Showing posts with label Maggie Grace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Maggie Grace. Show all posts
TOP 10 OF 2017
For me, 2017 has been something of an off year. It seems the majority of avid movie-goers and critics have found much to enjoy-too much even to be able to narrow down their favorites of the year to a simple top ten. For me, I have struggled to find ten films worthy of what I would say are exceptional pieces of work that will stay with me past the calendar year into which they will forever be categorized. Sure, there have been films with exceptional moments-glaring omissions from my favorites list that will make many others are that of Lady Bird, Call Me by Your Name, and The Shape of Water. I couldn't agree more that each of those films possess inspired moments that transcend the art form, but as a whole were they films that made an impression on me that will last, if not forever, but at least a few weeks after seeing them? Not at this point, no. I have thankfully managed to whittle the two hundred or so plus new releases I've seen this year down into ten that have stuck with me, but this admittedly pessimistic discourse thus far doesn't mean I couldn't fill out a top fifteen or twenty. There are films not present on the list below that I would highly recommend and that would no doubt come in somewhere in the next five spots just outside my top ten. Though 2017 has been something of an odd year for my own personal tastes and the lack of as many being able to meet or exceed my expectations it would be a shame not to mention the likes of the pigeon-holed Stronger as it is much better than its Oscar bait facade would have you believe, the weird and deliriously entertaining The Disaster Artist, the criminally underseen and overlooked Brigsby Bear, Steven Soderbergh's return to feature filmmaking in Logan Lucky, and Sofia Coppola's re-make of The Beguiled with a handful of pitch perfect performances all deserve your love and attention if they haven't received it already. I've pretty much seen everything I imagine might have a shot at making my list except for maybe Phantom Thread (which isn't scheduled to open in my neck of the woods until January 18th), but Paul Thomas Anderson has always been hit or miss with me given his films always feel easier to appreciate rather than enjoy. With the film being touted as Daniel Day-Lewis' final bow as an actor though, it demands to be seen and I'm eager to see what all the buzz has been about once it does open near me. Furthermore, I look forward to re-visiting award season heavies like The Post and Molly's Game when they make their national debuts in January as they were both films I liked, but came nowhere close to being the giants many in the press touted them to be. All things considered, please know that I went into every film this year really wanting to like it and the ones that follow are the ones that surprised me with their quality or surpassed every expectation I held for them. Enjoy!
TAKEN 3 Review
If only these Taken movies escalated themselves to an R-rating we might have something of more aspiration here. Instead, this series quickly dissolved into quick cash grabs that felt like little more than afterthoughts to everyone involved. The original film seemingly caught everyone off guard with its brilliant marketing campaign and the inherent rush of excitement it delivered to the point that when we were looking for more of the same from the sequel, none of those surprising feelings were readily available. It seemed the general consensus on the Olivier Megaton-directed sequel was that it was rather horrible and resorted to showing Liam Neeson's Bryan Mills smother folks to death rather than doing anything that was actually impressive. And yet, here we are with the third and presumably final film (again directed by Megaton no less) and it does little to redeem the legacy of what was originally the film responsible for bringing us the Neesploitation period, but may actually tarnish that legacy the more I continue to think and write about the film. If one wonders why such a pedigreed actor such as Neeson would continue to return to a series that has long since run its course you'd only have to look as far as his paycheck to find an answer. To be clear: Taken 3 has a reported budget of $48 million and almost half of that budget was consumed by the actors salary. For this third film Neeson was paid a handsome, and very exclusive, $20 million. So, if you thought the makers of this unnecessary sequel might take the road less traveled or that Mr. Neeson might use his pull and demand he only appear in the film if they came up with a story that truly justified another film you're sorely out of luck as he is laughing all the way to the bank. People clearly don't care though because despite the second film being little more than a cash grab with little effort to hide that intention and this third film being nothing except more of the same, folks still showed up in droves when they could have been seeing the best film of the year instead.
First Trailer for TAKEN 3
By
Vandy Price
Labels:
Dougray Scott,
Famke Janssen,
Forest Whitaker,
Jon Gries,
Leland Orser,
Liam Neeson,
Maggie Grace
I was not a fan of Taken 2 after it essentially felt like a film of leftovers rather than a justifiable premise for a second installment. That talks even surfaced for a third film after critics and audiences alike freely expressed their disdain for the money-grubbing sequel was surprising but here we are two years later and we have the first trailer for that threequel appropriately titled, TAK3N. If you're already laughing you may not want to hit the jump to take a look at the actual trailer as it is clear Luc Besson and his team of writers have sunk to desperate levels in order to come up with another chapter in the Brian Mills story. The problem is, no matter what he does, Liam Neeson automatically brings credibility to it and dammit if I wasn't eventually sucked into the scenario at hand here due to how intimidatingly badass Neeson is able to come off in the trailer. The third film will also feature the credible Forest Whitaker as a law enforcement agent who is after Mills after he is framed for murder, so there might be a chance of some redemption here. Still, before I get ahead of myself we have to take into consideration the fact that Taken 2 director Oliver Megaton (Colombiana, Transporter 3) is back behind the camera leading me to have to hope this isn't as completely forgettable as the second film, but might, at the very least, contain some of the excitement and thrills that made the original such a surprise. Leland Orser, Famke Janssen and Maggie Grace return with Dougray Scott and Jon Gries rounding out the cast. Tak3n moves from the October release of part two back to the early year release date of the original as we will get what Neeson says is the final chapter on January 9, 2015.
TAKEN 2 Review
By
Vandy Price
Labels:
Famke Janssen,
Liam Neeson,
Maggie Grace
Liam Neeson instantly brings credibility to anything he does, but even his presence in this money-grabbing sequel can hardly raise the quality of the overall film. I was optimistic despite the rush of negative reviews on this one. I wanted to believe that there was something everyone seemed to be missing. That maybe in the case of Taken critics and audiences alike were so in love or at least caught off guard by the rush of excitement the first film delivered that they were looking for more of the same that wasn't readily available here. What if the makers of this unnecessary film had taken the road less traveled by greedy studios and decided to change up the formula. Maybe Mr. Neeson used his pull and demanded that he'd only appear in the film if they came up with a story that truly justified a second film. Sadly, the only thing that rings true about any of this is that, for some reason, is that there is less action and more talking in Taken 2 than could be found within a mile of the original. Clearly the success of the first film was based around seeing someone such as Neeson, an actor who seems so far removed from the campy action genre pick up his fists and firearms and take a shot at any idiot who stepped in his path. It was a non-stop rush of adrenaline that was as absurd as it was entertaining. It would be accurate to describe it as catching lightning in a bottle and not to mention, it propelled Neeson to a whole new phase in his career where he could take any pick of action protagonists he'd like and has continued taking advantage of the opportunities it has afforded him. The sequel, though it doesn't feel like a rehash of the original (I would have preferred that to what we've been given) instead feels like what was left on the cutting room floor the first time around.
At what feels like a very brief hour and a half Taken 2 zips by and this is a good thing. At the end of the first film there was really nowhere for the story to go and that is never more evident than in the opening sequence that ruins a perfectly good opportunity to set the opening title sequence up much more dramatically than it does. Now, I can understand the amount of people and damage that Neeson's Bryan Mills did in the first movie will likely have elicited some kind of response from someone, but they have us witnessing as a man whose son was tortured by Mills and the "peaceful " families of all the others that were offed by the American as humble people seeking revenge. Now, I may be completely off on this one but it seems that this was an insider type business that was going on in the first film seeing as it was human trafficking and that the families of these guys would 1) be in the same business or 2) find what their kin were doing equally revolting and understand where this man was coming from. If not either of these they might at least have the sense to avoid a guy who so easily stormed through half of their family tree. No, instead they bring the other half in for the slaughter. If one has seen the trailer then you know what happens, you know where all this is heading and you will wish that there would have been more ass-kicking along the way. There is hardly a coherent story here at all. There is the set-up and from there we just watch as Neeson's character talks on the phone, gets into car chases and kills people by palming their faces. It would be worse if you didn't get the sense they know how ridiculous this is, but sometimes you don't get that sense at all and it worries you. There is a point were Taken 2 ventures past absurd and we can only hope the series is allowed to go no further.
Inevitably, this franchise will continue until it's more of a joke than a one off success that was considered awesome. I can't help but think of the saying "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me." The first Taken was a surprise, a refreshing air of all-out action entertainment before things like The Expendables began. It was nice to see a father played by a man with such gravitas just throw his inhibitions to the wind and do whatever it took to save his daughter. With the sequel he does this again, and this time doing it for his ex-wife as much for his daughter. It is nice to see Neeson play these cheesy moments that feel obligatory rather than natural simply to see his charismatic presence ooze through the cracks of bad writing, but it isn't hard to tell what he's working with. We can see that it's hard, even for him, to sell. Audiences will see Taken 2 in hopes that it does deliver more of the same from the first, hoping to see Neeson in another leading man role that has him kicking ass and taking names, but they will feel underwhelmed when the credits start to role. They may even feel cheated despite the film providing a few exciting moments in the car chases but being so messily shot that we never know who's dying and who is who is going where. We are seriously led to believe that Mills takes out every Albanian on the planet in this film and sometimes all he has to do is shove them down by their face and they appear dead. I meant it when I used the word absurd. What makes it worse is not that the final showdown is between Neeson and a man half his size but still his same weight; no, the issue is that there is no point in any of this. If someone really wanted him dead they wouldn't have left him alone for half an hour tied up with nothing more than a piece of cloth. There is no way around it, this is unnecessary.
My initial feeling is that folks flocked out the first weekend only to be disappointed and will not return for a third go around. They know what to expect (or what not to) and audiences know well enough that the series has nowhere else to go. Who could they possibly kidnap the next time around? Now, if they were to instead go the route of making a Bryan Mills centered film in the vein of Jack Ryan or Alex Cross rather than involving his family we might get to see where this guys particular set of skills came from in the first place, but uber-producer and writer Luc Besson would likely object in that this would take the personal investment out of Mills adventures. It would at least provide something fresh which this uninspired sequel has no a trace of. It hurts, really, because I did so shamelessly enjoy the first movie. Just that speech Neeson conveyed with such intimidating force that it became an instant iconic moment. The second film doesn't even capitalize on this moment. It doesn't care enough to genuinely want to be more than it is. It is just fine being tiresome and uninventive. There is nothing that can be done now though, movies like this will be made, people like me will complain, and they will still somehow make their money. The sooner audiences stop being taken by the studios with pure junk cinema like this the less of it they would hopefully make. I know it will never stop and that there is an entire audience out there of high schoolers who require something universally appealing to go see on a Friday night, but the least we could is trick them into seeing something that might stimulate their imaginations rather than displaying how easy it is to make a lot of money without having any imagination at all.
![]() |
Does anyone else find it odd that 29 year-old Maggie Grace is just now getting her driver's license? |
![]() |
Smothering someone with nothing more than his palm becomes somewhat of a specialty for Bryan Mills in Taken 2. |
![]() |
Hmm...I wonder where Taken 3 will take us.... |
TAKEN 2 Review
By
Vandy Price
Labels:
Famke Janssen,
Liam Neeson,
Maggie Grace
LOCKOUT Review
By
Vandy Price
Labels:
Guy Pearce,
Joseph Gilgun,
Maggie Grace,
Vincent Regan
It was clear from the first trailer and all of the marketing tools that were being used that the folks behind "Lockout" were trying to position it as their next surprise hit in the vein of "Taken". This is not going to happen. They found a charismatic leading man not known for doing such commercial films and somehow managed to cast him in the lead. Insert Guy Pearce for Liam Neeson and instead of saving his daughter he will save, hmmm...let's see, I know, how about...the president's daughter! It's genius right? Not really, heck they even have Maggie Grace (the girl playing Neeson's kidnapped daughter in "Taken") to once again play the damsel in distress. Then they throw the concept at you and you become slightly intrigued in the project: space prison. Yea, I can admit I was engaged by the premise of a locking rapists and murderers in a prison not existing on earth. Why couldn't it actually be a possibility? Not a bad idea and apparently producer Luc Besson imagined it had the good grounds for a movie. Unfortunately, the engaging concept is the only good thing the film has going for it besides a few good quips from Pearce's Snow. While Snow is a guy who as you might have heard in the trailer is a "loose cannon" he gives off the vibe as too much of a caricature, someone that could only exist in the movies, and while it is apparent that Pearce knows this and plays it to the hilt what doesn't work is that the movie in itself is so campy this is layering camp on top of more camp. I can understand intentionally making a B-movie, but "Lockout" turns out more of a parody of the genre.
If you are one of the lucky ones to not get a bad impression from the trailers for this film and have no idea what it is about, first off: good for you. If by any chance it still sounds like something you might want to check out you should know the remainder of the plot is filled in by making Snow a wrongly convicted federal agent of conspiracy and espionage against the U.S. He has supposedly killed a senior member of the department who was one of his friends, so why would he do that right? This friend left him a package that he gave to his partner to hide as he was captured and taken in for questioning. His friend hides the package but of course gets caught and ends up where? You guessed it, the space station prison. So, Snow is lucky when the opportunity arrives for him to gain his freedom by taking on the mission of rescuing the presidents daughter on that same space station after a massive break out occurs and she is taken hostage. While you will likely be laughing at many things throughout the film, I can at least recognize a few good things and commend first time feature directors James Mather and Stephen St. Leger for bringing a consistent frenetic pace and grungy tone to the experience. While this could also be credited to the editor and set design team, the directors at least seem competent in the story they are telling and move it along nicely as everything falls into place in expert fashion. It is certainly run of the mill, but Pearce elevates the whole thing a few notches by just appearing here and when he slyly spits out his sarcastic quips they will once in a while land just perfectly and make you smile back, knowing everyone involved here realizes the ridiculousness of the whole thing.
Now, I am usually one to enjoy a good piece of sci-fi, but I prefer the type where the tone is more self-serious and on a massive scale that allows the audience to also realize the gravitas of the situation. I didn't fully expect this going into "Lockout" but I did at least expect a few major set-ups that would warrant a point of amazement that would stick with me, but in the most elaborate of these on "Lockout" I found myself laughing at the implausibility of it. I also found myself laughing at the fact the year is supposed to be 2079 and Snow (who probably would have been born around 2039) is making remarks about global warming as if that trend would have not been forgotten. There are several things like this that have to be taken into consideration when changing the time frame considerably. I mean, at the very least could we not have something a little cooler than regular ole bullets by that time. C'mon guys, if you're gonna serve the audience play by play action movie cliches then at least get a little inventive with the details. The one aspect of the film that really made it fun for me though were the inmates who are put to sleep while they are imprisoned on this space station and so when they wake up a few of them can seem a bit off. The one who starts this whole riot is a manic, glass-eyed and gold capped druggie that looks like something out of a Guy Ritchie movie and as played by Joseph Gilgun is really the "loose cannon" here as he has no problem killing someone off, and the movie has no regard for human life. His brother happens to be he ringleader of this whole circus and with their thick Irish accents we can see the glee in their expressions as they do whatever they please to manipulate the negotiations. Vincent Regan plays older brother Alex and while you'll probably recognize him from a number of sword and sandal epics he does his best here to ham it up as the "smart convict". Their actions may be shameless but at least they add a little spice to the mix.
While the conclusion wraps everything up neatly for this adventure it is clear that the makers are setting things up for a sequel just in case this makes enough money. You get the feeling we won't be seeing more adventures of Agent Snow though as this doesn't have the charm or the appeal that "Taken" had when it appeared out of nowhere in 2008. What made that film such a surprise, so engaging was the very limited glimpse of what was to come in the marketing campaign. It was genius and whoever had the idea to put the emphasis on Neeson's deep and intimidating Irish voice was right on the money. None of that could be said to save "Lockout". This is more an attempt in a new direction where the high-concept overrides the need for anything else, even logic. There are sparks of fun and glimpses of what might have been a franchise starter, but when it comes down to it this is very basic filmmaking and as much as I appreciate Pearce's effort, he just didn't come off as the John McClane of the future that I expected him to be. Oh well, another shot at something that might have been kind of spectacular had it been done with more ambition and better special effects (some of these are as cheesy as the dialogue) but fails to live up to the promise of an underrated actor in a take off on some kind of 80's-riddled adventure flick flounders and becomes something the studio didn't even want to spend money on in post to convert to 3D. they knew the conversion price wouldn't be warranted by the box office returns so why even bother seeing it? If you still want to, go ahead, but don't say I didn't warn you.
![]() |
Agent Snow (Guy Pearce) gives the President's daughter Emilie (Maggie Grace) some supplement. |
![]() |
Despite what the trailer tells you, Hydell (Joseph Gilgun) is the real loose cannon in "Lockout". |
![]() |
Emilie and Snow prepare to exit the space prison in a last ditch effort to survive. |
LOCKOUT Review
By
Vandy Price
Labels:
Guy Pearce,
Joseph Gilgun,
Maggie Grace,
Vincent Regan
It was clear from the first trailer and all of the marketing tools that were being used that the folks behind "Lockout" were trying to position it as their next surprise hit in the vein of "Taken". This is not going to happen. They found a charismatic leading man not known for doing such commercial films and somehow managed to cast him in the lead. Insert Guy Pearce for Liam Neeson and instead of saving his daughter he will save, hmmm...let's see, I know, how about...the president's daughter! It's genius right? Not really, heck they even have Maggie Grace (the girl playing Neeson's kidnapped daughter in "Taken") to once again play the damsel in distress. Then they throw the concept at you and you become slightly intrigued in the project: space prison. Yea, I can admit I was engaged by the premise of a locking rapists and murderers in a prison not existing on earth. Why couldn't it actually be a possibility? Not a bad idea and apparently producer Luc Besson imagined it had the good grounds for a movie. Unfortunately, the engaging concept is the only good thing the film has going for it besides a few good quips from Pearce's Snow. While Snow is a guy who as you might have heard in the trailer is a "loose cannon" he gives off the vibe as too much of a caricature, someone that could only exist in the movies, and while it is apparent that Pearce knows this and plays it to the hilt what doesn't work is that the movie in itself is so campy this is layering camp on top of more camp. I can understand intentionally making a B-movie, but "Lockout" turns out more of a parody of the genre.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)