Liam Neeson is back in “The Marksman” and despite some flaws; the film provides what his fans want and is an engaging and topical film. Neeson plays Jim; a widower who spends his time on a tiny and struggling ranch in Arizona near the border. Jim is facing foreclosure from the bank after dealing with devastating medical bills for his late wife and feels that as a former Marine he has been given a bad deal by the system. Jim often drives along the border fence and radios in suspected crossings but is willing to provide aid to those who finds in distress. When Jim encounters a young woman and her son Miguel (Jacob Perez); he is drawn into conflict when they are pursued by some dangerous people which forces Jim to shoot when weapons are drawn killing one of the group in the process as well as the boy’s mother. Jim turns the boy over to the Border Patrol where his daughter Sarah (Katheryn Winnick), is in charge of the local office and is concerned when he learns the boy is to be sent back to family. Seeing the individuals he had previously had a gunfight with waiting for Miguel to cross; Jim decides to honor the dying wish of Miguel’s mother to take him to family in Chicago; even when that means abducting Miguel from custody. The trip not only puts Jim at odds with his daughter but as well as Miguel who wants to return home and causes the dangerous individuals to cross into the U.S. to ruthlessly track Jim and Miguel to exact their revenge. The film moves at a steady and deliberate pace until the finale gives fans a taste of the action that they would come to expect. It does take some patience as I saw numerous opportunities for a person of Jim’s skill to attempt to set an ambush, trap, or counter the dangers facing them but the final resolutions are enjoyable and satisfying. While the film does not have the action and intensity of some of Neeson’s recent works; it does provide enough entertainment to make it worth a watch and does contain content based on some very volatile and controversial topics which would spur intense debate. 3 stars out of 5