I am a middle-class, intelligent young woman who works in education and values relationships most highly in my life. Why, then, did I like The Transporter? It doesn’t make much sense, and to the casual observer, might seem quite unexpected. In short, it’s a fun, action-packed film with a good main character and some interesting plot points. I couldn’t look away from the fighting sequences. The music was high-energy, and the pace was steady and quick; I felt as though the ending of the movie depended on my involvement.
Jason Statham doesn’t have the most difficult job in the world playing the role of Frank Martin, an ex-army something who seems bitter about his past and now has a job as a transporter. His character is minimal: not caring necessarily about abiding by the law, retaining relationships, or getting hurt, but still being kind-hearted and human enough to help the innocent or those that are unfairly treated. His personality is that of a strong, close-lipped man with few relationships (if any) who likes to do things his own way. Frank Martin is an “underground” transporter of goods and people. He strives to know as little as possible about his clients, and strictly abides by his own set of rules. Until…
It seems like a regular job. For Frank, that is. He meets the appropriate people, at the appropriate time, and receives a large duffel bag for transporting. But something different happens this time. He has to stop to replace a flat tire, and in so doing realizes that the bag in his trunk contains a person. He allows himself to break his rules out of compassion for the girl, and at this point the conflict arises. He’s gone too far, and his clients want him dead. And now that he’s stepped in the direction of helping Lai (the girl he initially found), he finds himself in an unraveling situation that calls for him to either coldly refuse to help innocent people or to go in a bit over his head.
Statham is a commanding lead. Watching him fight is almost mesmerizing, and the fighting sequences in this film are very creative. These battles take place in such non-standard locations as: an oil slick, between huge metal containers, and in a bus filled with people. The action is well-balanced, too: not too artsy or aided with obvious special effects, but also creative and intricate enough to keep a person waiting for the next move.
However, as much as I appreciated the very well-done fight scenes and car chases, I felt the inevitable lack of depth that many expect from high-action films. The plot was fine—standard, and an intriguing pull between caring and indifference—but nothing to recommend it above any other action film. Probably the most troublesome to me was the female lead, Lai, played by Qi Shu. My feelings are most likely the collective frustrations from about 50 action movies I’ve previously viewed in which the female lead can be summed up in three words: token hot girl. Lai isn’t a bad character, or a poor actress. It’s just clear that her role wasn’t exactly the result of creative inspiration. She is helpless enough, sexy enough, and screams enough to fulfill the token hot girl role.
The rest of the characters were simply fighting fodder for Statham. The “bad guy,” played by Matt Shulze, was decent, but for some reason rubbed me the wrong way. But maybe that was the point.
Rating: 11
So, if you’re in the mood for some intense driving, fascinating fight sequences, and sexy actors, this movie is an A+. For those that need more substance, it’s a B. If you need realistic movies with incredible acting and noteworthy cinematography, it’s a C. All things considered, in my opinion The Transporter translates to an 11 on the 22 scale. Please, enjoy.
6 comments:
Nice review! I love the first Transporter, and would give it a 19, for one reason: it is a triumph of style over substance. But it has enough witty dialogue, good music, and weird stuff to one engaged.
I think you're handling this film way too seriously. It is meant to be watched with a smile on your face, not to be thoroughly analyzed: not much in there, from the very entertaining car chase of an opening scene to the oily fight scene is even slightly credible, but it's all made in good fun.
And it works: despite the film being very stupid, it's also very entertaining.
I always take my movies seriously. For future reference, you won't read many reviews on TMBC by Wicked Little Critta that don't thoroughly analyze a film! ;)
Basically, my aim in writing reviews is to give (at the very least) those who haven't yet seen the movie a good foundation to judge whether or not they would like it, and also highlight specifics about what I liked/didn't like for those that care to argue about it. I agree with you that we can't expect much depth from The Transporter, that it's meant for fun watching and not a credible story. Precisely why despite its flaws I gave it a high rating. I just like to report as much detail as I can.
I'm pretty critical when it comes to films, so I'm just telling it like I see it.
But you're right: it's silly but entertaining.
Well, we probably do have different approaches to reviewing. I'm sort of "burnt" by accusations coming from my friends that my reviews have spoiled entire films for them; therefore I try to be minimal when it comes to discussing the plot. There's probably some laziness in it, too.
I think I take it to the extreme, though: I tend to give such few details away that I doubt readers of my reviews will know what the film is about.
But I think that the main difference between our reviewing styles comes from the reason they were written: You're reporting on the films to help others, while I'm doing it to help me digest my understanding of the film.
Oops! Am I saying I'm selfish?
Anyway, enough philosophy for this morning. We're both in agreement about the film.
Happy 1/10/06!
That's definitely going to make our reviews look differently. I also like to digest a film by reviewing, but the way I prefer to do that includes dismantling it to the nuts and bolts and examining every piece.
And no, you're not entirely selfish: you've taken into consideration the desires of your blog-viewing friends. That's more than I can say...
Anyhow, have you been "transported" back in time? (I know, that's terrible.) I think you might have meant "Happy 1/11/06," unless the Australian calendar is much different than what I thought.
It appears as if I WAS transported back in time. I was stupid enough, though, not to use the opportunity to fill up a few lottery forms while at it.
I think I was paying the price of putting a comment at 8 o'clock in the morning after not catching much sleep at night.
Anyway, I hope I can correct things by wishing you a happy 2/11 (or 11/2, the way you would probably have it).
Post a Comment