Abduction

“Abduction” is pure studio product; it exists entirely as a method of making Lionsgate some undeserved money and filling the wallets of Hollywood producers. It is a film that is unconcerned with filmmaking artistry, instead placing its attention on the lighting of its, frankly, talentless star, Taylor Lautner (“Twilight”). As such, the film is brimming with incompetence; it’s an insipid and mind-numbing film into which little to no effort was put. Either that, or its creators are utterly inept when it comes to professional movie-making.

Is all of this a bit harsh of me to say? Possibly, yes. But I feel they are fair statements. You see, “Abduction” is a thriller that is not thrilling. It is a mystery that is not mysterious. It is a piece of entertainment that is not particularly entertaining. It’s intended to be intriguing and exciting, but fails pathetically at both; it falls flat in its intentions and is thus a failure of a film.

Lautner stars as Nathan Harper, a partier who appears to be a relatively average teenager, just without the ability to emote properly. Like most kids, he lives with his parents; mum is played by Maria Bello (“A History of Violence”) and dad is played by Jason Isaacs (“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2”).

For school, he’s assigned to do research on missing children. His partner in this assignment is Karen Murphy (Lily Collins, “Priest”), on whom Nathan of course has had a crush for, like, forever. It will be of no surprise to you that they will hug, snuggle, snog and attempt to fuck (but will stop; remember, this is PG-13 land) throughout the course of the film. Collins’ character exists because, well, why not?

While doing online research for the assignment, Nathan, to his shock, discovers a picture of his young self on a missing persons’ website. Why is his picture on a missing persons’ website? Are his parents really his parents? Did they kidnap him? Did they adopt him? Who are his real parents? I honestly don’t care.

Before he can make sense of what’s going on, men in suits break into his house and kill fake parent number one and fake parent number two (who are shown to be lovely people so we feel bad for Nathan when they die). A deeply confused Nathan (deeply confused face, Lautner, remember) goes on the run with tits-and-ass as men in suits and the CIA try with all their might to hunt him down.

There are four very talented actors who have been dragged into this lifeless mess. The first two are Isaacs and Bello, who, in their short screen time, are effective in their roles as loving parents and as a loving couple. The third is Sigourney Weaver (“Avatar”) as Nathan’s psychiatrist; Weaver is also given limited screen time, though I’m sure she’s not exactly begging for money after “Avatar.” The fourth is Alfred Molina (“Spider-Man 2”), who plays a villainous, and then decent, and then villainous again, CIA agent who’s chasing after Nathan. As always, Molina has a fine on-screen presence, though the script does him no favours.

But, sadly, the filmmakers seem to believe that teenage heart-throb Taylor Lautner is the one we should really be paying attention to. Lautner has the on-screen presence of a Madame Tussauds wax model; this model was evidently based on an image of the teen icon posing in the only expression he knows: brooding like a disgruntled youth moping about how much he hates his mum. This wax model has a tape recorder lodged inside its mouth; the tape within this tape recorder contains recordings of Lautner monotonously reading his lines. The model’s lip movements were presumably animated through use of CGI, akin to the very annoying titular dog in “Marmaduke.” Somebody on the production team must have been paid to hold his hips and move him about when necessary. What I’m basically saying is, Lautner may as well have been a lampshade with abs and muscles painted on, given the performance he provides us with here.

The film is doing nothing more than using Lautner; the 19-year-old hunk has gained a heap of fame and a mountain of fans since his flat appearances in the “Twilight” saga. The filmmakers seem to have hired him purely to get his fans to come flocking to the multiplex to purchase a child/student ticket for the 4:30 screening of “Abduction.” Why is this my assumption? Well, judging by what I saw on-screen of Lautner’s performance in “Abduction,” I’m short on other justifications for the filmmakers’ hiring of him as the star of their film; he shows us no signs of acting ability, charm, nor charisma, though what he does often show us is his bare chest.

The film’s chief problem is this: it’s boring. It’s an uninteresting film that should be interesting. It believes itself to be fascinating and enthralling when it is anything but. When you are intended to be on the edge of your seat and absorbed in the promising story and all the mysteries it holds, you are instead slouched in your seat, indifferent to the story and battling away boredom. Now, who on earth enjoys being bored during an action-packed thriller? Not me, at the very least.

So, if you have a young daughter who wishes to go and see the new Taylor Lautner (swoon!) movie, fight her with all your might (within reason). If you’re asked by your girlfriend to go and see it with her, resist as much as humanly possible; splitting up would be a good solution. And if you yourself, for whatever reason, feel compelled to see this load of old drivel, let it be known that I warned you.

1/10