Taken

Taken

While vacationing with a friend in Paris, an American girl is kidnapped by a gang of human traffickers intent on selling her into forced prostitution. Working against the clock, her ex-spy father must pull out all the stops to save her. But with his best years possibly behind him, the job may be more than he can handle.

Bryan is a retired agent. Because previously he had no time for his wife and children, he and his wife divorced. Now he wanted to use his retirement time to offset his favorite daughter - Kim. When her daughter wanted to go to Paris with her best friend, he had an unhealthy instinct. Indeed, the two girls were abducted when they just got off plane.” Taken”  is the daughter rescue within 96 hours, with the skills of a former spy, can he do that? . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Taken torrent reviews

Jasjot S (br) wrote: Now I know the story!

Anand K (br) wrote: Once again Hollywood thinks men spend all their time talking about women and relationships. Some men talk nonstop about their sex adventures-the stupid ones.Literally the dumbest movie I ever tried to watch. The actors really read this script and agreed to do this movie?? Wtf??

Tom G (ca) wrote: Fantastic Western! Costner at his typical best!!Don't look for trouble, but don't take any either!

Mohammed A (mx) wrote: Second movie in (best horror movie off all time)

Ethan T (ru) wrote: You'd have to be in the right, whimsical, frame of mind to fully appreciate Harry Sinclair's The Price of Milk, but if you are there's a small, largely unheralded treat in store for you. Adopting an impish sense of magical realism, and most definitely not to be taken completely seriously, the film merges the flights of fancy of a Shakespearean myth with doses of wry Antipodean wit, and its lavish, sweeping classical score performed by the Moscow Symphony Orchestra adds an unusually dramatic air to proceedings, as does the sumptuous rural imagery by lensman Leon Narbey.

Thomas D (it) wrote: The Voyage Home may very well be the goofiest, most incoherent, and outright strangest of the original series. But it's also funny, re-watchable, and probably the most entertaining. As weird as the film can get, thanks to a wonderful score, gorgeous cinematography, and a step back into the TV format, it's one of my favorites of any of the Trek films.The Voyage Home centers on the the Enterprise's hopes of finding something to communicate with a dangerous probe that wants to destroy the earth. The only possible way to communicate with the probe is to travel back in time to the late 20th century and bring Humpback Whales to the probe. Yes, that is the real premise.As a whole, it's a fun ride. Not only do we get to see the crew of the Enterprise go somewhere other than the seats of the ship, but it's the only Trek film that could be considered a comedy. Watching the crew attempt to fit in with 1980's San Francisco is good TV for sure. And that's what this film essentially is. It doesn't really fit into the film series at all, and it may have been better served as an extended episode. In fact, the only real link to Search For Spock is just the fact that Spock still hasn't fully adapted to being a member of the Enterprise as his memory is still weary.Ironically, it out-grossed all of the other Trek films leading up to it by far. It's domestic gross was the highest for the franchise up until 2009's Star Trek, so it's safe to say it was an crowd-pleaser. Perhaps it's success had to do with this film focusing less on overdone special effects and over the top villains and more so on a story people could get behind and humanized characters. As goofy as Catherine Hicks' Gillian character can get, I think she resonated with the audience.With all that said, the film is pretty nuts. The idea that the crew could just walk around San Francisco, in and out of hospitals and restaurants and not be captured by police at any time seemed a bit far fetched. Sometimes the reach for comedy was definitely felt and sadly there aren't any great "sci-fi moments" like the others have. But I think everybody can have some fun with this one. If nothing else, perhaps you can do something to help whales next time you come across one.+Has its funny moments+Goofy fun+Cinematography+Score-Stupid and incoherent moments-Why is a Trek film focusing on whales anyway?7.2/10

The D (de) wrote: Sadly, the best I can give this movie is 1.5 Icees (out of 5). This movie was made by a small studio in Belgium (insert waffle jokes here). I don't know what goes for a kids movie there, but there are things here that I believe are necessary for a good kids movie. The first is that there has to be humor. With the rare exception, this movie lacked humor. So rare in fact that I think I heard laughter in the theater only once. Well, "laughter" is perhaps too generous a word. More like a chuckle. There were only 4 families in the theater, but one of them had 4 kids (they really need to figure out what causes that) and none of them laughed once. The kids ranged from probably 3/4 up to pre-teen and... nothing... nothing at all.. The chuckle came from a kid that was about 4 rows up from me and for all I know she may have been laughing at something her mom told her. Another thing it needs is a cute/lovable hero. Nope, not one of those either. There was a character that has a cute voice, but it was an ancillary character and really didn't contribute to the movie at all.How did this even get 1.5 Icees? Well, the cinematography was nice, and I've read that it looks really good in 3D. I didn't watch it in 3D and I'm glad I didn't spend the extra money to do so! Another thing in its favor was that there is a decent peril/action scene near the end of the movie that is somewhat exciting, but nothing that makes you hold your breath or anything. During this "attack" scene there was more opportunity for humor but once again... nothing. The movie tells the story of Robinson Crusoe from the island animals' point of view. The concept sounds like there could be a lot of potential, but it just never panned out. They try a few times for some humor, but it lands like wet spaghetti falling on the floor. *Splat* The story move along well enough, and that's really all it is... a story, and a pretty dull one at that. Basically, this was a miss... and a pretty bad one. If you're looking to take the family to a movie, I recommend waiting until the 23rd and going to see Storks. At least that one seems funny. There are some stills during the credits but nothing afterwards.

Paul D (us) wrote: Attenborough makes a very good job portraying the lesser known years of Churchill, in his own words, although omisions are made. It can sometimes feel long, but can be a rewarding watch.

John R (de) wrote: 120603: My very first impression in watching this movie is that it was going to be a cheap, direct to video western. Something about the initial train scene made me think that, perhaps the fact the train was so clean and perfect. Once the violence commenced however, this film became down right enjoyable, gritty, perhaps one of the grittiest character portrayals I've ever seen. Be warned, this film is violent and touches upon a somewhat surprising topic. For many reasons, I can't see any woman liking this movie but I can see why the critics mention an air of comedy (that position only came after further reflection.) There are some good lines. This film reminded me at times of "Unforgiven", in that Cohen Holloway's character is similar to Clint Eastwood's William Munny, terribly dangerous and morally corrupt but noble in some way. Don't get me wrong, he may have some endearing qualities but "The Man" is not a good guy. He's mean, self-serving with psychopathic qualities. Some of his thought processes and actions struck me as downright reprehensible but he would no doubt fool the naive and walk the revolving door that is our current legal system (hey, did I just get in some sort of rant?) Even with the well-intentioned actions at the conclusion, "The Man" strikes out as a human being. In some twisted way this film is supposed to be a love story, but it simply is not, and I won't be convinced otherwise. I found Inge Rademeyer's character, Isabella, annoying somehow. Perhaps it was her meek nature but more than likely, it was her accent; which kept me thinking the film took place in Australia, or New Zealand, but certainly not the United States (she's supposed to be British). Don't take any of my criticisms wrong, I liked this film. The violence is striking, no holds barred, unexpected and intense. Loved the sound effects, in particular the report of the firearms. There are some amazing landscapes, great costuming and wild characters. Some aspects of the shootouts were also well done, the missed shots for example, but I hate it when characters drop with one hit (I accept the head shots.) Overall, this movie nicely filled that lack of modern westerns void that I seem to be blessed with. Sweet.

Riley H (ag) wrote: Corn fields are scary. Straw is scary. Since when did scarecrows have mind-control powers?

Gerhard J (jp) wrote: What We Did on Our Holiday is a good-natured, British family comedy. It tackles the themes of family dysfunction and death in a light and humourous way. The writing is spot on and the beautiful Scottish scenery is a bonus!