In Taken, Liam Neeson plays Bryan Mills, a retired CIA “adjuster” who does not mess around; doesn’t take any crap; and goes straight, fast, and hard at any problem until it folds, breaks, or blows up. Taken the film uses pretty much the same approach.
Though directed by Pierre Morel, Taken is producer and co-writer Luc Besson’s film. If you’re familiar with Besson’s action films—best represented by the Transporter series—you know what to expect. No nonsense, non-stop, international dust ups with one speed: high and over the top. It’s not a fistfight unless someone is quickly dispatched with ballet-like rapid-fire kicks and punches. It’s not a car chase until someone’s driven through a building.
All of which makes Taken a perfectly enjoyable, even gripping brainless thrill. It spends its first half hour setting things up, but then, once things kick into gear, it’s on like Donkey Kong until the credits roll an hour later.
First, the setting-up stuff. Bryan is living in LA, trying to rebuild some sort of relationship with his 17-year-old daughter, Kim (Lost’s Maggie Grace, gone brunette). His sincere efforts (he’s one of those sensitive, caring super-spies who’s trying to get in touch with his familial feelings) are thwarted by his ex-wife (Famke Janssen, in the film just enough to goose the themes and plot along) and her new husband, a financier-type (ie ineffectual and morally suspect) who outbids Bryan for Kim’s love by buying her horses instead of karaoke machines.
But it turns out the very best way to bond with an estranged daughter is—take notes out there, dads—to rescue her from international sex slavers.
Kim travels to Paris with a friend and within minutes, having ignored Bryan’s warnings about international travel safety, both young women are abducted by swarthy, sleazy flesh peddlers. That is Taken‘s trump card and selling point, featured in all the promotional material: a father on the phone with his teenage daughter as she is literally dragged away by kidnappers. That Bryan remains deadly, professionally calm during her panicked call signals the film’s leap from Every Parent’s Nightmare to Every Parent’s Vigilante Fantasy.
Naturally, Bryan springs into action, and from that point on Taken barely stops for breath. He’s an international spy of the two-fisted variety: even retired, Bryan has Jason Bourne’s bone-crunching grittiness and James Bond’s physical invulnerability. All of which he unleashes with furious vengeance, cool efficiency, and almost slapstick violence on everyone who might lead him to Kim.
The hook in Taken is that this one-man-wrecking machine is not smashing heads and killing bad guys for Her Majesty, the President, or national security. He’s doing it to get his daughter back. That, plus Neeson’s natural likability and paternal authority (he would make a great Irish Atticus Finch), helps ground the movie. The script doesn’t care much about emotional complexities or moral nuances, but Neeson’s presence is enough to tug things back toward human when they veer a bit close to Besson’s usual pulpy excesses.
Make no mistake, Taken is a fairly brutal film. Bryan makes Jack Bauer look like a card-carrying member of the ACLU when it comes to torturing anyone with something he needs (including a former French colleague’s wife). And once he has what he needs, he executes in cold blood anyone along the chain of the slave ring’s command. (Clearly the CIA doesn’t train its operatives to take prisoners.) All of this is deemed morally excusable since, after all, They Are Scum (Foreign Scum, no less) and He’s Out to Save His Daughter.
(Viewers tempted to draw thematic parallels between Bryan’s attempt to buy his daughter’s love with birthday gifts in the first act and the leering Middle-Eastern men’s bidding on her later at the slavers’ auction are best advised to leave such analytical inclinations at the theater door. Suspend your disbelief while you’re there as well: the proceedings are chock full of sloppy narrative coincidences and conveniences.)
Overall, Taken is exactly what it appears to be: mindless trash entertainment, no more, no less. But it’s good trash: a no-frills rescue-and-revenge thriller that like its hero never fails, never slows down.
Related Posts
 |
Posted on February 5, 2009 at 5:28 am
I’m the type of person who watche two movies a day still have a life.I liked most of your comment until you mindlessly trashed it at the end.But reguardless of your opinion I listen to the publics reveiw on films.This is a must see movie from what I hear.I’m so into American style taking it International kick ass flicks,plus I have daughter who loves to travel.I feel it’s also a message film like enjoy international travel in groups and don’t stray off from everybody like in the Hostel movies.
Posted on February 10, 2009 at 11:16 am
I saw this movie last weekend i,m here to tell you its a must see movie for you thrill seekers and fathers who are willing to risk anything for their children can,t wait till it comes out on Redbox so I can see it again!!!!!!!
Posted on February 10, 2009 at 1:14 pm
if u have a teen daughter – it becomes a very emotional movie..
the weekend before seeing it I went to get conceal weapon permit with my oldest son for his b-day..
my teenage daughter has been begging us for the last several weeks to let her go to Europe to visit my sister (her aunt) in Ireland this summer..
couldn’t have a better setting to go see the movie..
if u don’t have a teenage daughter u will not be able to relate..
Posted on February 10, 2009 at 1:56 pm
I thought the comment about it being good trash interesting, but a touch pompous. This movie is not out to be an indie art film. Its purpose is to tell a relatable story that takes viewers beyond their own physical limitations, or, in some cases, moral inhibitions. In that vein, as a parent, it sounds like a good movie aimed at Dads.
Posted on February 10, 2009 at 2:16 pm
I saw the movie last week and I enjoyed the movie myself. I liked the fact it was intensed and kept you watching.
Posted on February 10, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I don’t agree with the comment that was made about not being able to relate if you don’t have a teenage daughter. My husband and I both thought this movie was great. We went in knowing it was going to be a good action flick and we got exactly what we expected. I don’t think it was the same caliber as any of the Bourne movies, but it was still enjoyable to watch.
Posted on February 10, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I disagree with the trash comment. I’ve seen this movie twice and thought it was the best movie I had seen all this last year. It’s very intense, but I also really appreciated the lack of foul language. Our family loved it, and we have 5 daughters!
Posted on February 10, 2009 at 4:54 pm
I fully agree that Taken has a very specific narrative draw: It intentionally plays off those parental fears. But let’s not get carried away–it is no more intended to be a primer on International Travel Security than this weekend’s Friday The Thirteenth is going to be a lecture on camping safety.
We Americans thrive on fear and films like this know it. (Nor is this a new cinematic trend — there have always been plenty of great, pulpy “Innocent Americans Abroad Get Caught Up in Nefarious Plots” films. I’m thinking at the moment of Straw Dogs and Frantic, but I know I’m blanking on some of the more obvious ones–help me out, folks!)
Trust me, your daughters (or sons) are NOT going to get abducted into international sex slavery the first time they travel outside the borders of the U.S. Nor are they going to be trapped and tortured for the amusement of paying customers as in the gloriously depraved Hostel films.
These are horror films, no more no less–just because the monsters are foreigners, not mutants or demons doesn’t make them any more realistic or accurate. (And yes, even though this is a French-made film, it does cynically pry at many American’s unfortunately natural xenophobia.) Just make sure something like Taken, which works fine as thrilling action adventure, doesn’t further reinforce some sort of Fortress-America idea of staying home with the doors locked.
Posted on February 10, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Well, maybe I should explain — “trash” is not always a purely negative comment for me. I LIKE well-done trash! I love a good blood-pumping, goosebumps thrill ride, and sometimes the trashier the better.
And Taken IS pretty trashy. It–rightfully–doesn’t care much for nuance or subtlety. As I said, the film, like it’s main character, has a single-minded purpose and it goes at that purpose hard and fast. And much of it is pretty ludicrous. Often enjoyably so.
Um, as for the “lack of foul language”… So it’s okay the “hero” to ruthlessly torture and execute folks left and right, as long as he doesn’t use harsh language around his victims? Sorry, but that criteria seems a bit skewed to me.
The hero SHOOTS the wife of a former co-worker in the arm in order to get information out of her husband. But that still falls under the category of “family friendly” because he didn’t call her a four-letter word?
To be clear, Taken is a pretty brutal, hard PG-13 film.
Posted on February 10, 2009 at 5:42 pm
This movie is AWESOME, the only thing I didn’t really understand at the end is why she goes running back to her mother and STEP-dad when they get back. If I was that girl I would’ve never let go of my father. Plus if you are a close watcher, the police cars over in France or Paris, they do not say “Police” they say Polizei. Just a couple inferences.
Posted on February 10, 2009 at 6:02 pm
This movie was AWESOME! It is good to see an action movie once in a while in which the hero just absolutely dominates… This guy was almost like an older version of Jason Bourne. I would definitely go see it again!
Oh, and I have no kids, and I feel like I was able to relate very well with ALL the characters in the movie…
Posted on February 10, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Kate makes a good point — this is the rare action film in which, to my memory, the hero makes NO mistake or misstep. I don’t believe he ever suffers a set-back (well, other than his daughter getting kidnapped) or even, really, a moment of doubt in the film. He just goes, goes, goes. And that was fine — it’s a character/plot device that Neeson fits very well.
[SPOILER AHEAD]
Though he doesn’t save the other vacationing girl who was with his daughter, but he seems kinda “okay” and not too shook up about that. There is the vague moralistic suggestion that the kidnapping was her fault anyway and her death by overdose is her punishment for getting his daughter into the mess in the first place.
Posted on February 10, 2009 at 7:41 pm
I found the film to be both exciting and subtle. The issue of parental rights and ex spouses who may be at odds even at the expense of the child’s best interest was couched amidst all of the action. The daughter, naive like many sheltered children, was fortunate to have so dedicated a father to rescue her from her ordeal. I urged my daughter to see it, and she told her fiancee: “He (Liam Neeson) reminds me of my Dad.”
To the commentator who remarked earlier about Americans being xenophobic, you would do well to focus your high mindedness on attacking the sex trafficking industry rather than making snide commentary about those of us concerned for the safety of our children, which, by the way, you cannot guarantee
Posted on February 10, 2009 at 7:56 pm
I’m sorry, but someone please point out where there is an epidemic of wealthy young American women being kidnapped overseas and sold into sex slavery? I missed that episode of “New Things To Worry About.”
In reality, it’s just the opposite–there is a growing problem of impoverished overseas women being brought TO America and sold into sex slavery HERE. As well as economically underprivileged women being coerced into prostitution here in the United States. (Not to mention in other countries.)
But that’s not what Taken is about, nor would such a film sell many tickets here in the U.S.
Posted on February 10, 2009 at 8:03 pm
“The daughter, naive like many sheltered children, was fortunate to have so dedicated a father to rescue her from her ordeal.”
Taken is a fantasy film. And a horror thriller. Let’s remind ourselves that real-life fathers, even ex-CIA agents, no matter how dedicated, do not get to run all over Paris torturing and killing at will, never getting harmed or arrested, and achieving their objective quickly and mostly painlessly. (For them that is, not the villains.)
I liked Taken, but it is no more realistic or relevant to daily life today than Lord of the Rings.
To me, that is what makes a movie like Taken — as enjoyably thrilling and entertaining as it is — a bit dangerous. I just don’t think we should be shaping our worldview or sense of security based on action films, especially Luc Besson action films. :)
Posted on February 10, 2009 at 8:22 pm
And I agree that Taken does trot out some issues about children of divorce, absent fathers, parental rights, etc. But the point seems more to be that Neeson was not present for most of his daughter’s young life because he was working for the Agency–that is the background that drives his character arc, not so much that he was denied parental rights.
And again, all of that is really just plot kindling to fuel his obsessive vigilante rescue mission–he finally gets to prove that he’s a good dad, and that being in the CIA does leave you with some useful life skills.
Posted on February 11, 2009 at 8:04 am
My brothers told me about this movie and I’ve been waiting for it to come out for awhile now. This is a great movie. It does fulfill all of your expectations. It is an “eye for an eye” type logic. But the Dad goes even farther than that… more like: “you drew First Blood”! I hate to say that a torture scene had a comical element to it… (involves getting info by hooking someone up to some electrical device & threatening to leave them there “until the lights get cut off for non-payment of the electric bill”). It is VERY entertaining. Not trying to psycho-analyze the film.
Posted on February 11, 2009 at 9:08 am
“Taken is a fantasy film. And a horror thriller. Let’s remind ourselves that real-life fathers, even ex-CIA agents, no matter how dedicated, do not get to run all over Paris torturing and killing at will, never getting harmed or arrested, and achieving their objective quickly and mostly painlessly. (For them that is, not the villains.)”
Of course, but I think you missed the point. It wasn’t the things Neeson did in the film that people appreciate. It was why he did them and the dedication he showed. Of course people don’t get to go around torturing and killing, but most fathers feel that they would do anything for their kids.
Also, Americans are not the only ones who are xenophobic. That is a trait of humanity in general. Sometimes people are able to overcome xenophobia, but for the most part, people fear what is different.
Regardless of where sex slavery occurs, it is still a large issue worldwide, or at least the media and documentaries paint it as such, so can you really blame people for worrying about it?
Posted on February 11, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Jason, you make some very good points. You’re right–I’m coming at Taken with a bit of wariness about vigilante fantasies being taken as “realistic” or something to be admired and perhaps, to some small degree, emulated. But as you point out, I was mostly glossing over that part of the film’s core appeal: the father who will do ANYTHING to get his daughter back. (The fantasy element is in how unfailingly successful he is–even the daughter, at the end, doesn’t appear as if she’s going to need decades of therapy.) You’re right–that’s the idea that makes Taken so appealing to viewers (on top of the fact, as I’ve said, that it’s a fast-moving, crackerjack action thriller.)
Posted on February 11, 2009 at 12:29 pm
And yes, point two to you as well, Jason — all people of all nationalities are, to some extent, xenophobic — that’s an absolutely fair point.
I would suggest that having been the biggest kid on the block for the past 100 years–plus our frontier-brash, pushy stereotype–American and its citizens tend to sometimes wear our xenophobia more loudly and proudly. But again, you are right — the people of France, where Taken is set, have plenty of their own issues with outsiders.
I guess my general point was that Taken certainly PLAYS off the notion of American xenophobia–that foreign places, even lovely Paris, are seething cesspools of danger underneath the post-card pretty scenery. And that if you make one misstep there, BAM!, you’re in the deepest trouble of your life. (The Hostel films certainly milk that notion, but do so for almost satiric effect.) And of course, it is swarthy Albanian thugs who do the kidnapping and sleazy, filthy rich Arabs who purchase the sex slaves.
And again, I stress, that is a FANTASY. The villainous foreigners in Taken are no more realistic than the cartoon Nazis (or Russians) in the Indiana Jones movies.
(And you have to wonder to what extent the French filmmakers of Taken intended the film to be seen almost as a satire of American fears of foreign dangers.)
Because Taken stars Liam Neeson and is set in Paris, there is a sense it is more “real” and “true.” It doesn’t have hobbits or mutants or poltergeists. I just think we need to remember that it is first and foremost CREATED as pure schlock entertainment. Besson and Morel have NO intentions to make anything other than a tight, thrilling action ride. They use the desperate father angle because that gives their film the most narrative juice.
Posted on February 11, 2009 at 12:37 pm
And finally, yes Jason, sex slavery is a VERY real problem worldwide. I suppose you can laud Taken to a small extent for shining a light on it, but as I said, it does so with an angle — rich American girl kidnapped overseas — that is unrealistic. Rich American girls being “taken” overseas is NOT the real issue of international sex slavery. But maybe if the movie puts the issue into a more terrifying, familiar guise then it could draw some attention to the actual problem.
And certainly, we KNOW that the Natalie Holloway story tapped deep into our fears about young American women abroad. We flock to a story like that because it preys upon every parent’s darkest nightmares — Taken very much took its cue from how the Holloway story captivated and obsessed Americans.
By comparison, sex slavery is a major plot point in Slumdog Millionaire, only the issue is Indian girls being used by Indian slavers. That’s a much more realistic portrayal of the actual worldwide problem.
Posted on February 11, 2009 at 1:10 pm
One word: RUDE! I’m trying to go on Redbox to see what movies are about, not see rude movie trashing & bashing because one critic particularly didn’t like it. You can write a negative viewpoint without sounding so arrogant & self-righteous about it. I’m sure you get paid to be arrogant, though. Now, I don’t know that I want to see this, or any other movie from Redbox. Your criticism isn’t constructive. It’s just plain rude. I hope you aren’t like this in real life. I’d hate to meet you on the street. I sent a complaint to Redbox. They need to hire a better critic.
Posted on February 11, 2009 at 1:25 pm
I’m sorry you feel that way, Amy, but what we’re doing here, both in my review and hopefully in the comments, is trying to have a lively debate about films–films we like, films we hate, films we have mixed feelings about. I guess what you call trashing and bashing, I call criticism and discussion.
Again, I’m sorry you were offended, but what exactly was it that you found to be so rude?
Posted on February 12, 2009 at 10:11 am
Locke, I’m right there with you, buddy. I wouldn’t say that you were rude. You just expressed an opinion in a way that most film critics are wont to do. If your opinion weren’t the least bit controversial, no one would care what you had to say. I think you are an excellent critic. I may disagree on a few points, but we’re all human, so that’s to be expected. Don’t let Amy drag you down, man.
Posted on February 12, 2009 at 4:53 pm
“even gripping brainless thrill” “almost slapstick violence” & “mindless trash entertainment, no more, no less” all offended me when reading your review. Then, you turned around & called it “good trash.” How can anything be considered “good trash?” Trash is trash. It stinks, it sucks, it smells. So, what’s so “good” about this “trash?” What offended me was the way you presented your review. You trashed it, bashed it, & I felt like I was one of the world’s biggest dummies for wanting to watch the movie. I also felt like the biggest dummy in the world for not realizing hmmmm……IT’S FICTION!….when in reality, I KNOW it’s fiction. That’s why people want to go to movies in the first place. They want to escape reality. But I’m sure you, & everyone else, knows that already.
I’d like to think myself a somewhat intelligent person, unlike that of “Bud” from “Swing Vote.” Your review, when reading it, made it sound like I’d be an idiot to rent it, right until you said, “BUT WAIT!!! THERE’S MORE! IT’S REALLY GOOD TRASH!” essentially.
Glad you explained what the Blog really was intended for. Maybe Redbox should post that in their e-mails, so others like myself won’t be offended when trying to find out what a movie’s about, instead of making them feel like a mindless idiot.
It’s interesting. I was raised to remain positive, even in the negative. So, in the negative, a person can say what they don’t like, but not come across as being arrogant and better than the rest of us.
And Jason, no offense, but this is an A/B conversation, so please “C” your way out. If I had a moment to send a personal e-mail or whatever, I would’ve. Glad you support your friend, though. Those can be sometimes hard to find.
Posted on February 13, 2009 at 11:06 am
Amy, Amy, Amy. This is a public discussion board not an “A/B” conversation. Be mad all you want, but I wasn’t out of bounds. Besides, what are we, in 5th grade? I’m sorry that reading a review tugs your emotions around so hard. Why did you let it get to you so much? That seems a little silly.
Critics don’t sell movies. They sell their opinions. MOST people realize that their opinions are just that…opinions. You can’t berate him for not liking a movie. That’s ridiculous.
Posted on February 13, 2009 at 11:59 am
Hi Amy. For starters I should point out I don’t actually KNOW Jason, nor have I hired him in some way to plead my case here –I promise. But he’s right–I hope this is an open discussion where anyone can jump in, and I truly hope everyone will.
I really do appreciate your explanation, but in the end I have say that using terms like “brainless” and “mindless” and “slapstick” to describe a film like Taken doesn’t seem rude to me — you can argue, and many have, whether my opinion is ACCURATE, and that’s why we have these comments. That’s what I enjoy and want to see more of here–people arguing passionately about what they think of a film, or its purpose, meaning, or success.
I write to inform readers about films, to offer up my opinions and ideas about them, and also to hopefully entertain and engage a bit with my writing. So yeah, on a good day I try to get excited a bit about the films, whether I like them or not, and I try to write to match that. And that may mean using words like “mindless” or “brainless” to describe action films that function–quite effectively, as I’ve pointed out–more on guts and fists than on brains. I’ve explained my attitude toward and use of the term “trash”–that just as there is good-tasting junk food, there are ‘trashy’ films that can be fun to watch, sometimes BECAUSE they are a bit trashy.
I’ve also made the point before that not EVERYONE goes to see EVERY movie to escape reality. There are films people sometimes see in order to seek out and explore artistic TRUTHS. Taken is certainly NOT one of those–it is pure escapism. My particular issue with Taken was that, much like the TV show 24, it comes off appearing just ‘real’ enough that it seems to be selling a dark fantasy as some sort of truth–namely that it plays off people’s natural paranoia. (I feel it presents an unrealistic nightmare–the made-up danger of being kidnapped overseas and sold into sex slavery–and then counters it with an unrealistic fantasy–that, fueled by paternal protectionism, your super CIA agent dad will efficiently and effectively rescue you.) That has been the main topic we, or at least I’ve been kicking around here in the comments.
I’m sorry the tone of my review and my comments upset you, but I can’t say I’m sorry I wrote them the way I did. This is how I like to tackle film and kick ideas around.
Posted on February 17, 2009 at 11:56 am
Locke,
I know I’m not always right, nor pretend to be. I guess, considering I’ve never been paid to give constructive criticism, that expressing ideas into a form when one isn’t that positive about seeing it (meaning any movie) can be a difficult task to handle when trying not to offend anybody, while at the same time, expressing your personal opinion. Maybe I was having a “Bipolar” moment (and Jason…..I loved the 5th grade by the way). And I can honestly say that, considering that is an condition I have to deal with daily.
The point I’m trying to establish here is that I (like everyone else) have issues I deal with daily, & my emotions get mixed up in EVERY form of discussion I deal with in one way or another. For instance, I had to deal with an idiot ex-boyfriend this weekend from a God-forsaken state that felt pleasure in tormenting me with a call to his MP station so that I might not get my things back from before we were an “item.” Stress from that, stress from a beloved pet of 15 years dying, & being a single mother trying to make it while dealing with an a….hem of an exhusband takes it’s toll on me. Guess I had a “bad day” that day when reading your review.
So…..intelligent as I am, & dumb as I acted, & pride aside….I apologize. And Jason, I would’ve liked to have met you in elementary school. You don’t seem like the type that likes to be picked last for kickball, & prefer to be “Captain” of picking teams. That’s a compliment, believe it or not. :)
Posted on February 17, 2009 at 11:59 am
P.S…….and by the way, I have a mild form of OCD, & I’m a grammar nut job. I realized that I wrote an “an” instead of just an “a” when writing the first paragraph, before the letter “c” in the next word. Crazy, maybe, perfectionist? Not by choice.
Posted on February 17, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Hi Amy!
Don’t worry — God knows we all have weeks like that. I know my writing and commenting last week was heavily influenced by head colds and cold meds! And no matter how analytical we may try to be, there’s no doubt that our ever-changing human emotions affect not just how we argue or discuss a topic, but even how we respond to a movie itself.
I’m just glad you’re going to hang around here with us! We’re happy to have you posting comments, no matter what mood you may be in from day to day :)
Posted on February 18, 2009 at 11:10 am
I agree. I too had a bug and may have been ruder than I intended. It takes a big person to apologize, especially on a public forum, and I appreciate the apology and compliments. 5th grade was pretty fun…
Posted on March 3, 2009 at 7:48 am
This movie was great. My family and I sat on the edges of our seats with all the action. Most movies loose their story line with everything else that’s going on. Each time I take my children to the movies, I ask them what message did they get out of the movie. There were lessons to be learned. I tell everyone that they have go to go see this movie.
Posted on March 3, 2009 at 8:54 am
This movie was pretty good to a point. The preview was about a daughter taken and how a father was experienced and equipped enough find out why they took her and then come to her rescue. It had some great action and to the point. However, there is no such thing today. Sexual slavery in most third world countries is a horrific reality and once a child is a lost, a corrupted/poor government would never help a parent look.
Posted on March 11, 2009 at 8:43 pm
You’re right….this is “good” trash. :) Finally saw it this past weekend. Some stuff I kept wondering….like, “How many men can you take down by hitting them in the jugular?” or “Where did the other 2 girls go?” at the end of the movie. Also, “Why didn’t the blonde’s body go back “home” to the states?” Good trash….but some stuff just didn’t “flow” as far as one scene to another. One minute he’s in a “red door” home, the next, they show him torturing a guy….where was this guy being tortured….? I’m assuming in the house basement. Maybe I’d enjoy it a LITTLE more if I didn’t have trouble “thinking” through some of the idiosyncrasies involved in making this film.
Posted on August 27, 2009 at 4:35 pm
This is a great film. It shows a lesson to do not go with strangers and have a parent with you when you GO to FOREIGN COUNTRIES. I would get this on DVD.
Posted on October 5, 2009 at 4:08 am
I think This movie is not out to be an indie art film. Its purpose is to tell a relatable story that takes viewers beyond their own physical limitations, or, in some cases, moral inhibitions.
Posted on December 11, 2009 at 9:21 pm
I went to see this movie with no expectations. In the beginning it seems that it was going to be an easy to watch movie, but after a short time it turned into a high-speed action movie. I found the story original and so did my friends.This is one of those movies which stay in your memory for a while and let you think about bad things that happen.