Taken 2 - 19% Rotten Tomatoes Update, What did you think?

Damn, I was looking forward to it. I'll watch it anyway I guess.

Unnecessary sequel.

I'd also like to point out that the Tomatometer SCORE doesn't mean anything. They compile scores like this: review 60% or up is fresh, any review lower than 60% is rotten. The score is then determined based on how many views were "fresh" and "rotten" without any consideration of how good or bad those reviewers said the movie is. So you can absolutely get a Tomatometer score of 7% when most reviewers thought the movie was simply average, you can absolutely get a tomatometer score of 90% when most of the reviewers actually only rated the movie in the mid 60's. The score means nothing. You've gotta actually read the reviews where the critics actually talk about what was good and bad about the movie. Then you consider what they wrote, and decide if it still seems like something you want to spend your money on. But the tomatometer score doesn't really mean anything. Those scores can be VERY deceptive, and are not necessarily a good indicator of how good or bad a movie is.MrGeezer

Don't entirely agree, I think the Tomatometer is generally good as a first screen, but not necessarily more than that. For example, the Tomatometer gives you a screen on whether the median score is greater than six. I imagine you'd also find a reasonable degree of correlation between tomatometer and critic average.

[QUOTE="BdogTheGamer"]The title "Taken 2" basically spells cash-in and terrible movie.MrGeezer

.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

A collectoin of other peoples opinions does not influence my decision. I don't know why people care so much about what Rotten Tomatoes has to say, never once have they ever had any influence on my enjoyment of a movie. It's just opinion.

You know the saying "Everyone's a critic"? Well it's true, everyone has an opinion and can express it. Critics have a job that anyone can do.

shadowkiller11

Agreed, people love to pick on critics and say "it's just an opinion" which is true but more often than not, they tend to know what they're talking about and bring up some valid points.

I'd also like to point out that the Tomatometer SCORE doesn't mean anything. They compile scores like this: review 60% or up is fresh, any review lower than 60% is rotten. The score is then determined based on how many views were "fresh" and "rotten" without any consideration of how good or bad those reviewers said the movie is. So you can absolutely get a Tomatometer score of 7% when most reviewers thought the movie was simply average, you can absolutely get a tomatometer score of 90% when most of the reviewers actually only rated the movie in the mid 60's. The score means nothing. You've gotta actually read the reviews where the critics actually talk about what was good and bad about the movie. Then you consider what they wrote, and decide if it still seems like something you want to spend your money on. But the tomatometer score doesn't really mean anything. Those scores can be VERY deceptive, and are not necessarily a good indicator of how good or bad a movie is.MrGeezer

Well, I prefer Metacritic, pretty much addresses the exact problem you're referring to.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="BdogTheGamer"]The title "Taken 2" basically spells cash-in and terrible movie.Rhazakna

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]I'd also like to point out that the Tomatometer SCORE doesn't mean anything. They compile scores like this: review 60% or up is fresh, any review lower than 60% is rotten. The score is then determined based on how many views were "fresh" and "rotten" without any consideration of how good or bad those reviewers said the movie is. So you can absolutely get a Tomatometer score of 7% when most reviewers thought the movie was simply average, you can absolutely get a tomatometer score of 90% when most of the reviewers actually only rated the movie in the mid 60's. The score means nothing. You've gotta actually read the reviews where the critics actually talk about what was good and bad about the movie. Then you consider what they wrote, and decide if it still seems like something you want to spend your money on. But the tomatometer score doesn't really mean anything. Those scores can be VERY deceptive, and are not necessarily a good indicator of how good or bad a movie is.TacticalDesire

Well, I prefer Metacritic, pretty much addresses the exact problem you're referring to.

[QUOTE="Seraphy-"]Liam Neeson punching random assh*les in the face is what made the first one enjoyable in the first place, so I'm not seeing the issuechampion837

Update in original post.

I thought overall it was a solid action movie. If you loved the first one then you'll definitely like Taken 2. I was just like the first one just in a different locale.

What did you think?

Taken 2 is trying to be more than what it is, and it just felt like an obvious cash grab. They focused too much on the family and less of Neeson snapping necks..

Whaaat. They did the same movie with the exact same plot and it didn't get good reviews?

So surprised.

Given the money it's made this weekend, I don't think Fox gives a crap what the critics think.

Given the money it's made this weekend, I don't think Fox gives a crap what the critics think.

Hallenbeck77

Taken 3 confirmed.

Do we know if there is going to be an unrated version for this? like there was with the first one?

[QUOTE="Hallenbeck77"]

Given the money it's made this weekend, I don't think Fox gives a crap what the critics think.

Blazerdt47

Taken 3 confirmed.

[QUOTE="Hallenbeck77"]

Given the money it's made this weekend, I don't think Fox gives a crap what the critics think.

Blazerdt47

Taken 3 confirmed.

I wonder what's going to happen this time.

Do we know if there is going to be an unrated version for this? like there was with the first one?

konvikt_17

[QUOTE="konvikt_17"]

Do we know if there is going to be an unrated version for this? like there was with the first one?

Hallenbeck77

i hope so.

for the first one we bought the unrated one with the theatrical version. i had always watched the unrated. then one day my sister was watching the theatrical and i noticed it left out quite a bit.

im sure they would leave out just as much this time, so id probly skip on the movie if they dont have an unrated version.

There's a review for the movie that says there was some cut scenes in the theatrical release:

I'll revisit Taken 2 when the unrated version comes to home video, if only because I have no idea what happens at the very end. This movie was cut to sh!t, no more apparent than when a guy dies from getting gingerly shoved into a wall. I think he might have been impaled on a towel rack, but I might also be trying to fill in the blanks myself. This is a film with a lot of blanks.CHUD dot com

The full review is here.

havent seen it

however, the first one was a mediocre movie. I mean, it was a GREAT action movie, but people were all over it like it was a well-executed, well-acted movie. It wasn't: the acting was forced, the dialogue was rediculous, and the cast (out side of Liam) was shoddy.

The actress that played the daughter was waaaaaaaaaaaaay too old looking for her character. The dialogue was rediculous: "Its elizibeth! She's been...TAKEN!" Who the frack says "taken"; its "kidnapped".

From then on, it was an action-fest that was fun, but I just don't get the hype saying it was a good movie as a whole.

I look forward to seeing Taken 2, but I don't expect much outside of a fun movie.

[QUOTE="Blazerdt47"]

[QUOTE="Hallenbeck77"]

Given the money it's made this weekend, I don't think Fox gives a crap what the critics think.

Hallenbeck77

Taken 3 confirmed.

Lol I've read that already before Taken 2 even came out. But with double how much Taken 2 is pulling in at the box office. They may rethink this. I think the samething was said that there would be no sequel to Taken 1.