“Taken 3” was almost more than I could take. It’s just plain bad. “Taken” was an incredible, out-of-nowhere, race against the clock that captivated and chilled to the core. “Taken 2” was a zero-change rehash that kept only the slightest semblance of its predecessor’s former glory. “Taken 3” inherits a disgraced family name and gleefully crashes it into the ground.

My first car was a ’89 Mercury Sable. It was a great vehicle for a first-time driver. When it came time for a new car, my family was told we would get a trade-in value if, and only if, we could physically drive it onto the lot. That morning, my dad and I added a full quart of oil and a full quart of transmission fluid for the express purpose of one trip across town. Somehow, we ended up making it to dealership. By comparison, my car that day was in about as good of shape as “Taken 3” is.

Every aspect of this movie is severely broken, and leaking fluids at an alarming rate. The writing is horrendous, with none of the subtle, smart nuances of the first film. The directing and editing are even more lacking. Most egregious of all were action scenes – which should have been the film’s saving grace. The action is inane, unimaginative and unbelievably poorly shot and edited. During action scenes the camera cuts from one disparate image to the next every second or so. The resulting rhythm of cut after cut after cut with no long shots to break the cadence, to be perfectly honest, made me a little woozy. It’s not artsy, it isn’t exciting, it’s poor filmmaking.

Liam Neeson does all he can to save this wreck; unfortunately, it’s not nearly enough. His particular set of skills is utterly wasted. Once or twice Neeson or Forest Whitaker get in a good moment, but they are too few and far between. All in all, “Taken 3” is a very disappointing sequel to a disappointing sequel of a great, surprise hit.

2 of 6 stars