Newsfeed
Printer-Friendly ModeTransporter too cliché, leaves blame to be placed
September 12, 2005 —
A few times a year, a talented actor becomes entangled in a less-than-stellar film, and I find myself asking them, "What were you thinking?" I can only imagine that Jason Statham had similar sentiments about his involvement in the quickly decaying franchise of Transporter movies.
In the original Transporter, Frank Miller (Statham) made a healthy living dealing with shady characters and moving their goods for a hefty price. The tables turned for Statham when he broke a cardinal rule of his profession and looked inside the package he was transporting. Though not exceptionally original, The Transporter offered its audiences a thrilling night at the movies and Statham at the top of his game, playing the cool and witty Frank. I was anxious to see the sequel improve and expand its original formula.
Sadly, Transporter 2 failed to deliver the goods as it ranged from predictable to laughable.
T2 once again sets the stage with Statham portraying Miller's cool demeanor and impeccable sense of style. This time, he is a chauffer for the Billings family (as a favor for a friend, we are told). The father, Jeff Billings (Matthew Modine), is a federal drug diplomat, and employs ample security to protect his family. Frank's job is to chauffer the Billings' son, Jack (Hunter Clary), and provide a secure ride for the boy to and from school in his sleek, black Audi. There's also a little bit of forbidden chemistry in there, but since the movie fails to develop it, why should I mention it?
Before long, the Billings' secure life is shattered as stereotypical Russian henchmen with cheap accents kidnap Jack in a devious plot to strike at Mr. Billings' upcoming drug summit.
T2 fails to deliver anything new or interesting to the audience. In fact, it uses some of my favorite movie clichés: the never-ending gun clip (until, of course, the plot requires an empty one); the scratch-proof superman car (can jump from building to building with nary a blemish); and the wicked henchwoman who is just too evil to wear much more than underwear for an entire 90-minute movie. And though the dialogue was witty at points, it mostly felt cheap and reused.
If clichés are not bad enough, the completely unbelievable aerial stunts and blatantly prearranged fight scenes went beyond the realm of reality and felt like a slap to my intelligence. And special thanks to the CGI department, which managed to deliver one of the corniest "plummeting plane" scenes ever seen on the silver screen.
T2 did do a few things right. In addition to Statham's excellent performance, Amber Valletta commanded the charm and emotional depth necessary to draw the audience into her role of the anguished mother, Audrey Billings. And director Louis Leterrier's experimentation with tight camera angles created some edgy and exciting fight scenes (a bit reminiscent of The Bourne Identity). But these proved to be too little and too late for The Transporter 2.
It is hard to find one person on which to pin the responsibility for this faltering movie. Maybe Leterrier should be blamed for failing to maintain a believable and engaging plot. Maybe the writers, Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen, should be charged with creating a lazy and predictable storyline.
But I do know one thing for sure: instead of anxiously hoping and waiting for The Transporter 3, I found myself asking, "Was it worth my $6.75?"