MovieChat Forums > Erased (2012) Discussion > What, they couldn't get Liam Neeson?

What, they couldn't get Liam Neeson?

posted 11 years ago by BeerBaron0192
12 replies | jump to latest

This definitely seems like a perfect Liam Neeson movie.

Yeah. "Taken" lite.

Except he's already done this one, it was called "Taken." ;-D

[–] credly 11 years ago

Aaron Eckhart always seems to be either a second-billed actor in good movies, or having lead roles in merely mediocre films. It's too bad -- I think he's often quite good. I am anticipating seeing "Erased" based upon his presence in it.
I was truly sorry they killed Harvey Two Face 'cause I was looking forward to him having a repeating role in a good film franchise. Ah... it was not to be.

[–] invincyble 11 years ago

well what about THANK YOU FOR SMOKING ?
He was the lead and film was good, a lot critical acclaim and a fairly high rating on here.

[–] credly 11 years ago

Thanks for your reply.
Agree with all you wrote and yes -- I did kinda forget about that movie. But that also illustrated that "Thank You For Smoking" was not the kind of film that makes an actor's bones, so to speak. I still maintain: Eckhart's due for his recognition.

[–] faista-1 11 years ago

Thank GOD they didn't get Neeson. Annoys me as *beep*

[–] IMDBFreeek 11 years ago

Liam is already in another Salt like movie called Unknown.

...a little fantastic, and fleeting, and out of reach.

[–] knickstorm 11 years ago

lol, budget. THere was an article about him being in the 20 mill range since Taken came out.

[–] amandamahler34 10 years ago

Liam is going to end up being typecasted. Eckhart is an excellent actor that is very multidimensional.

[–] scooter338 10 years ago

Bourne meets Taken with a mix of Occupy anti-corporate crap mixed it.

[–] leyenda61 9 years ago

i actually preferred this over Taken. But I also liked AWAtT better than Taken, too.

-- Sent from my 13 year old P.O.S. Desktop®