Review of Transporter 3 (2008) by Jayla N — 18 Apr 2010

Just because a movie is better than the one before it does not mean it is a good movie. Transporter 3 is mildly entertaining, but its inconsistent characters, its laughable villain and Guy Ritchie-esque editing bury Transporter 3, despite what it could have been. The premise isn't really terrible considering that this is in fact a B-movie. You walk too far from the car, you blow up and die. But the editor really needed to stop taking the drugs he was on. There were some potentially interesting action scenes that are just destroyed by the editing. You do not understand what just happened until the scene is in fact over. Jason Statham is my type of action hero here as Frank Martin. Even in sub-par films like Death Race and Crank 2, he is able to pull off the tough, rock em' sock em' hero to enjoyable levels. He is good in this role as well, but of course, he just beats the crap out of bad guys to move the plot forward. Since he is in fact the Transporter, he has rules, which he of course breaks here. Also as with the horrendous Transporter 2, we have an unattractive female lead Valentina (Natalya Rudakova) who falls for Frank. Why Frank falls for these creatures in number 2 and here I will never understand. The movie follows the typical plot and nothing unexpected happens along the way. It's a B-movie, and everyone involved here seems to know its a B-movie, but some effort would be appreciated. Transporter 2 simply needed to take a chill pill and follow through with the potential it had. Instead, all the easy routes are taken, and as a result we have a film that feels forced, rushed and butchered.

You have to know going into this movie that you aren't going to get anything new and exciting. Hell the tag line for this movie is "This time the rules are the same. Except one." Sound enticing? Didn't think so, and that is where Transporter 3 needed to expand. We know that we are in for the same old junk, so why not make that junk as good as possible. Well they try and introduce a new aspect. If you walk far enough away from the car, you will explode and of course die. This was very intriguing especially in the beginning when the original transporter job goes wrong, and the reigns are handed to Frank. But then it becomes so unbelievable with that concept that the original interest starts to fade away very quickly. The movie loses its steam in the final act and of course it goes out with a predictable bang. New concepts are left on the table and not taken anywhere and as a result the film sputters through its final act.

So what of the acting you say? Well, Statham is one of my favourite action stars these days because he is very dependable. He consistently delivers this masculine, edgy and witty performance which is exactly what this type of movie needs. Alas he is a bright light in a dimly lit cast. Natalya Rudakova as Valentina is very inconsistent in her role. She appears to be that tool who Frank will get involved with, then she shows signs of life. A scene at the gas station actually isn't that bad, and her drunk escapade was half-interesting. But then she goes back to the cliche script and can't even elevate the lines above the material at hand. Also, on a side note, did someone decide after the first Transporter film that they were lowering the attractiveness of the girl. We go from a very sexy asian in the first Transporter, to a renegade, crazy, make-up covered creature in number two. Now we have a ginger girl who wears too much eye-liner and just does not have sex appeal. I didn't really have a problem with this part of the movies, but guilty pleasure movies usually involve a decent looking girl, even if that girl has no talent at all. But I digress. Robert Knepper is only half tolerable as the villain Johnson who wants the job done and, of course, Frank dead. He gets all of the typical villain lines down and of course justice is served, but this is not anything we haven't seen before. That is the story of this movie. Despite some of the gimmicks that are thrown in, we have seen all of this before.

Alright, so we have an attempt at plot, a preachy message piece and a decent lead performance. Fair enough, but the big question is how was the action? Well I can't exactly give you an answer. The action was probably well shot, but since the editor was on crack cocaine the whole time, the actions scenes are just slaughtered and torn apart into an incoherent mess. Every scene is sped up or flashes by so quickly that the visceral jolt of a punch or a bullet is completely gone. Imagine how much better the action may have been if the editor of the Bourne franchise were on board. Or even the editor from the first Transporter for that matter. Just because the editing is fast, does not mean excitement. Let the action justify itself. Why are the car chase scenes sped up? Were the cars not moving fast enough? Let the cool stunts and punches fly, there is no need to cut to another angle. Look at a scene from The Protector with Tony Jaa. There is a continuous shot up the staircase where he beats up a thousand guys, and that scene is entrancing. The "flashy" editing in Transporter 3 is pain-inducing, annoying and completely worthless. Any potential in the action scenes is murdered by the editors Camille Delamarre and Carlo Rizzo.

This is in fact a step up from Transporter 2, but that really isn't saying much. At least Transporter 3 throws out the over sexualization of characters and the terrible special effects from number two, and actually tries. But solutions are found through trial and error and this is another error. Statham is game, but he is not meant to carry a film like this. People come to see Statham in action. Sad to say, this action is simply predictable, unrealistic and, most importantly, nowhere near exciting. You could do worse than Transporter 3, and the premise is somewhat intriguing, but bad acting aside from Statham and the same old running gags makes this Transporter a recycled experience.