Lack of likeable characters mars ‘Retribution’

THERE was once a time when the name “Liam Neeson” was uttered with more reverence than what you find today.

Having performed iconic roles like Jean Valjean (Les Miserables), Ra’s al Ghul (Batman Begins), John “Hannibal” Smith (The A-Team), Qui-Gon Jinn (Star Wars), and, of course, Bryan Mills (Taken trilogy), there is an argument to be made that Neeson could very well be among the top 20 greatest actors of all time.

The fact that he once dated Hellen Mirren back in the 80s should have no bearing on his acting talent, but it certainly is a good brag.

I would want that piece of information written on my biography if I was in his shoes!

However, the career of the legendary Northern Irishman has clearly seen better days, and his body of work over the last couple of years has certainly left a lot to be desired.

Take “Retribution”, for example. This is a movie that clearly should be under the 71-year-old’s great name.

The film is billed as an “action thriller” but there is nothing thrilling about the dull movie.

“Retribution” stars Neeson as investment banker Matt Turner, who, in his bid to provide for his family, has driven a wedge between himself and his wife Emily (Lilly Aspell), and also between himself and his kids Zach (Jack Champion) and Heather (Embeth Davidtz).

On a routine school run, and with his children in the back of the car, Turner receives a call from a stranger, who alerts him that he has put a bomb that will explode if he stops, attempts to leave his seat or warn the police.

The film then follows Turner and his family as they try to figure out the identity of the bomber and his motives, all the while driving across Paris and evading the police, who have mistaken him for a domestic terrorist.

The movie is like a remake of “Speed” (1994) but with less likeable characters, toned-down action sequences and lazy motives.

Normally, I would simply label this film terrible and lump it together with the other bad movies Hollywood has churned out this year.

Yes, I am looking at Marvel and that big dull dud “Thor: Love and Thunder” and DC with “The Flash”.

However, out of the immense respect we all have for Neeson, I would rather concentrate on the one tweak that could have made this movie, at the very least, “serviceable”.

One of the film’s biggest weaknesses is the overall lack of likeable characters.

For all the hullabaloo about Jon Snow, Nigh Kings and the seven kingdoms, the characters that really drove “Game of Thrones” were the duo of Tyrion Lannister (Peter Dinklage) and Arya Stark (Maisie Williams).

Tyrion’s quick wit, intelligence and his overall story were among the key reasons people tuned in weekly for the HBO hit show, and the same goes for Williams’ Arya Stark, who had an entirely different story arc of her own.

With the exception of Neeson’s Turner, “Retribution” lacks likeable characters.

The kids are insufferable, his wife barely has screen time and lines, while the rest of the characters in the movie are nothing more than moveable parts or placeholders.

Even the movie’s antagonist is barely in the movie, and it does take a rocket scientist to figure out who it actually is.

I figured it out 40 minutes into the movie, and that time could have been a lot shorter had he appeared in one or two more scenes.

Speaking of the movie’s antagonist, this is just a clear example of lazy writing on the part of Chris Salmanpour, who put together the screenplay.

The least Salmanpour could have done is throw in a better motive, rather than greed and money.

The predictability of the bomber’s identity, and it is very clear from the onset, makes the big reveal at the end of the movie rather anticlimactic.