Saying taken 3 is better than the last one does not mean much because Taken 2 was not a nice movie, it didn't stand as a individual movie at all. Maybe if you watch 1 and 2 together you can enjoy it otherwise, it was just horrid.
Taken 3 tried to reinvent the franchise by doing something different from the previous ones but in turn they made the movie which has been made several times, husband framed for the murder of his wife and he is on the run, there was atleast something original about the 1st one.
Action movie should always be rated R, it doesn't make sense if a guy is not bleeding after getting shot, to be honest I was confused several times if a guy is dead or not. Watching bullet holes is alright for a kid but watching blood is not, how is one better than the another I can't understand this, the rating system is clearly broken.
Liam Neeson is basically Zeus from the Clash of Titan series, you just can't kill him, there were few scenes where he should have died like blown to pieces but in the next scene he is running again without any explanation because he has a set of skills.
Forest Whitaker is playing the cop who is after Liam, it felt like the writers put some extra thought to his character than what was required. He was fondling with rubber bands while thinking, playing with a chess piece, he looked like a guy with issues more than a detective.
This movie is less violent and it felt more like a spy movie than the other two, which might not work for everyone. The twist in the end is so obvious, I am not sure if you can consider it even a twist, it was so much in the open.