Saw this on Tuesday and the more I think about it, the more it annoys me. Besson and Fox seem to have purposefully shat all over a successful character just so they could shill it to a younger crowd. It's a shameless move to try to squeeze as much money out of this "series" before its limited lifespan runs out.
In the UK, Fox axed portions of 3 scenes to get a 12A rating, which essentially means that kids can see it, so long as they're with an adult. The original was a 15 cert which was then released as an 18 on Blu-ray. When the certification was announced, there was a collective groan, but I don't think anyone thought it'd be this bad.
If there's a Tak3n, I may just give up altogether.
So if the villains of this one are related to the villains of the first movie, would it be fair to say that this film should've been called Taken: Revenge Of The Taker?
"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone." --- Bart Giamatti, on baseball
I never cared much for Kilborn, but he never really bothered me. What intices me, though, is that Amy Sedaris of Stangers with Candy, and sister of David Sedaris, is being rumored to be his replacment. Now, *that* would be an interesting show.