Liam Neeson vs. Leslie Nielsen's Legacy — The Naked Gun (2025) Review

The reboot of the cult comedy franchise The Naked Gun starring Liam Neeson, known for his action-hero-in-retirement persona, generated considerable buzz among audiences. However, the film leaves mixed impressions: despite some amusing moments, it feels incomplete and lacks cohesion. The modest production values and noticeable budget constraints only emphasize that the series' potential hasn't been fully realized.

The new Naked Gun positions itself as a direct continuation of the cult franchise that began in 1988, serving as the fourth installment following Naked Gun 33⅓: The Final Insult from 1994. The creators deliberately chose narrative continuation over a complete reboot — a logical decision that, in theory, works: this approach maintains connection to the original, expands the fictional universe, and offers a fresh perspective without breaking the series' foundation.

At the same time, it was clear that Paramount's ambitions extended beyond the franchise itself. The new film is an attempt to bring the parody comedy genre back to theaters after it migrated to streaming platforms in recent years, losing its former cinematic punch. The timing is risky but potentially rewarding: the target audience consists of fans of dynamic, visually striking, and absurd comedies in the ZAZ style who miss genre satire on the big screen.

Who are the ZAZ team? This trio of David Zucker, Jim Abrahams, and Jerry Zucker created iconic parody comedies like Airplane!, Top Secret!, and the original The Naked Gun. Their style, which set genre standards, featured breakneck pacing, absurd humor, and visual gags. The trio drew inspiration from Hollywood itself, selecting iconic scenes from other films to parody.

The new Naked Gun creators, Akiva Schaffer and Seth MacFarlane, can't boast a similar portfolio but clearly followed ZAZ's principles. They competently reproduced all the characteristic elements: absurdity, farce, pratfalls, nonsensical dialogue, domino effects, and complete chaos from careless actions. But they did so without understanding the humor mechanics of the source material.

The first Naked Gun captivated audiences with its brilliant contrast: serious delivery perfectly combined with absurd content. Characters behaved with complete composure, utterly ignoring the utter nonsense surrounding them. Viewers believed in what was happening, so the absurdity on screen triggered emotional responses rather than mere mental registration. This required more than just a strong script — ZAZ skillfully constructed each scene and weren't above unconventional directing.

In the new version, everything is reversed: the creators seemingly compiled the trilogy's funniest scenes, carefully filtering out what wouldn't pass modern censorship standards. They then stitched plot, characters, and surrounding events to these episodes. The film amuses viewers roughly every 20-30 seconds and contains plenty of references to popular blockbusters — however, the new entry doesn't work the same way. The result is a movie that possesses all the external features and is technically unassailable — but completely lacks the original's depth.

Despite general criticism, the new Naked Gun does deliver some bright moments. Individual gags work flawlessly — especially physical comedy scenes involving secondary characters and classic domino-effect situations. Contemporary references to recent blockbusters occasionally hit their mark, and several parody scenes of popular franchises generate genuine laughter.

The original's comedic effect was impossible without Leslie Nielsen. He didn't parody or play the clown — he simply lived in a world where his intellectually unburdened buffoon was the norm, not the exception. His very serious face, monotone voice, and complete lack of self-awareness transformed the script into a masterpiece of comedic absurdity. Nielsen created particularly powerful comic effects through facial expressions and body language: a slight change in his gaze, eyebrow movement, or expressive grimace could bring down the house.

Frank Drebin Jr. — Liam Neeson's character — isn't an exact copy of his father, and in our opinion, that's actually a plus. He speaks differently, moves differently, isn't afraid of gadgets, and is even ready to throw punches. But while the physical image somewhat works, the emotional one doesn't. With all due respect to Liam Neeson, he lacks the comedian's facial spring. Where Nielsen could devastate an audience with one eye roll, Neeson simply looks lost, tired, or pointedly serious.

Age isn't on his side either. Nielsen was 62 when he first played Drebin, but on screen he looked and moved younger than his years. Neeson is 73, and the dynamics that farce requires clearly come hard to him. He's closer to playing an elderly retiree than a detective hero, even an aging one.

Finally, Neeson is a completely different type. Stern father, avenger, killer — that's how we know him. Therefore, when Liam's character gets into a gag situation, dissonance emerges first, and only then acceptance of the new image. The film doesn't collapse from this, but it loses the expressiveness and charm that made the original so beloved.

Despite all the shortcomings described above, the screenplay can't be called chaotic. It quite clearly follows the first film's template. The opening scene with a bank robbery and Drebin Jr.'s intervention immediately sets the recognizable pace. Then follows the familiar framework: crime scene investigation, trip to the station, meeting the deceased's sultry sister, interrogating the main suspect, patrol car ride taking up the entire road, and other signature episodes.

The screenwriters cautiously update the settings: references to social media, electric cars, remote control, and other hallmarks of the 2020s constantly appear. This is all cosmetic upgrading that doesn't change the essence: we still have the same parody story with a detective skeleton and theatrical intrigue, built on a recognizable template.

The antagonist's image remained unchanged — multibillionaire Richard Kane, obsessed with conspiracy theories and cartoonishly global ambitions. This time he's from the IT world. Daniel Huston, known for numerous villain roles, simply performs his assigned function here — without memorable scenes or charisma. As, indeed, does almost the entire cast.

Pamela Anderson, playing the lead female role, doesn't manage the image of a femme fatale capable of turning every head around her. She's far from 18, and whether due to insufficient makeup or directorial oversight, scenes with her lack appeal. If her impressive appearance once compensated for weak acting skills, here neither remains, making her casting choice seem strange.

Paul Walter Hauser as Ed Hocken Jr. tries to breathe life into the image of a good-natured but clumsy assistant. At times he does add humor, but the character remains secondary, as if doomed to repeat his father's fate — being background for the main hero.

The remaining actors perform purely utilitarian functions: some appear as references, others as tributes to old characters, but mostly they just entertain.

After watching the new Naked Gun, two questions remain: what were ticket buyers paying for — and where did the $42 million budget go? The film has no A-list actors, expensive sets, or complex scenes. It spent several years in pre-production, but the final product feels cheap and rushed, as if the crew was limited in time and ambition, and the entire film was ordered to be shot in a week.

Akiva Schaffer — someone with comedy experience — should understand how to construct a scene, fill it with atmosphere, position characters within it, and craft a joke from all this. But here his work is surprisingly superficial. Most episodes are shot as if from the first take: actors, including Liam Neeson, sometimes can't suppress smiles (for example, at the end of several scenes), and this remains in the edit. Why not reshoot? Secondary scenes look like rough drafts where actors barely had time to rehearse.

Shooting locations emphasize economy and haste. Only a couple of scenes with extras (10-15 people) use large spaces. Everything else consists of close-ups in standard interiors: cramped apartments, typical police stations, basements, nightclubs. The chase, created with CGI, only reinforces the sense of cheapness. We can't rule out that the film was made almost entirely on green screen — CGI works miracles today. Street scenes are rare, brief, and mysteriously shot at night, sharply contrasting with the scope of the original films.

Producer Seth MacFarlane, known for his sarcastic and bold humor, seems to lose his signature style here. For example, the snowman scene, parodying horror and romantic comedies, looks foreign without coherent plot setup. It's amusing but resembles a random sketch from a banned social network rather than part of a cohesive film. What we can thank the creators for — they at least tried to preserve the original's spirit and didn't descend into outright vulgarity, adolescent humor, or excessive political correctness.

The new Naked Gun is worthy imitation, but not an ideological continuation of the cult franchise. Original fans should go to screenings understanding that the ZAZ era has passed, while new generation viewers might find the film a perfectly decent introduction to the genre. For those viewers who just want to turn off their brains and laugh at familiar tropes in a summer comedy — go ahead without lowering expectations.