Skip to main content

Liam Neeson in UNKNOWN!!!!!!!!!

Apparently (from what I’ve read and heard) the movie was marketed completely identical to Taken, from 2 years ago. Taken is a movie that I love for its showcasing of Liam Neeson in a total badass form. Now, besides seeing the poster, I knew nothing about Unknown except for what my friend told me shortly before we walked into the theater. I don’t even think I’ve seen the trailer beforehand. All I knew was that from the poster,

The story follows a scientist named Martin Harris (Liam Neeson) who arrives in Germany with his wife (January Jones) for a conference. Shortly after arriving at their hotel, he realizes that his luggage and identification was left at the airport and takes a cab back to retrieve it. However, on their way back, the cab gets into a little traffic scrimmage and ends up going off a bridge into the river below. Harris is trapped and drowns, that is until the superhero-like cab driver rescues and resuscitates him. He wakes up at a local hospital, and finds it odd that no one knows who he is or where he came from. He returns back to the hotel to find that not everything is as it once seemed; he finds his wife, but unfortunately, she does not recognize him. And in fact, some stranger is posing as her husband, and claims to be exactly him, Martin Harris. A mystery, dear reader, is afoot!

As a whole, the movie is solidly-pretty-alright; a 3 out of 3 on the 7 out of 10 scale, I’ve been saying. I think where Taken has the edge is with its intense action. Unknown is more methodic and slow-plodding, more apt for a mystery story, for which it mostly is. It’s not until the last 20 to 30 minutes where we see some semblance of action.

There is the one sort-of-plothole that stuck out to me. Oh, and I should preface this with a mild ***SEMI-SPOILER WARNING***. Why is it that when Liam Neeson remembers everything prior to the car crash, that all of a sudden he decides to be a good guy? I mean, with everything before the car accident and drowning, he was technically a bad guy. What reasons did he have to have a change of heart? Shouldn’t he have been like, oh yeah, I was a bad guy, commence evil. Moreover, as a former assassin, he pretty much is a wimp until the last act of the movie. Definitely not the Jason-Bourne-style of memory loss.***SEMI-SPOILERS OVER!***

What made the movie enjoyable is Liam Neeson. He has this very commanding onscreen presence where if he talked, you were sure to listen. He did not pwn as much as in Taken, but he made up for it with some strangely timed one-liners. Aidan Quinn on the otherhand, as the villain, I couldn’t buy. He just doesn’t come across as a believable bad guy. Frank Langella on the otherhand, even before he says anything, you know he’s up to something. Langella has a knack for playing this type of character; an ominous and mystery well-dressed old man.

As a whole, it’s worth a rental at worst. If you’ve got the time and money, then on the big screen couldn’t hurt. It’s a zany story, but thanks to Liam Neeson, it works. Until next time, later geeks!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dreamers, Achievers, Believers

It was quite a week last week. It started off on a more heavy note last Sunday, but as the week wore on, things became better and more clear. So let's do a little recap. This is going to be kind of long, so if you find this kind of stuff boring I've inserted pictures of funny cats for your entertainment. So... 1.5 Weeks Ago About 1.5 weeks ago, my friend Jon from Living Room gave me the contact info for his uncle. His uncle is an engineer and apparently was looking for new grads and new hands to hire. That week, I gave him a few calls but he wasn't there when I called him and when he returned my calls, I wasn't here either. We were playing phone tag that week *insert schoolgirl giggle*. Sunday Morning So last Sunday morning, his uncle gave me a call at 9 am (The morning! My weakness! HISS!) and we talked about stuff. I was telling him a bit about school as well as elaborating my work/coop experience as he didn't have my resume yet. So he goes on to tell

The Science of God

Not too long ago, two of my friends had posted their thoughts on evolution and creationism. Both friends shared similar sentiments on the topic (you can view Skylar's here and Keith's here ). Coincidence or not, shortly before they made their postings, I purchased a book called The Science of God by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, which was based on the same topic. Unfortunately, at the time of my friend's postings, I had not finished the book, but now I have. In The Science of God , Schroeder attempts to debunk the dichotomy that exists between science/evolution and creationism. He tries to show that there can exist a duality between the two and that discoveries in science actually prove the story of creation in the bible. The book can be roughly divided into three categories that being the concepts of time, the second with the biology of evolution, and lastly the concept of free will. In describing time, he focuses on the 6 days that are explained in the beginning of Genes

MAX PAYNE was oh so PAYNEFUL!!!

What a failure this was. An EPIC FAILURE~! And I'll tell you why. This movie had everything going for it which was why it made the failure seem so huge. It had star power. It had a very competent director. The visual style was there. It had a simple storyline... a storyline that was basically fuck-proof because it's so basic. The effects (when there were any) were also pretty great. So where did they go wrong? Pacing. If the first two-thirds of the film was like the last third, I think it would have been a fine film. Not great by any means, but fine. I mean, there was hardly any action in the first hour. It was all talk and build up. Every 5 minutes I was saying to myself, "okay, something cool is gonna happen now". But it never came. I think had they added 2 or 3 big action sequences during that hour, that it would have helped the film breathe and flow better. I mean, didn't they realize that the source material was an action game? Max Payne is