Taken 3 (or Tak3n, if you really want to go there) concludes the story of Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson), an ex-CIA operative who, in the previous two movies, ran into a bit of trouble overseas, so to speak. With Taken 3, these films are almost completely neglected, only being referenced once in a blink or you'll miss it moment. Instead, we're given some predictable half assed story about the death of Bryan's ex-wife, Lenore (Famke Janssen) and how the blame is unbelievably put on Mills. Whatever. Does anybody even care about these movies? I sure as hell don't. The first, maybe. The second, hell no. The third, well, the third can just piss off.
According to wikipedia, a film can be described as "a series of still images which, when shown on a screen, creates the illusion of moving images due to the phi phenomenon. This optical illusion causes the audience to perceive continuous motion between separate objects viewed rapidly in succession.The individual images that make up a film are called frames. During projection of traditional films, a rotating shutter causes intervals of darkness as each frame in turn is moved into position to be projected, but the viewer does not notice the interruptions because of an effect known as persistence of vision, whereby the eye retains a visual image for a fraction of a second after the source has been removed." If what wikipedia says is true, and I do believe that it is, then Taken 3 is not a movie. Let me explain why.
For something to be classified as a movie, the viewer, and I quote, "does not notice the interruptions" between cuts. Or they're not affected by the cuts. The cuts simply happen and we don't take any notice of them. In Taken 3, the cuts are everywhere. They're fast, shaky and occur three times a second, making this film completely unwatchable. There's action on screen, and this action could've been fun, but it wasn't. People say this with many films, but you cannot see what's happening on screen. The editing is infuriatingly bad, and that's an understatement.
What makes this editing even worse is the cinematography. I have no idea who was in charge of the cinematography in this film, but I honestly hope they never get work again. That's harsh, I know, but wait until you see the film. Or don't. Yeah, please don't. The camera is constantly being thrown around, pulling me away from the story at hand. It's as if the cameramen were playing a game of rugby with the camera, constantly rotating it around in a circle, shaking it up and down and zooming in and out.
Editing and cinematography aside, what this film fails at the most, and this is insanely embarrassing, is in the audio. It's not the dialogue I'm discussing, nor the sound effects, although I would argue that they're rather shabby too. No, what I'm talking about is the microphones used to record the audio in this movie. The audio is, in certain scenes, impossible to listen to. Not because of how loud the rest of the scene was, but because it's muffled. It's freaking muffled. Yep, the audio is accompanied by a large cloud of static, which comes and goes as it pleases, making me at one point in the film laugh out loud.
Nothing that happens makes any sense, either. I'm going to give an example, and don't worry, this isn't a spoiler. There's an improbable scene that takes place around halfway through the movie that sees Liam Neeson in a bit of a tight spot. He's stuck in a car on the top floor of a building (or close enough to it) and he's surrounded by several police cars. So what does he do? He reverses down some gap and the car explodes. It was perhaps the only moment in the movie where I wanted to know what really happened, yet the outcome is unexplainable. Just thirty seconds later we see Liam Neeson on the roof of some building, talking to Forrest Whitaker via phone. Um, what? I saw this film five days ago and I still can't come up with a logical explanation as to how this happened.
While I should consider Taken 3 to be one of the worst films I've ever seen, and it probably deserves to be called that, it does have one redeeming factor. A redeeming factor that gave this film just an extra half star, seeings as how I don't give 0 Stars to films, although I do think I did to Jaws 3, but whatever. I've changed. This film does have two decent performances in it: Liam Neeson and Forrest Whitaker. Neither of them could make the film entertaining, but hey, they were the only performances I could stand to watch on screen.
To sum up, Taken 3 will undoubtedly be appearing on my Worst Of 2015 list come December. It's an awful pile of piss that shouldn't even be considered an actual movie. If you're going to see a movie this week, although I've been offline so this week's almost done, just wait for Birdman instead. That's what I should've been doing.