TAKEN (2009) - ***1/2

"I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my daughter go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you."

People have called this a BOURNE rip-off, and while the action cinematography at times is deja vu, I would argue that TAKEN is more inspired by David Mamet's underrated gem SPARTAN. Like TAKEN, Mamet's SPARTAN was a down-to-Earth thriller about a veteran warrior with a vague background who alone goes on a periling quest to rescue a snatched girl from the clutches of a sex slavery ring, and both pictures were obviously inspired by SEARCHERS. Yet I still prefer SPARTAN if only because Val Kilmer is saving a woman he doesn't know, doing so as if simply it's the right thing to do. Compare that with TAKEN, where Liam Neeson is going after his daughter. No less heroic mind you, but SPARTAN is just more endearing to me.

We gotta applaud 20th Century Fox for their excellent marketing campaign for TAKEN, which was first released in France 11 months earlier and opened #1 with strong business on the traditionally tough Super Bowl weekend. Fox was slick to not go the usual loud and explosive route, but instead they sought a minimalist approach by basing the trailer, TV ads, and poster primarily around that great scene with Neeson. Over the cell phone, helplessly thousands of miles away as his daughter is kidnapped in Paris, Neeson just knocks it out of the park by issuing a simple but credible dire warning to the criminals, who in retrospect probably should have taken (pun!) him more seriously.

TAKEN contains not one once of originality, yet the story is as old as the hills. In one lifetime it could have been a gritty action exploitation star vehicle for Charles Bronson in the 1970s or Steven Seagal in the 80s, or in another it could have become a serious drama like THE SEARCHERS. TAKEN is a good example of a film that triumphs not from the material, but primarily from great acting and good directing and editing, all mostly conducted by people who took this endeavor more seriously than one would expect from a Luc Besson production.

Certainly the torture sequence is straight of an episode of 24, though how Neeson ends that scene it's what one expects from action cinema these days, and yet Neeson somehow makes it poetic. I was kinda shocked, as was my theatre audience, what Neeson commits at the home of a Parisian cop, yet it's fitting for his character is willing to be an unsympathetic violent bastard to get what he wants. Tales about such figures are dime a dozen in action cinema, especially these days, but because Neeson is a great actor, he is immediately and utterly convincing as a guy who on a flip from nobody-retiree moonlighting as a bodyguard for celebrities to a less noble Jason Bourne part deux.

I do think director Pierre Morel dissed TAKEN when he cuts between Neeson's pivotal phone call and the actual kidnapping itself. It's traditonal safe action cinema storytelling, but he could have made that whole sequence more powerful by concentrating from only Neeson's blind POV, let his skills make it all the more harrowing. Thus when Neeson is investigating the scene of the crime later on, instead of feeling redundant because we saw the misdeed already, it would have become more interesting. I did like how Morel is patient in setting up the story with all the proper dynamics without jumping the gun too early. Alot of people have criticized this, but I appreciate that Morel and Besson actually have confidence that the audience trusts them, and I think they're rewarded for the most part.

Regardless, of all Besson-producing gigs, TAKEN is king by a landslide. This isn't his usual ridiculous B-fare like KISS OF THE DRAGON or the TRANSPORTER series, where folks like me go simply for the fights and car chases. With TAKEN, I was never bored and both Morel and Neeson always kept me engaged. Morel previously helmed another Besson picture in the French actioneer DISTRICT 13, which I haven't seen but after TAKEN, I think I'll check that out.

The generic ending though was a rare misstep. There was a natural conclusion at the airport, with Neeson all alone again, a guy who'll do anything for his spawn, and she always knew that. But he was never really there for her in the first place because of his job or more likely he's a wild man, not suited for a domestic lifestyle. It's a perfect Western motiff, and instead the last shot is wrapping up a storyline with the pop singer that I doubt anyone ever cared about. Two minutes of violence were chopped out of the American theatrical cut of TAKEN, but not this nonsense? Boo!

I have noticed the biggest difference in Hollywood action cinema between today and when I was growing up. Back then, the biggest stars were a former European kick-boxing champion (Jean-Claude Van Damme), a black belt in Aikido (Seagal), and arguably the greatest bodybuilder of all-time (Arnold Schwarzenegger). But after comic TV star Bruce Willis joined the party with DIE HARD, the trend slowly turned to great thespians kicking ass and blowing shit up, which is the status quo today what with Matt Damon, Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, and now apparently Mr. Neeson too. The slight irony is that TAKEN also reminds me of that recent Seagal flick URBAN JUSTICE, for both characters aren't as fast or strong as their characters once were, but still prevail over endless obstacles by using their their experience and precision strikes in combat. They also commit sloppy mistakes their younger-selves wouldn't have made.

Of course I'm the same guy who liked SHOWDOWN IN LITTLE TOKYO, so what the hell do I know?