Review: Transporter 3
Filed under: Action, Lionsgate Films, Theatrical Reviews, Remakes and Sequels

One would like to think that they're only asking for so much when they opt to see a flick titled Transporter 3, and that fulfills our end of the bargain. We, the audience, provide the expectations, however modest, and they, the filmmakers, provide the execution. Frank Martin knows when he has to deliver; after all, it's his job.
Olivier Megaton, on the other hand... not so much.
Megaton has taken on the job after serving as second-unit director on Hitman. Given that both stories are about stoic bald dudes kicking butt across Europe with a native femme in tow, I'd guess that's as good a qualifier as any, though not good enough in hindsight. Our stoic bald dude is Frank Martin, natch, and he's once again played by Jason Statham with all the steely glares and ab crunches that come with the territory (and seemingly every role he takes).
His pouty, pill-poppin' passenger, Frowny McFreckles, is played by newcomer (and, dare I suggest, new-goer) Natalya Rudakova, and when she says things like "I look stupid to you?", the most tempting response is "Well, you sure sound the part." (When he follows her query up with the line "Download me on what you know," one wonders if poor syntax syndrome has grown contagious.) At any rate, she happens to be the daughter of a government official who is on the brink of signing in some sort of pro-environment legislation, the likes of which some faceless corporate entity is none too happy about. So, naturally, they hire a snarling American (Hitman's Robert Knepper, because you can't always get Michael Wincott) to strap a bomb bracelet to Frank and Frowny's wrists that prevents them from abandoning their vehicle prior to its eventual arrival in Odessa.
Megaton's problems begin with a script by series creators Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen that insists on prolonging all of its action sequences with filler characterization (Frowny and Frank discuss ideal meals as a twinkling piano plays on) and an exaggerated plot (when the story quite literally crashes into Frank's home, that's the bang you start out with; every other blank before that point ends up filled in at least twice later on). Then again, what should be a routine kidnapping is unnecessarily arranged to rope in our driver and sully the mediocre name of the series. Naturally, Statham's character has roughly 37% more excuses for shirt removal than ever before, and but of course he has a pal who happens to be fat, bearded, and positively jolly with exposition, enough so to merit a detour. Hey, with priorities like those, who would be in a rush?
Better yet, Megaton and his two editors insist on needless speed-ups (finally, a car chase that would do Benny Hill proud) and flash cuts (He's walking to the other side of the room!) that make matters distinctly less exciting. It's these tricks that obscure the work of returning fight choreographer Corey Yuen, not to mention Statham and the stunt team. The first film was slick, the second one silly, but at least we knew what was going on during those action beats, and if either Yuen (who directed Transporter 1) or Louis Leterrier (Transporter 2) had come back, at least it might've helped put some polish on this turd, as it were.
Still, one's glad to know that the important issues remain upfront, namely that...
- ...Frank's not gay, though there's as much evidence as ever to suggest that he may be the 60 M.P.H. Virgin.
- ...big, bad eco-agendas are in (Wall-E, The Happening, Quantum of Solace).
- ...European train transportation is out (Wanted, Transsiberian).










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
11-27-2008 @ 12:21AM
david said...
pet peeve - there wasn't a movie called 'transporter 1'
Reply
11-27-2008 @ 12:23AM
William Goss said...
In the context of the review, it accurately indicates which film I'm discussing.
11-30-2008 @ 11:01PM
Salemonio said...
"Anal" *He says with a slight high pitched hint at possible insanity...
11-27-2008 @ 6:06PM
Mike Ferraro said...
Yeah dude. This movie had way too much talking about what onions go with what potatoes. How can they mess up such an easy and guilty pleasure formula?
Please don't let Crank 2 be this bad. Please?
Reply
11-27-2008 @ 11:48AM
William Goss said...
Amen.
11-27-2008 @ 5:18PM
YouFaceTheTick said...
I won't see it but I must say Staham does go outside these roles. He was in the positively awful The Bank Job last year and lest we all forget it was Snatch (playing a witty lead) that got him noticed. Too bad he can't get more work making entertaining films...
Reply
11-27-2008 @ 5:20PM
William Goss said...
Hey, he was good in the positively decent The Bank Job.
11-30-2008 @ 7:26PM
Salemonio said...
Jason Statham is slipping a lot......... Death Race... That thing with Ron Perlman...[Dungeon something] Transporter 2 was a little bit much with the car & the crane. The Bank Job was okay, [The Trinidadians all sounded Jamaican], Crank was a bit rediculous I thought [Though everyone seems to love it].
& I know that Statham has done great movies, Transporter, Cellular [fun not great, but still], War, The One, Lock Stock, etc etc. But why is he picking up these crappy movies?
Especially that Dungeon Siege crap, that was offensive to be honest. I mean I expect Ron Perlman to do that kind of thing. But not Statham!
[Sorry it's a long comment]
Reply
12-01-2008 @ 11:28AM
Nova said...
Woah Woah Woah, did some one just say The One was a good movie?? that was quite possibly the worst and I mean by far Jet Li movie.
I don't think the reviewer took this movie as it has to be taken in order to throughly enjoy. All the stupid banter in the car and such was hilariously bad. And because it was so bad it was awesome. I can't see a possibility of where anyone would have taken those parts serrious to begin with. And anyone going in thinking that the serious parts could be taken serious in a Transporter 3 movie are hopeless. I was dying of laughter during most of those parts and cheering for Frank during all the action. There was a floating car part, but that was a least a little better than crane in 2.
The problem being that no one in hollywood knows how to film a proper fight sequence because they are used to working with actors that aren't up to doing them. You need long (minute long) cuts and you need to see all the action. It's more of a old Hong Kong style and gets put to the max in the two Tony Jaa movies. It's much harder to film and ultimately more expensive because any screw ups mean a lot of wasted film and setup. Original Transporter had some of this and is what really set it apart from the usual B action movies (well Jason Statham is awesome in his own right) along with the great driving scenes. They just need to get back to that if they make a 4th.
Reply
12-01-2008 @ 10:40PM
http:www.dostcafem.com said...
best movie so far in 2008
Reply
12-01-2008 @ 10:40PM
Jim said...
For the inevitable Transporter 4, how about the producers persuade Andrew Davis, who directed The Fugitive and Under Siege (as well as a slew of solid '80's action flicks) to come on board? I doubt Davis is doing much these days after Chain Reaction, and you know the guy can stage and shoot a great action sequence, unlike most directors these days.
Reply
12-01-2008 @ 10:41PM
William Goss said...
Now THERE's a thought!
12-05-2008 @ 1:34PM
EDWARD SPRIGG said...
strthem cannot be gay! I won't allow it
Reply
12-19-2008 @ 4:40PM
Three rules... said...
Thanks for sparing me the disappointment on this one. I agree that it would seem to take more work to screw this concept up then to just replicate the first one (Transporter 1?...; )) with some different cars and another barely English speaking Asian hottie. The first was so damn good that I was willing to take a shot at T3 after the utter disappointment of the poorly conceived, and needlessly distracting and unneccesary, subplot and dialogue sequences from T2 (am I allowed to call it that?).
Hopefully no T4 and we can just live on with the knowledge that The Transporter is out there making the world safe for the hordes of Asian peoples trapped in shipping containers.
Good times.
Reply