The Transporter
Nov. 2nd, 2003 01:40 amSpecial effects were pretty cool but the movie was an excellent example of plot convienence theater.
I think the character could be interesting, so if there's a different director and writer I might see the sequel, but the plot of the first movie? They just didn't even try to make any sense at all.
I think what struck me most about this film was that Jason Stratham has a nice chest. The second thing was that the director and writer knew that too, because they find excuses to have him topless. There's one scene where he's covered in oil and these bad guys try to grab him or something, and as my friend pointed out, it's like gay mud wrestling. Seriously, you have to see this scene to believe it. Also, things explode and there's all these moments of cool special effects but it's obvious that the scene serves the special effects, not the special effects serving the scene.
But my favorite thing? We're supposed to be in France, but none of the main characters speaks French! Everyone's speaking English except for the Chinese girl who speaks Chinese to spite her father. Then, there's the BRILLIANT criminal conspiracy. It upholds my two rules of being the mastermind of a criminal conspiracy 1) Be NOWHERE near the scene when things go down. If you're transporting people to work illegally, make sure you're on a plane or in a meeting when they arrive. Then have nothing to do with the actual work and 2) Just shoot them already! When you have the person who is trying to bring down your plans in shooting distance, don't ask them why there're there or any questions at all -- just SHOOT THEM. This is especially true when you've already seen them beat up about ten people at one time. Don't give them the chance to escape! I find having the hero at your mercy and then NOT shooting them a form of lazy writing, unless the person has another reason for keeping them alive.
There are other things but unless someone's seen the movie my complaints don't make all that much sense :)
I amused myself though because I accidentally thought (when this woman found all this character's old photos and medals of honor and hey wow that's not at all sloppy exposition), I bet Jack'd be good at a job like transporting...and then that just carried me through the rest of the film.
So sad. LOL.
There was Jason Statham - no plot was needed.
Date: 2003-11-01 11:28 pm (UTC)Re: There was Jason Statham - no plot was needed.
Date: 2003-11-01 11:36 pm (UTC)Re: There was Jason Statham - no plot was needed.
Date: 2003-11-02 12:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-02 12:06 am (UTC)But that's the BESTEST icon, ever. So obvious, I can't believe I didn't think of it.
Oh, how I miss my Scully!
no subject
Date: 2003-11-02 12:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-02 12:11 am (UTC)Doesn't Jack say, "I'm fine" also?
'cept he says, "I'n." Yes, yes he does - repeatedly!
Y'all nutty people. I have to go to sleep!
no subject
Date: 2003-11-02 12:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-02 12:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-02 06:50 am (UTC)At first I thought I was imagining it, but my sister noticed the same thing. I always crack up because I thought this was only a Chicago thing.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-02 09:42 am (UTC)Maybe it's Kiefer's Canadian-ness creeping in? ^_~
no subject
Date: 2003-11-02 10:37 am (UTC)All I know is, that's so not the basis of that scene. So, y'know, it's weird for people to be noticing THAT, and not the incredible dramatic intensity he managed to create, the huge moment of conflict, even when there's no-one else in the room.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-02 11:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-02 11:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-02 09:44 am (UTC)AND NOW YOU KNOW.
....I feel extra-babbly right after I wake up.