Category Archives: Genre: Animated

The Lego Batman Movie (2017)

In all honesty, I thought The Lego Movie would suck. Instead, it turned out to be one of the craziest, funnest and funniest movies of 2014. A big part of that is the character of Batman, voiced by Will Arnett, and so it was no surprise that the first spin-off film Warner Bros decided on was The Lego Batman Movie.

Given how funny The Lego Movie was, I went into Lego Batman with heightened expectations, but also wary that it could turn out to be another Minions situation (ie, good in small doses as a side character, annoying and incapable of sustaining its own film). I shouldn’t have been worried.

Lego Batman is, like its predecessor, loads of irreverent, stupid fun, It again delivers relentless, rapid-fire jokes from all directions, some misses but mostly hits, and this time, with the added bonus of many inside jokes poking fun at not just the Batman franchise throughout its long history but also the entire DC universe — including the current cinematic universe. Actually it goes even beyond that and borrows characters from other franchises too (that’s the great thing about Lego), but I’m not going to spoil the surprises here. All I’ll say is that at least one real-life counterpart of one of the characters from another franchise voices a different character in the film.  I’m sure I missed a whole bunch of the jokes, references and characters, and I wouldn’t mind checking out the film again when it comes out on DVD to catch all the Easter eggs.

Conversely, as it centres around Batman, Lego Batman is more limited in scope than The Lego Movie, and as a result, most of the jokes are more confined in subject matter. Accordingly, I have to say I did laugh less this time around, though another reason could also be because I was on the ONLY person in the theatre watching the movie (it was a Thursday matinee session)!

I would say it’s both good and bad — if crazy, silly laughs are all you’re after, Lego Batman is arguably a step down from The Lego Movie, but if you prefer a more structured story (yes, there is actually a story and character development and all that), then Lego Batman might be more up your alley.

As you would expect, the action is fun and inventive and the visuals are bright and colourful.  I would say the quality all the non-humour elements are on par with The Lego Movie. The idea of rapidly “building” things with Lego pieces on the run is still pretty cool to watch every time.

Will Arnett is perfect as Lego Batman. He pretty much speaks in a Batman voice as Job on Arrested Development anyway, so this performance came naturally for him. Joining Arnett is his nephew from AR, Michael Cera, who plays Robin with the same wide-eyed innocent as George Michael (by the way, there might be a George Michael joke or two in there — and you can interpret that however you want). Ralph Fiennes is also terrific as Alfred the butler, while Zach Galifianakis is a solid Joker and Rosario Dawson is cool as Barbara Gordon, the daughter of Commissioner Gordon. There are loads of other big names on the cast list, including some familiar returning names from The Lego Movie such as Channing Tatum as Superman and Jonah Hill as the Green Lantern. Billy Dee Williams, Mariah Carey, Chris Hardwick, Zoe Kravitz, Adam DeVine, Conan O’Brien — the list goes on and on.

On the whole, I personally preferred The Lego Movie just because of the sheer range of the jokes and because it was fresher and more surprising, but Lego Batman is not very far behind. I would say there were less laugh-out-loud jokes but more witty bits and pieces that will keep you smiling and giggling. Anyway, if you enjoyed one you will absolutely enjoy the other. I’ve said countless times that I’m not usually a fan of animated films, so when I am this positive it usually means it’s pretty, pretty good.

3.75 stars out of 5

Moana (2016)

Once a man has children, he’s going to start watching more animated movies. And look, there are some animated films that I absolutely adore, but in general, my interest level in them is quite low.

This brings us to Moana, the latest Disney animated feature about a girl in a Polynesian tribe (the eponymous Moana, voiced by Auli’i Cravalho in her debut) who embarks on a mystical sea quest with a demigod voiced by Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson to give back a stolen stone to a goddess. It’s really a lot simpler than that sounds.

I took my five-year-old son to see it today and he thought it was great. I was surprised by how long the movie was — 107 minutes, pretty long for an animation — but he was able to sit through it without a problem. It was me, actually, who needed to go to the toilet and fell asleep for a few minutes toward the end (I was really tired!). But that’s not to say Moana is not a decent movie. As animated films go, it’s actually pretty good, and I think it gives Kubo and the Two Strings (my review here) a run for its money as the favourite for Best Animated Feature at the Oscars next month.

In typical Disney fashion, Moana is spectacular to look at, especially with its abundance of bright colours and beautiful sea views. Kubo is beautiful in its own way because of the stop-motion animation, though for me, Moana is one of the most visually dazzling animations I’ve seen this year or any year. The film also boasts plenty of singing, action, cute characters, comedic moments, and a nice little message about believing in yourself and having the courage to make a change, etc etc. It’s a fun family affair with catchy tunes (“How Far I’ll Go”, in particular, is a winner and a threat to one of the La La Land songs at the Oscars), comedy for all ages, and a dash of heart. You should know the Disney formula by now.

So yeah, it’s another enjoyable, feel-good animated movie that didn’t really blow me away or connect with me on a deeper emotional level (like say Up or Toy Story 3). It was humorous, sure, and of course action packed, though I didn’t feel like the film’s performance in these two departments elevated it above any of the other popular Disney flicks in recent years (Big Hero 6, Wreck-It-Ralph, Frozen and Tangled). That being said, I really don’t have much to complain about the movie other than that it’s a tad on the long side, with a couple of moments that I felt dragged on and could have been trimmed to keep up the pace. Apart from that, all good.

3.5 stars out of 5

Kubo and the Two Strings (2016)

I’m a little embarrassed to admit this, but even after watching Kubo and the Two Strings, I had no idea it was a stop-motion animation movie. It was only when I saw a short featurette of the movie on YouTube a week later that my mind was blown. They did all that? I guess you could say it’s a testament to the incredible hard work and dedication of stop-motion animators and filmmakers, or if you want to be cruel, that it’s a waste of time because technology has advanced to the point where computer animation is basically indistinguishable.

Anyway, Kubo has been hailed as one of the best animated motion pictures of the year for being original, visually spectacular and funny. I decided to go see it because my son started begging me to take him after he saw a trailer with a giant monster and a sword. As I’ve repeated ad nauseam, animated flicks are usually not my thing, and with that in mind, I have to say Kubo was a slight disappointment for me solely because of the high expectations.

Though it’s produced by American stop-motion animation company Laika, Kubo is set in ancient Japan and tells the story of the eponymous boy who lives in a seaside cave with his ill mother. Kubo (voiced by Art Parkinson) can play this musical instrument called a shamisen (literally “three strings”), which can magically bring origami to life. He uses this skill to tell stories in the village to make ends meet. Of course, something dramatic happens to spark Kubo’s quest out into the world to find three magical items, with a talking Monkey (voiced by Charlize Theron) and giant Beetle (voiced by Matthew McConaughey) by his side. In his way are his two aunts (voiced by Rooney Mara) and the evil Moon King (who else but Ralph Fiennes?).

It’s an adventure film filled samurai sword action, cool monsters and family drama. I suppose in contrast to all the animation sequels we tend to get these days, it’s fair to call Kubo original. But for someone who grew up on anime and manga like me, the story is par for the course.

My main problem with the film, however, is that it didn’t make a whole lot of sense from a narrative or logic perspective. Yes, fables don’t always necessarily make perfect sense, though for me the contrivances of the plot took me out of the film a little bit. The humour was fine, but I didn’t laugh that much, and the twists were quite easy to predict too, so I never found myself really impressed by the film apart from the visuals.

I sound more negative than I intend to be, because I actually thought Kubo was very good. The animation is seamless and the details in both the characters and the sets are absolutely incredible. Watching the featurette certainly improved my appreciation of what a tedious and momentous task such films are to make. I’m merely saying that I was not as blown away by the film as many others were (97% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and 84% on Metacritic).

My two sons had different reactions to the movie. My elder son (4.5 years old at the time) loved it, especially the creatures, while my younger son (3 years at the time) found some the scenes frightening. Indeed, some of the characters had scary designs and the darker moments were quite eerie, so parents should keep that in mind when deciding whether or not to show it to younger children.

Ultimately, Kubo and the Two Strings is still worth watching simply for the amazing stop-motion visuals and the refreshing concept. Those who enjoy samurai swords and quest adventures should also find it enjoyable because the action sequences are well choreographed and the creature designs look really cool. But as with all films, keep expectations in check, or you might reach the same conclusions about it as I did: Not a disappointment as a film but disappointing relative to high expectations.

3.5 stars out of 5

Finding Dory (2016)

I’ll be the first to admit that I was never the biggest fan of Finding Nemo. Don’t get me wrong, I quite liked it — it was cute and amusing and all that — but I was just stunned by how much everyone else absolutely loved it. And so I was not particularly excited when they finally announced, after what felt like forever (13 years, in fact) that the sequel/spin-off, Finding Dory, was finally going to be released. I actually wasn’t even going to see the movie but my kids wanted to, so we all went.

As the title suggests, Finding Dory is all about tracking down the lost regal blue tang with short-term memory loss voiced by Ellen DeGeneres from Finding Nemo. It was of course not hard to get the ball rolling given Dory’s mental ailment, and this time it’s up to Nemo and his dad (again voiced by Albert Brooks) to track him down. Added to the all-star voice cast include Ed O’Neill as an octopus who has lost the tentacle, Diane Keaton and Eugene Levy as Dory’s parents, Ty Burrell as a beluga whale, and Idris Elba and Dominic West as sea lions, plus Sigourney Weaver, Bill Hader, Kate McKinnon, Allison Janney, Willem Dafoe, Brad Garrett and Stephen Root. Holy crap that is a great cast.

Like its predecessor, Finding Dory is an adventure comedy that teaches us to about friendship and to believe in yourself and who you are. And like its predecessor, it’s also absolutely fine as an animated film. It’s beautifully animated, with a smorgasbord of bright colours and wonderfully rendered textures. It has a good handful of good laughs, solid one-liners, quirky characters, and a good dash of poignancy. 

But also like it’s predecessor, Finding Dory didn’t really wow me — and for me there were no expectations to live up to. I didn’t remind it and you could even say I enjoyed it, but I certainly wouldn’t put it on the same level as say the Toy Story franchise or Up. It just didn’t affect me the way those films did.

My kids actually said they enjoyed it, though my elder son was disappointed there were no sharks like the first one, while my younger son fell asleep just before the climax (granted, it was a matinee screening). And as a true barometer of their interest, neither kept talking about the movie or re-enacted scenes from it for days afterward like they have for other films. Like father, like sons, I suppose.

As I have said many times before, I’m usually not the biggest fan of animated films, so take this review with a grain of salt. But I have to call it as I see it and declare that Finding Dory for me was just an above-average film experience that won’t have me running to get the Blu-ray any time soon.

3 stars out of 5

Anomalisa (2015)

anomalisa-poster

Like I’ve said many times, I’m not a huge fan of animation. But Anomalisa, the stop-motion passion project of genius writer Charlie Kauffman, is a whole other beast altogether. In the vein of other memorable classics on his resume, like Being John Malkovich, Adaptation and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotlight Mind, this one is unique, utterly unusual, somewhat absurd, and surprisingly full of heart. If I must squeeze the film into the animation category, then Anomalisa is without a doubt my favourite animated film of the year, no small feat considering I really enjoyed Inside Out, the Pixar flick that bested it at the Oscars.

I went into Anomalisa without any idea of what the film is about, which turned out to be both good and bad. As per usual, no spoilers from me, though I think it would be helpful to have an inkling of the premise so you don’t end up completely lost.

Based on a stage play penned by Kauffman, the film follows a middle-aged man named Michael (voiced by David Thewlis) as he heads to Cincinatti for work reasons. The majority of the movie takes place in the hotel where Michael is staying and details his interactions with others people, all of whom are voiced by Tom Noonan and have identical faces (this is important but was lost on me for half the movie). Only one person is different — Lisa (voiced by Jennifer Jason Leigh — and her appearance turns Michael’s life completely upside down.

This is one weird-ass film, but it’s also completely absorbing and riveting to watch for several reasons. First of all, you never know where the plot is heading — it’s a wild, wacky ride, and you simply have to surrender yourself to Kauffman and trust him to handle the rest.

Secondly, the animation is captivating. All the characters are eerily life-like, save for a strange crack on the sides of the heads. But even the expressions and movements have this human quality to them, which is both amazing and unsettling. It apparently took two years to shoot everything, often a second or two of footage a day — that’s how meticulous it is.

Thirdly, the movie is funny — really, really funny. In typical Kauffman fashion, the humour is often awkward and dark, but it sure is laugh-out-loud hilarious. And there aren’t many cheap jokes either — everything is dialogue, characters and situation. Fantastic use of profanity too.

Fourthly, I just couldn’t believe how much heart the film had — not just for an animated film, but any film. I believed in the characters and what they were saying. I connected with their personalities and I felt their emotions. All of this despite the surreal vibe coursing through the entire film. A good chunk of the credit must go to Thewlis, Leigh and Noonan for their phenomenal voice performances. It shows just how much of acting is in the way the lines are read.

The result is a trippy, funny and poignant experience unlike anything I’d seen before. My only real problem is that the protagonist, Michael, is actually a bit of a douche, and as such it’s not as easy to empathise and sympathise with the guy as Kauffman may think. Apart from that, I have nothing but positive things to say about Anomalisa. I embraced the weirdness and loved it.

4.5 stars out of 5

Minions (2015)

Minions

Unlike a lot of people, I’m not enamoured with the Minions, the yellow, pill-shaped creatures from the Despicable Me movies. Never have been. I’m not into “cute” cartoon characters anyway and don’t understand why people can obsessively gush over creations so obviously designed to elicit “awww”s from grown-ups.

Still, when a movie makes a billion dollars at the box office even before it is released in all worldwide markets (such as China) there must be something more to it than just cuteness. I was also encouraged by the highly positive review from the BBC’s Mark Kermode, who even placed the film in his top 10 of the year (so far). So I checked it out.

My own reaction to Minions? Meh. Don’t get what the fuss is all about. Granted, it’s not as half-assed as some other spin-offs of popular franchises, but ultimately I just found it kinda repetitive and unable to sustain my interest.

For starters, the film has basically one gag: the Minions are always trying to find an evil master but keep ending up toppling them by accident instead. They are more or less a bunch of Forrest Gumps in yellow pill form — they are dim-witted but have an endless supply of dumb luck that seems to always get them out of a jam. It gets better and more varied when Sandra Bullock’s and Jon Hamm’s characters are introduced, though even then it always comes back to that one gag.

Secondly they speak largely gibberish, so you can’t understand them the vast majority of the time. It’s “cute” at the beginning but gets a little annoying after more than an hour of the same thing. Again, audiences have to be rescued by Bullock and Hamm, who actually reveal themselves to be quite talented voice actors and have surprising voice chemistry. Allison Janney and Michael Keaton aren’t bad either.

To its credit, Minions is about as fast and furious as you can get without the presence of Vin Diesel. The gags, while repetitive and hit-and-miss, just keep coming and coming for the entire 91-minute running time. So eventually there will be a few that stick. If you enjoy this style of humour then you’ll probably be laughing non-stop. On the other hand if the jokes elicit not much more than the odd chuckle, then you’ll probably fall in my boat and just find the experience underwhelmingly average.

In some ways you can compare the craziness and zaniness of the film to last year’s The Lego Movie. Both are super-paced and constantly throw jokes at you from all angles, often with uneven results. But I found The Lego Movie a lot funnier — even though it was probably more all over the place — because there was more variety and more shades in the humour. Some of it was random, some of it was deadpan, some of it was dark. By contrast, Minions was more of a one-key affair.

At the end of the day, I still see Minions as a spin-off, and most spin-offs fail to branch out fully on their own. There’s not much that I disliked about the film — it’s more that they just didn’t do much for me despite the occasional chuckle here and there. The characters may be adorable and hilarious  in small spurts, like they are in Despicable Me, though when they are asked to carry a film from start to finish they can’t maintain their charm all the way through, and instead I find that their likability becomes a lot thinner as it is stretched across the longer screen time.

2.75 stars out of 5

Inside Out (2015)

inside out

As I’ve said many times before, I’m not the biggest fan of animated films. That said, if there is an exception it’ll have to be films produced by Pixar.

The studio’s latest effort, Inside Out, is an ambitious project that is taking the world by storm — notwithstanding its seemingly less attractive premise — largely thanks to rave reviews and word of mouth. And so I decided to check it out for myself.

There’s a Tumblr post being passed around lately outlining the premise behind each of Pixar’s films, with the joke being that every movie is “what if X had feelings?” So Toy Story is “what if toys had feelings?”, Wall-E is “what if robots had feelings?”, and Finding Nemo is “what if fish had feelings?”, and so forth. The one for Inside Out, fittingly, is “what if feelings had feelings?”. And that pretty much sums up the movie perfectly.

In Inside Out, we follow a human character called Riley from birth, though most of the action takes place inside her head, which is inhabited by different emotions who are personified into various characters. The lead character is Joy (Amy Poehler), and there’s also Sadness (Phyllis Smith) and so forth.

I won’t give away much more than that, but I will say it’s an extremely clever depiction of what goes on inside a person’s head, the conflict between different emotions, how memories are stored, remembered, recalled and discarded, and how all of this shapes a person’s personality.

There’s a lot more to how it works and the film will get to that as it progresses, and it’s all done with Pixar’s trademark simplicity, humour, emotions and of course colourful, stunning visuals. The most amazing thing about it all is that this heavily simplified and yet complex psychological system of feelings, memories, personality, depression and the subconscious — as told through a cartoon, no less — all somehow rings true. I’d be very interested to see if there are any educational studies into this film to see just how closely it matches up to what experts understand about the workings of the human mind at this point in time.

When you think about all the intricacies, the mutiple layers and the depth, Inside Out really is quite a remarkable piece of work. Many have gone as far as calling it “genius” and “a masterpiece.”

I’m not sure I would go that far, or even as far as what some critics like Mark Kermode have said, which is that Inside Out could become the first animated film to win Best Picture at the Oscars. It certainly is a very intelligent premise filled with many clever ideas throughout, though as a piece of entertainment I feel like it still lacks a certain “wow” factor that the most compelling films have. There were times when I asked myself whether the confined limits of the premise would allow the film to truly take off. Maybe it’s just unrealistic expectations after hearing so much hype.

And while it easily passes the six-laugh test for a good comedy and has another handful of hearty chuckles sprinkled throughout, I also think the movie could have been even funnier given the ridiculously talented comedic cast (that also includes Bill Hader, Mindy Kaling and the easily recognisable voice of Richard Kind). Phyllis Smith is absolutely hilarious though.

It might be because cartoons just don’t have that effect on me, but I’m sure I’m not the only one as my wife is among several people who have told me that they think the film is just “OK”. However, I think the film is a lot more than just OK because it had an emotional impact on me that only a handful of animations have had before. I rarely get teary-eyed in movies these days and this film got me a few times. Perhaps it’s because I had gone through some similar life experiences to Riley and share some of the same memories. That’s why I think it’s actually a film targeted more at adults than children because it dredges up all these memories and emotions and nostalgia from when we were growing up.

With its imagination, intelligence, depth and ability to tug the heart strings, Inside Out is a film I can definitely see myself rewatching a few times and share with my kids as they grow older. Based on how much I enjoyed this first viewing already, I rate it…

4.25 stars out of 5

PS: The short film before the main feature, Lava, is also very sweet and touching, with a catchy tune that could get stuck in your head for days.

Movie Review: Big Hero 6 (2014)

Big-Hero-6-Movie-Poster-2

Big Hero 6 is the kind of animated film I would have thought was the best thing ever when I was a kid. Kid geniuses, cool superpowers and a cute robot friend to boot, it’s every little boy’s dream come true. I admit I had a great time with it as an adult too despite its fairly straight-forward sci-fi action premise, conventional plot and Avengers team concept (not surprising because it’s loosely based on a Marvel comics series of the same name).

Set in the fictional hybrid city of San Fransokyo (even though the Japanese aspects remind me more of Osaka), Big Hero Six is all about the conveniently named Hiro, a 14-year-old genius who loves to design fighting robots and using his 3D printer to turn them into reality. Without giving away too much plot, let’s just say Hiro designs something really cool that ends up being utilised by a masked villain for evil purposes, and it is up to him and his team of five very clever friends to save the day.

Big Hero 6 does not break any new ground, but it’s a strong effort by Disney that ticks all the right boxes. The visuals are colourful and easy on the eyes; the characters are affable and have plenty of heart; the action is exciting and creative; and the innovation — in particular the designs of the robots and their abilities — is very impressive. None of these things would matter very much if the film doesn’t have heart, but fortunately it does thanks to the strong development of Hiro’s journey.

If you’ve seen the trailer or the posters you’ll know there’s a very adorable white inflatable robot called Baymax, which is a health care assistant designed by Hiro’s brother Tadashi. It’s totally deliberate, but Baymax succeeds in supplying the film with ample cuteness and humour. You know that’s what he’s designed to make audiences feel but you can’t help but fall in love with him.

Big Hero 6 is up for Best Animated Feature at the Oscars next month and I’ll probably be rooting for it to win. It’s not super hilarious like the snubbed Lego Movie, it’s not super cute and moving like Up, and it’s certainly not on the level of Toy Story, which is all of those things and more — but Big Hero 6 succeeds as a fun, entertaining and pretty animated film that audiences of all ages will enjoy.

3.75 stars out of 5

 

Movie Review: Stand By Me Doraemon (2014)

stand-by-me-doraemon-poster

Doraemon was probably the first manga and anime I was exposed to as a child, so it made sense for me to choose Stand By Me Doraemon — the first 3D computer animated Doraemon feature — as my three-year-old son’s first cinematic experience.

It’s a good choice, because unlike other Doraemon feature films that depict standalone adventures, Stand By Me Doraemon is an origins story that takes us right back to the beginning and features some of Doraemon’s best known gadgets. While there are original elements, many of the subplots, including the ending, are borrowed directly from the manga/anime, though due to time constraints some classic chapters were condensed into montages.

For those who don’t already know the story, it’s about a loser kid named Nobita who is in the very bottom percentile in terms of both intellectual and athletic ability. To change his fortunes, Nobita’s great-great-great-grandson from the 22nd century sends him Doraemon, a lovable robot cat with a pocket full of handy futuristic gadgets. With Doraemon’s help, Nobita sets out to alter his future and win the affections of Shizuka, the perfect girl-next-door, while also fending off his friends, the bully Gian and the show-off Suneo.

stand-by-me-doraemon

It’s a good-looking movie, with smooth 3D computer animation that pays homage to the simplicity of the original anime. As such, there aren’t many eye-popping images, though old fans should be content with the faithful transition from 2D hand-drawn animation to 3D CGI.

As a cynical adult, I have a few problems with the story’s logic and its underlying messages, some of which could be construed as shallow. As a kid, however, all I cared about was how cool Doraemon’s gadgets are and how much I wish I had them, so I’m not too concerned about my son being led astray.

Ultimately, notwithstanding the complexity of all the time travelling, Stand By Me Doraemon is a story that’s easy to follow and like if you enjoy rooting for the underdog. I don’t know if it’s the nostalgia flooding back, but I was actually very moved by the movie in the end. The final message teaching kids to be independent and that having a kind heart is the best attribute of all is something even adults can appreciate.

My son loved the experience and I had a pretty good time too. We’re already counting down the days until the next Doraemon feature.

3.5 stars out of 5

Movie Review: Taken 3 (2014)

Taken3

I’m not quite sure if this is the right way to express it, but my soft spot for the Taken franchise is…getting hard?

Look, I knew Taken 3 was more of a cash grab than a genuine attempt to rekindle the magic of the original, one of the best action films of the last decade. Taken 2 was largely an over-the-top failure with some decent moments, but at least it tried. Taken 3, on the other hand, has more or less become an unintentional parody of itself.

The beauty of Taken was in its remarkable simplicity — a relentless man with a very specific set of skills sets out to find the man who took his daughter, and kills him. Taken 3, however, has reverted to a fairly typical murder-mystery in the vein of (well, more like ripped right out of) The Fugitive, where Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) is set up for the murder of a loved one and must find the killer before the police — headed by a sleepier-than-usual Forest Whitaker — catches him.

The action is never really the problem with Taken 3.  Director Olivier Megaton, who was responsible for Taken 2, gives us plenty of car chases, shootouts and hand-to-hand combat scenes, most of which are executed rather well (with some caveats I will get to). Liam Neeson is still capable and relentless, but at 62 he has clearly lost a step, making Bryan Mills by far the most vulnerable we’ve seen him. Fortunately, he is still a regular Houdini and somehow manages to escapes certain death at least a handful of times in this film without incurring anything more than a couple of temporary scratches.

The big problem with Taken 3 is that the portrayal of the action is heavily muted for classification purposes. When audiences watch Bryan Mills they want to see swift brutality. The blood is almost expected. In Taken 3, the violence is rapid cuts at the point of impact and cutting away when the “good stuff” is about to happen. People get shot and stabbed, but we don’t actually get to see any of it. The result is a strangely unsatisfying experience that takes away a lot of the visceral thrills from the original.

The rest of the film doesn’t offer much. The script, penned by Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kaman (who collaborated on the two earlier films), is truly horrendous, complete with dialogue that will make you shudder with embarrassment. Gaps in logic and common sense fails are all over the place, and I’m not even just talking about typical instances where bad guys conveniently spare lives and give the good guys opportunities to turn things around — though that happens a lot too.

And Maggie Grace’s character, Kim Mills, continues to be such an annoying, grating BIATCH that it horrifies me to realise that her father would go to all these lengths to protect her. I was secretly hoping that she would get killed all throughout the movie — which actually would have been awesome because it would have set Bryan on a historic rampage. Alas, it wasn’t meant to be.

At 109 minutes, the film is far too long as well, especially when you consider that Taken was a perfect 90 minutes and Taken 2 was a manageable 98 minutes. It’s as though the makers of Taken 3 have gradually stripped away everything that made the original Taken a classic and replaced it with conventional Hollywood action cliches.

Having said all that, if you are a fan of the franchise because of the first film like me, then you might still find Taken 3 to be acceptable. It’s essentially just another average Hollywood action-thriller being carried by the goodwill of the original and its familiar, iconic protagonist. For some, that might be reason enough to watch it.

2.75 stars out of 5