Movie Review: The Naked Gun


There have been three previous Naked Gun movies made; the last one, “Naked Gun 33⅓: The Final Insult,” was released in 1994. These movies are supposed to be ridiculous and stupid. The problem with the latest reboot, “The Naked Gun”, starring Liam Neeson as Frank Drebin Jr, is that it is too stupid, too over-the-top, and ridiculous. Towards the end of these two hours, the whole experience becomes far more annoying than it is funny. I found this experience similar to the Fast and Furious franchise, which, over time, gave us special effects and stunts that were far more idiotic than they needed to be. The concept of “less is more” makes sense for movies like these, when overkill can ruin the entire experience.

The new movie “The Naked Gun” also stars Pamela Anderson as Beth Davenport, who becomes involved after a series of stupid crimes with Drebin. Early in the movie, some of the stupid slapstick was working, but the quality of the sight gags started to degrade midway through this mostly unfunny film. The positive news is that it was good to see Liam Neeson in a major mainstream movie for the first time in many years since the last of the Taken movies was released in 2014. Neeson’s career has been mired in in and out of the theater B movies for about a decade.

This is also a major movie appearance for Pamela Andersonon, who has been experiencing a career resurgence since last year’s “The Last Showgirl” (2024). Anderson was good in her role, which consisted mostly of insane slapstick and word comedy like “take a chair”, where her character drags a chair out of the police department. A scene like this might be amusing once or twice, but throughout an entire two-hour movie, it gets old around the 3rd time.

The Rotten Tomatoes ratings of 90% are about as insane and ridiculous as this movie, which violates the comedy movie rule of an unfunny film calling itself a comedy. This movie is not funny, and I do not recommend it, with a rating of 50%, which is generous.

Movie Review: In the Land of Saints and Sinners


Around this time every year, the movie-going world expects the release of another Liam Neeson film. This yearly movie tradition has been going on ever since the release of the outstanding film “Taken”, which came out in 2008 and is one of the best action movies of its kind, ever produced. The fact that Taken was so perfect for Neeson and has not happened again, is all about how difficult it is to write a great screenplay and then have it performed by the exact right lead actor.

The next two Taken sequels were nowhere near the exceptional quality of the original with the last version a bad film. Since then, Neeson has followed with movies that were mostly average with a few that were bad and some that were bordering on good. Neeson’s latest movie “In the Land of Saints and Sinners” is a good, but nowhere near a great film, but hopefully a step in the right direction.

The story is all about the violence, murder, and retribution in the 1970s by the IRA (Irish Republican Army) in the country of Ireland. This story starts with the accidental murder of young children during the bombing of a local bar and what follows is a series of revenge killings by the main character Finbar Murphy, played by Liam Neeson. The problem with the middle part of the story is that most of it is too slow and boring, making it hard to stay focused on what is happening. There is a major conflict with the original bombers that killed two children at the beginning of the film, leading to a shootout at a bar at the end of this story that I thought was well shot. Other than all of this there is nothing new or innovative within these two hours.

The Rotten Tomatoes rating is a routine 80%, with my rating only 70% and a very marginal recommendation.

Movie Review: Retribution


We can only speculate as to why Liam Neeson, who had his last blockbuster hit “Taken” in 2008, and in the last 15 years has been in a revolving door of movie making where he seems to play the same overall character each time. The movies he has made during this period have been either average or below average, around 60 of them. It’s probably no coincidence that this infinite loop of movies started around March 2009, when his wife Natasha Richardson died in a freak skiing accident. It could be that Neeson making movies all year round might be a way of trying to distract himself from what happened to his wife, where she died after a minor fall on a ski slope. A death of a spouse like this, is almost impossible to recover from. We all do what we can to try and move on from tragedy.

This time around with the new movie “Retribution” there are some different and positive features of this film that are moving in the right direction. For one thing, Neeson’s character Matt Turner, spends the entire time sitting in his car, mostly with his 2 children, following the instructions of a terrorist who is threatening to blow up his car. Most of the terrorist scenes are well done, however, the flaw in this story is that the police are convinced by the terrorist and several car explosions that Turner had something to do with what has been going on. Considering that there is a bomb under Turner’s car seat about to explode if he gets out of the car, it would not make sense that Turner set all of this up himself and would include his own children.

There is somewhat of a trick ending when we are shown the terrorist behind these car bombings, that I thought was within an acceptable level of believablilty. I also thought the ending was both satifying and believable as well.

Unfortunately the critics are once again trashing this latest Neeson film, at 30% with the IMDB rating a low 5.5. While this is not a good or a great movie, this is not a film that should be rated 30%. My rating is 70% with a moderate recommendation, mainly for the acting. From all the fans of the great movie Taken, hopefully Neeson will one day make another film that good again.