I give it C. It's copy&paste of first movie but this time you don't feel good about it.

It is just disappointing.

A-

IF you loved the first you're loving this one too.

In my estimation, this does not deserve the critical ire it has generated. As a piece of crisp, unpretentious, fast-paced, unapologetic run-and-gun pulp, it functions well and at times even sings. Liam Neeson, tall and alert and a bit unshaven, remains a persuasive and surprising action hero; his presence is both invincible and sensitive. The revenge plot is so straightforward and absurd, I did not find it hard to just smile and go with it. There is a great car chase. I could see this franchise continuing and perhaps going in the direction of the James Bond and Die Hard films; they need not always focus on a this-time-it's-personal abduction. A film concerning this character caught in another type of dangerous criminal and/or espionage situation has major potential.

B

Good scenario and the generic character beats work, but the action has been completely crippled. The sound mix is muted and major 'vicious' moments have no impact whatsoever -- neck-breaking with no sound effects whatsoever. Taken's greatest selling point has been neutered for the sequel.

This is a flick where the villain is essentially killed by a strong swat to the cheeks because a sound effect designating a head injury would keep the film from getting a 12A.

Wow, reaslly awesome outside of a terrible last 5 minutes. Though it almost makes up for it with 3 sequel possibilities. A Meet The parents type violent sequel which would be awesome: a revenge for sons or "your'e the guy that stole my sons cab sequel" or no matter what I'm so bad ass don't even try sequel. I'm so game for all 3. I actually really enjoyed how less action oriented this film was, actually smarter then I would have thought. Much better than Unknown Solid A

If there is a third, it should just show him on the job. A security detail gone awry. They can do this with ease. Neeson as action hero is the main draw here, not the whole endless-cycle-of-revenge-abductions angle.

Smarter? Are you kidding?

Someone needs to be TAKEN.

This was the same as the first, but less searching for the daughter/wife than in the first, mostly because the whole thing happens within a few miles of the hotel. So yeah, it was great stuff. What did y'all expect?

Action that isn't tailored for twelve-year-olds.

In the version you all have seen...is the neck-cutting included?

Yes.

In my opinion, the PG-13 only becomes a hindrance twice. Both moments are during the final fight. The final confrontation is cut and mixed in such a way as to indicate Liam murders the antagonist with a light touch to the face. There was a bit of a, "WTF?" energy for a moment in the crowded theatre.

That actually cracked me up. I thought of when they take terrible films and use half quotes from reviews to market it.

I liked the plot a lot. It was cut and dry, sure, but I like how they make Liam much more thinking man. I particularly loved the map scene and the use of the grenades; that torture scene was crazy too.

Those are the biggest moments (and there was more than a 'bit' of a confused reaction at my screening), but even Mills' first fight in the courtyard is hurt by sound design. Loud music, loud grunting, and utterly soft, barely-there sound effects any time someone is nailed by a metal rod.

True. That 13-year-old action is so much more raw.

I think people forget Neeson is 60 and certainly not as well known physically as most action stars. I was actually thinking to myself during the first fight it was similar to watching a Steven Segal fight, and dam he runs really slow. But I thought this was a great follow up to the first.

When the baddie was killed someone said "fuck chuck norris, neeson ended his life by touching him" Granted I could see a flash frame of a pointy before Neeson pushed him, but that was an awkward cut.

Neeson just cracked his head against the wall, no?

We don't even know how the bad guy, killed clearly on-screen, died. That says something about the film.



15-year-old action is. Just compare '15' Taken and '12A' Taken 2.

I thought Neeson killed him with his own knife-thingy. LOL.

I'm pretty sure he was impaled on something.

So I think his head was crushed against the wall, Lecter thinks he was stabbed, and gun thinks he was impaled on something.

Any other guesses?

Lecter at least is certainly wrong. The death was caused by the impact with the wall. I can't say, though, whether it was just blunt force or an impaling.

I am pretty sure it was the 5 Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique.

There was something sticking out of the wall that impaled him. 100%.

Didn't Liam crush his skull? that's what i thought it happened.