Last Thursday, I told you about how Taylor Lautner’s new movie, Abduction, was well on its way to earning a zero percent rating on RottenTomatoes, or, as we call it, the full Bucky Larson (still 0% after 32 reviews, incidentally). But less than that 24 hours after my initial post, Abduction was already up to a robust THREE PERCENT RECOMMENDED on the strength of two positive reviews. Since we’re all about fairness and diversity of opinion here at FilmDrunk, I thought we’d examine those reviews to see what positive aspects may have been overlooked by the majority of critics, the be-ascotted asthmatic snootpocracy, if you will. (*puffs inhaler, re-fluffs ascot*)
Interestingly, the two “positive” reviews both come from the same site, an Australian publication called “Urban Cinefile.” The first positive review comes from Andrew L. Urban (oh, I get it now, “Urban” cinefile, it’s a play on words with his name. I was confused at first because I always assumed Australia had neither cities nor black people.). Funny thing is, it appears not to be a review at all, but some kind of preview:
Review by Andrew L. Urban:
The notion of discovering a secret about yourself on the internet is a great premise on which to build a thriller, especially one whose central character is a teen. Twilight-launched Taylor Lautner gets his first genuine, gold plated leading role as Nathan, the teen who discovers that he was adopted by the people he thought were his parents.
Full review will be published on September 25
The full review still hasn’t been published, as far as I can tell, but he does seem pretty positive about the premise, which, to be fair, is no small feat, considering. Meanwhile, Urban’s partner, Louise Keller, did write a full review. Here are some quotes from that glowing recommendation.
Review by Louise Keller:
Taylor Lautner fans may not mind that his facial expressions are limited, or that the highly improbable script is peppered with inanities and corny dialogue.
“The acting was terrible and the script was idiotic, but the target audience was too stupid to notice. TWELVE STARS!”
The plot is so preposterous that the details hardly matter except to say that there are extravagant stunts, splashy action sequences and a taylor-made romance (sorry, couldn’t resist) between Lautner and Lily Collins, who is pretty as a picture.
“Look, don’t get me wrong, the script sucks. I’ll say it four times if I have to just to get my point across. It’s bad. Really, really bad. In fact, if you take one thing away from this review, let it be that the script is really, really, just atrociously f*cking bad. But I did get to make a pun using the lead’s name.”
There are tight close ups of their eyes and lips and in the train sequence, when they share their first lingering and passionate kiss, two crusty blokes with bald heads and tattoos sitting in the row in front of me roared with laughter when Lautner’s Nathan tells Collins’ Karen he’s starving.
I include the above excerpt only because I have no idea what the hell it means. They laugh because… he’s hungry? He’s kissing a girl? Anyone?
Ed Shearmur’s non too subtle [sic] score pounds through the action like a fanfare while John Singleton’s direction is pretty ordinary throughout. All in all, Abduction is corny teen-fare for the undiscerning.
If you’re keeping score at home, Abduction‘s lone positive review calls it “corny teen-fare for the undiscerning.” Now I know, that may not seem like a positive assessment, but you have to keep in mind that this review comes from Australia, and consider its cultural implications. You see, in Australia, corn is considered a rare delicacy, and “undiscerning” a great compliment. It reminds me of the best-man speech I heard last time I attended an Australian wedding. “Oi, Andrew is me best mate, and never in me woildest dreams did oy reckon a crusty bloke loike Andrew wid foind a lahss as undiscerning as Louise. Luckily, love is bloind, or possibly retahded. So raise a tinnie, sheilas and blokes, we’ve spared no expense. Enjoy ya corn, ya cunts.”