Thursday, April 2, 2009

Transporter 3

Transporter 3
April 2, 2009

Okay, so these bad guys kidnap some government dude’s daughter to make him sign some shady document. And for some reason (that still escapes me) she needs to be driven around without ever really getting anywhere for most of this film. Oh, yeah, and she’s wearing a bracelet that won’t allow her to get more than 75 feet away from the car or she’ll blow up. So the plot either went right over my head or it was never there to begin with. To tell you the truth, I don’t really care either way. I think Luc Besson, the director of this cocaine hit of a movie is betting most people won’t. This isn’t exactly a rocket scientist’s picture. If you’ve rented Transporter 3, chances are you’re looking for some good old adrenaline rushing, testosterone flowing, heart pounding, fist pumping, pec flexing, sweat dripping, blood splattering action. That’s why I rented it, anyway. Nothing wrong with that. It is my birthright as a man to enjoy such frivolity. Just like you ladies have your Drew Barrymore movies. We’ve got Jason ‘Gruntmaster’ Statham. He kick yo ass!

Anyway, sounds like the bad guys have it all figured out except that they picked Frank Martin to be the chick’s chauffeur. Now he can’t get more than 75 feet away from the car either but see, that’s not a problem. Cause Frank is a guy who takes his car everywhere – the bottom of a lake, the top of a train, hell he’ll even take it with him inside the train. That’s just how he rolls. By the way, this summer’s Crank: High Voltage looks like it’s going to take suspension of disbelief to a whole other level.

Gotta say, I haven’t enjoyed a film so shamelessly in a while. It kind of brought me back to my formative years, mail-ordering nun-chuks after watching Revenge of the Ninja for the fifth time in a row. What great, clean fun. We should all be so lucky. But when I stopped to think about it, it occurred to me that though there’s been a steady flow of this genre for a while, critics never really bother to present a hierarchy. Something that starts with Robocop and ends with like Robocop 2. But back to Tranporter 3. There is something pretty special about it which actually makes it a must see.

What could this possibly be? Is it Statham’s performance? No, he grunts his way through it with his reliably constipated angst. We like this guy cause he feels like he’s most at home in a bar brawl. Or a pub brawl, whatever. Not like that poofy cokehead Van Damme. He’s kind of our generation’s Steven Seagall, maybe a little leaner and with a little less personality. But hell, who needs that shit. He just has to look mean and deliver a couple of one-liners. Then one day we’ll elect him governor. Action stars are kind of like relief pitchers in baseball. Only instead of one pitch, they just have one facial expression. And Statham’s scowl is the pitching equivalent to Mariano Rivera’s fastball. I think we all know exactly what we’re going to get from the guy and he rarely fails to deliver. So no, there was nothing extraordinary about his scowl in Transporter effing 3.

Was it the action? It’s decent. Actually Transporter 2 had better fight sequences (I can’t believe I’m dissecting this). But yeah, in Transporter 2 you could tell that every part of the fight sequence was individually shot, not just slapped together with fancy editing. Very sophisticated stuff. Pretty rare to see that sort of dedication to detail. Transporter 3 is not quite so thought out and the use of random objects just lying around (Frank’s signature) is actually at a minimum. The driving scenes as usual are all sped up which actually works pretty well. This is a trick as old as cinema itself. But no, they are actually weaker than the first two films.

What sets this film apart is a member of the cast. Her name is Natalya Rudakova. Look her up on IMDb and all you’ll find is this movie. What you are seeing is a star in its embryonic stage. A supernova of the Hollywood variety. There’s been a slew of these Russian hotties gracing our capitalist screens of late. I hear they play tennis too. But this girl is different. Discovered by Luc Besson crossing the street in New York, she has got IT. I mean A list potential. She plays Valentina, the conflicted, slightly psycho, super sexy vixen with a smile that thaws even Frank’s icy blood. Wow. Usually I fastforward through the actual ‘getting to know you’ scenes in these movies but I have to say in this case they were the highlight. So check it out and discover Natalya for yourselves. I’m sure you’ll be seeing a lot more of her.

One other thing I should probably mention is that, though he is not utilized anywhere near his potential in this, the bad guy is played by Robert Knepper, who basically stole every scene on Prison Break and who I think is set to become his generation’s Gary Oldman. This is the first really obvious case of typecasting for him. Let’s hope he gets to sink his teeth into some juicier roles in the future.

In conclusion, definitely do check this out especially if you want to stay on top of new talent in Hollywood. Lately there’s been this push of ‘girl’ stars who never grow up; the Kate Hudsons and Kirsten Dunsts of this world; female equivalents to Mathew Broderick and Michael J Fox. I’d like to see us get back to glamorous women like Monroe and Hayworth. That’s what Natalya reminded me of. Some sort of lost ideal. Go Besson. We need some new blood in this town. And thanks for the adrenaline rush.

Rating: B+

1 comment:

  1. Fantastic Review Phil!

    I am a fan of Statham's, however I felt that this film was the weakest in the series.

    As for Rudakova - I did not get her casting at all [I never believed their "relationship" for a minute] perhaps that is why you enjoyed this film more than I did though.

    I will agree with Knepper's performance though - he played an excellent villain.

    Now, I'm just waiting for Crank 2!! :-)