By Noah Redfield

In the first few minutes of “Taken,” former spy Bryan Mills parks his car in front of an electronics’ store. Across the street are hordes of bystanders huddled around the curbs staring at him. At first glance, it is easy to assume they are simply extras who were never told what to do, but it doesn’t take long to realize that they are actually real people hanging around a film set while the filmmakers shoot a scene with Liam Neeson. It is a deeply confusing moment, not only because it’s an obvious continuity error that an 8-year-old could spot, but because all the marketing of this film has indicated nothing less than an A-list Hollywood blockbuster. Mistakes like this, however, are more common in low-budget action B-movies. So which is the more appropriate category for the film?

Mills’ estranged daughter-with whom he is trying to rebuild a relationship-wants to go to France with her best friend. He reluctantly allows her to take the trip but unfortunately his xenophobia is validated when she and her friend are kidnapped by an Albanian James Franco look-a-like who intends to sell them into sex slaves (also look out for a cameo by the Albanian Artist Formerly Known as Prince in the last 20 minutes). Luckily Mills is the greatest killing machine the Western world ever had so he sets out to the City of Love, and for the remaining hour turns it into the City of Corpses as he has 96 hours to get his daughter back in one piece.

“Taken” is the first film directed by Pierre Morel, a former cinematographer whose credits include “The Transporter,” while the picture was penned by the same writers of the aforementioned Jason Statham vehicle (No pun intended): Robert Mark Kamen and Luc Besson. The name of the latter should be recognizable as he has been involved with virtually every European action movie of the past 20 years, from “La Femme Nikita” to “Unleashed.” With its constant plot holes, coincidences and absurd fight scenes, “Taken” is in good company in the Luc Besson canon, and as such, it works quite well. But the question remains: Why are audiences so taken with “Taken” (No pun intended-seriously)?

If you answered “Liam Neeson,” give yourself a pat on the back. The name and the voice of this Academy Award nominee have lent themselves perfectly to prestige pictures such as “Michael Collins” and “Schindler’s List.” Even his recent appearances in cash cows such as “Batman Begins” and the ‘Narnia’ films have a certain mark of respectability not seen with other bombastic Hollywood money-makers, so to cast him in a film like this is clearly a device to give the project a touch of class. But what’s in it for Neeson? He’s perfectly watchable but what exactly compelled him to accept a “for your money” script after so many years of “for your consideration” ones? Maybe he secretly wants to be the next Chuck Norris. Or lost a drunken bet with Jason Statham.

As a result, some are convinced (including the star) that “Taken” is actually about something, namely the lengths a father will go to protect his daughter, but as far as I can tell, it’s only about one thing: killing as many Europeans in 90 minutes as possible. The only reason anyone thinks otherwise is because Liam Neeson is doing it instead of Jack Bauer. That’s not to say it isn’t worth seeing. It’s always refreshing to see an action movie in which the camera doesn’t suffer from epilepsy, and I was with the nonsensical killings every step of the way. It’s a solid, nuts-and-bolts B-movie and thankfully it knows damn well what it is-even if nobody else does.