Man on Fire or Taken

[Deviancy]

It comes down to the fact we're comparing two different genres. One is classified as a drama/thriller while the other is considered to be an action/thriller. And if you look at some of the reasons listed as to why some like one over the other, those reasons are genre related.

So looking past the genres, whats left is the acting abilities and other than Neeson, who had any actual acting abilities in Taken? Taken relies entirely on Neeson, and I don't think there's an actor out there who can carry a film entirely on their own. First Blood which is one of my favorite eighties action films is a good example. If it had relied entirely on Stallone it would have sucked balls, but Stallone had Dennehy to play off of and it made the film work while Neeson had no one to play off of, he was all on his own.