script with a very simple objective. Focus on creating characters that we care about. That way, any peril (mild or otherwise) that they face will feel excruciatingly tense and my God, doesn't it just? It helps that every character feels expendable, but still important. Absolutely no one is safe here, with the obvious exception of the lead, but, by the end, even his survival is starting to feel less certain. It makes for a simple objective executed in an almost flawless way. I say almost because the film's constant cycle of man-talk, run from wolves, man-talk, run from wolves does get a little tired towards the end and the film's running time could have perhaps been a little bit tighter. This film may do for wolves what the Taken franchise has done for men of Eastern origin, but PETA have done all the protesting there. I was just happy that, for a brief second, Neeson was starting to look like he was moving on.

FOUR out of five

A very brief second…

In 50 Words or Less: The exact same film with roles reversed and Taken wasn't a film that was crying out for a remake. Almost everyone is phoning it in and the neutering of the action scenes makes them border on unwatchable. Just because people wanted it, it doesn't mean it should necessarily have happened.

Badass Liam No. 1 Part Deux

In Detail: I used to work with a guy who came in one day after just watching the original Taken. He disliked it a whole lot more than I did and said that he spent the whole film being so annoyed at Neeson's daughter that he was actually hoping she'd get killed. At the time, I thought this was a little harsh. In hindsight though, at least the sequels might not have happened. Taken 2 is more of the same, but with a twist that's far less imaginative than the filmmaker's seem to believe it is. This time around it's Neeson and his ex-wife who've been kidnapped with said daughter going into rescue mode. First off, the filmmaker's have latched on to that scene in the original where he threatens someone down the phone and decided that we want to see more of Neeson on the phone. Considerable portions of this film are spent with him spouting every facet of his plan down the line to his daughter. That by itself seems sensible enough, but during one moment he actually tells his daughter where to hide whilst her would-be kidnappers are within earshot, pointing a gun at him. They still don't find her. This moment (and so many more) add up to a monumentally stupid film that feels like it's been generated as a result of a conference call with Awesom-O. Add to that the fact that it's a poorly made stupid film and it's quite often unwatchable. The fight scenes in particular are poor, not so much toned down to appeal to a wider audience, but instead made unwatchable by deliberate attempts to mask the impacts that will move it into R-rated territory. The cuts are annoying quick and the camera so erratic that though you know what's going on, specifics of who just got punched where is anyone's guess. This is also the point where Neeson shows us that if we thought his earlier performances were phoned in, we were merely being warmed up. He will find you, he will kill you, but he'll have to make a stop off at the bank on his way. So, yeah, it's pretty bad, but there's one small positive here that may be grasping at straws, but still deserves a mention. Rade Šerbedžija takes on the chief villain role and there is that noticeable effort to develop the character beyond the first film's "if you're foreign and you're evil, clap your hands" protagonists. His motives are clear and though there's no shades of grey to his evil, you at least feel like they've tried that little bit more. Still not enough to take it anywhere close to good though.

TWO out of five (and that's born out of a bizarre generosity)

In 50 Words or Less: It's a role where the writers really haven't tried to come up with anything different, but Non-Stop is kind of enjoyable, mostly because (like the original Taken) it knows what it is and isn't pretending to be anything else. I'll be damned if I can remember much of it though.

In Detail: Neeson on a plane. Trying to stop people getting killed, but inadvertently killing people as a result. Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra, also responsible for Unknown. It's not a good start really, but in the truest sense of trying to pay a film a complement, but likely damning with faint praise, Non-Stop is just about good enough. Neeson is Generic Name, an alcoholic Air Marshall who just got given the wrong flight, as someone has gotten his pager number and said someone is threatening to kill passengers unless…

Badass Liam No. 4

…(times 150) is transferred into a bank account that mysteriously happens to be in Generic Name's name. With suspicion falling heavily on Generic, he is forced to go against his superiors in order to track down the real culprit. Look, Non-Stop is banality defined. It's like a join-the-dots picture where you've already been told that it's a giraffe. Even if you don't guess who's responsible, you still know how it's all going to end and just because the giraffe's neck is slightly longer, you're not going to sit there thinking "F**k me! That's one hell of a neck!" It's still entertaining in it's own way though, allowing some fun to creep it's way in without feeling like the director's deluding himself into believing that this is a serious film for serious people. The presence of Julianne Moore is squandered something rotten because WE NEED MORE LIAM, PEOPLE and some other talented actors (a presumably pre-Oscar Lupita Nyong'o amongst them) get thrown into roles that even Keanu Reeves would find emotionally unengaging. This film doesn't care though. That's not going to sit right with some, but it somehow managed to make me stop giving a shit too.

THREE out of five

In 50 Words or Less: It's every bit as depressing as it is sleazy and it's REALLY sleazy. It's equally misguided too, going for that mature edge that still feels a little juvenile. In the end though, the worst bit is just how boring it all is.

Badass Liam No. 5

In Detail: Depression is a horrible state of mind to be in. I can gratefully say that I've never been there, but feel that I can advise of two things that you should never present to someone currently in a state of depression, lest they end it themselves. The entire discography of R Kelly and A Walk Among The Tombstones. It's become a more common occurrence for a film to arrive that won't rest until every character within it's grasp leaves dead or enclosed within the confines of inescapable misery. The inevitable result of this means that it's audience wind up the same way. Miserable that is. Based on the book that I now have absolutely zero desire to read, Neeson plays alcoholic (yep, again) detective Matthew Scudder (even his name's depressing). Hired by the drug dealing brother of his addict friend to track down the men who kidnapped, tortured and dismembered his wife, Scudder takes a journey down a road that only gets worse from there. The makers of A Walk Among The Tombstones both love and hate Neeson's newfound success. On the one hand, they can use his new hard man image to bring in the punters, but, on the other hand, everyone's expecting him to shoot everything that bleeds and most things that don't. …Tombstones isn't always that kind of film (though, by the end, we're in very familiar territory). It's trying to be a character piece that explores why Scudder has entered the state that he is in and why he's willing to delve into the horrors of what's around him. It likes those horrors a little too much though, persistently reminding us of what's happened and taking us to the scenes of these events. It doesn't quite go full on with what it shows (if it did, that 15 certificate would be a far cry away), but it has this sleazy feel about it, almost like it's trying to tantalise us into a grotesque desire to see more. Frankly, I wanted a hell of a lot less. Also, there's a time when no other word will work quite as well as boring. This is that time. Bar a slight intrigued raise of the eyebrow here and there, nothing is there to make this anywhere near interesting enough. I didn't outright hate the film and could kind of see what they were going for. There's nothing here to help recommend it though.

TWO out of five

In 50 Words or Less: "It ends here" read the tagline. I bloody well hope so.

Badass Liam No. 1 Part Trois

In Detail: I write this review some two days after watching Taken 3 (or Tak3n as the film's irritating marketing scheme went for). I'm still not feeling like I've got over just how much I hated this film. Cast your minds back (if you can) to The Hangover Part III. I haven't reviewed that film, but can actually say that I didn't hate it. I understood and joined in with the criticism aimed at the second film for just copying what went before and appreciated their attempts to make something different. Yes, there was no hangover, but that mattered little to me. In 2015, it also mattered little to me when it looked like no one would actually get taken in Taken 3. They knew the second film wasn't up to scratch and that repeating again time would be horrific, so they went for something different. I was good with that. I was actually quite interested to see the film. A fool was I. With Brian framed for the murder of a notable character to the series (oh sod it, it's in the trailer, it's his ex-wife), he must go on the run to clear his name. Apparently no one noticed that they were just remaking The Fugitive. In an effort to give the film some extra acting kudos, the leader of the team that's hunting him is played by Forest Whittaker, but he's playing that cop character that he often wheels out for the purposes of a cheque. Neeson isn't trying here either, but let's stop pretending that's anything new. The film starts promising, with the introduction of Sam Spruell's evil Russian villain and the initial setup looking like we may be in for Non-Stop style fun. This is all a false set-up though, as what we actually get is evidence that returning director Olivier Megaton, along with series writers Robert Mark Kamen and Luc "French-Michael-Bay" Besson have not just failed to learn from the mistakes of Taken 2, they've gotten worse. The same issues with the fight scenes in that film are present here, only shamefully more so. The script also has no idea how to get Neeson from situation to situation. I counted at least two occasions where Neeson is subject to a certain death experience, only to appear around the corner with zero explanation as to how he got there. Worse still, on the one occasion they do try to explain, they clarify absolutely nothing. He could have turned around and declared himself a demigod and it would have made a lot more sense than a lot of the stuff that happens here. As for Spruell's villain, that first appearance is the last we see of him until it's time for him to come face to face with Neeson. Right at the end. Instead, we get more conversations with his still annoying daughter (often on the phone), the presence of Dougray Scott (never a good thing for me) and constant reminders of what a wonderful woman the ex-wife was. Taken 3's tagline read "It Ends Here". Conveniently, so did my tolerance of these films. Neeson! For the love of the continued ascension of civilised humanity, I'm begging you to stop!

ONE out of five

Next Time