Transporting
Here's a statement that might be met with some derision: I'm really looking forward to Transporter 2.
First, some background. The Transporter was (and still is) the ultimate no-frills action movie. In this era of sensory-overload, needlessly complicated, guns-n-'splosions action movies, The Transporter stood out. It had very little gunplay. It had some really cool fight sequences, like the one on a bus, or the one where Statham beats up some dudes using his shirt (his shirt, people). And in Statham, it had a genuinely charasmatic and talented star. And it was efficient. I can't think of a recent movie that got to the point so quickly, zipped through its plot without any hesitation. Just barreled on until the end, and not a second wasted.
The plot this time, I hear, concerns the Transporter going straight, and driving these kids around, but then the kids get kidnapped, so the Transporter must save them. Yes, it's Transporter on Fire. Except instead of scene after scene of gruesome torture, it will be scene after scene of Statham kicking dudes in the head. Perhaps you have seen the ads. Perhaps you have seen Statham leap directly into the air while two cars have a head-on collision right where he had just been standing. Perhaps you have seen him beating up dudes with a hose. Perhaps you have seen that super-hot girl with the steel cable abs firing machine guns at our hero. These scenes will be awesome. This movie will be awesome. Between this and Serenity, September's looking very good, indeed.
First, some background. The Transporter was (and still is) the ultimate no-frills action movie. In this era of sensory-overload, needlessly complicated, guns-n-'splosions action movies, The Transporter stood out. It had very little gunplay. It had some really cool fight sequences, like the one on a bus, or the one where Statham beats up some dudes using his shirt (his shirt, people). And in Statham, it had a genuinely charasmatic and talented star. And it was efficient. I can't think of a recent movie that got to the point so quickly, zipped through its plot without any hesitation. Just barreled on until the end, and not a second wasted.
The plot this time, I hear, concerns the Transporter going straight, and driving these kids around, but then the kids get kidnapped, so the Transporter must save them. Yes, it's Transporter on Fire. Except instead of scene after scene of gruesome torture, it will be scene after scene of Statham kicking dudes in the head. Perhaps you have seen the ads. Perhaps you have seen Statham leap directly into the air while two cars have a head-on collision right where he had just been standing. Perhaps you have seen him beating up dudes with a hose. Perhaps you have seen that super-hot girl with the steel cable abs firing machine guns at our hero. These scenes will be awesome. This movie will be awesome. Between this and Serenity, September's looking very good, indeed.
posted by Jeff at 10:09 AM
7 Comments:
September! Awwwwwww! I wanted to see the Transporter NOW!
Oh, wait. It's totally September TOMORROW. Shit, dog.
Here's something I was wondering about last night. Do you think the original Transporter made a lot of money overseas? I'd been thinking about this sequel in purely domestic, Bourne Identity-esque terms. (You know, here's an original that I enjoyed that was a modest hit at the box office, but probably did especially well on video, so now they're making a sequel.)
But then I was thinking, Whoa, that's a movie that starred a British dude, was directed by a famous Hong Kong director, co-starred a famous Chinese actress, took place in France, and was written and produced by the most famous French action film writer-producer. I can't think of a movie more effectively designed to become at least a modest hit in multiple foreign markets.
In fact, the only elements in the original that seemed designed to appeal to Americans were that the fact that it was an English-language film where people got kicked in the head. And it was efficient. And I guess the bad guy was like a C-list American actor. And her evil dad was that lousy guest star from Alias.
Anyway, none of this occurred to me last night because I'm a xenophobe.
I meant to say "UNTIL last night." I'm sorry I'm so typo-ridden and grammatically shakey. I just woke up.
Also, speaking of really poor TV guest stars, you know who's on my list? The woman who plays the priest on Battlestar Galactica. Fortunately, she's hardly had any lines yet. But I know from other shot-in-Canada projects (Smallville, The Chronicles of Riddick, etc.) that she's an astoundingly bad actor. Her agents are clearly trying to market her as the Canadian CCH Pounder, but DON'T BE FOOLED.
Frank-
Domestic: 25 mil
Foreign: 18 mil
So no, not a big hit. But it did verrrry well on DVD, I hear. And why not? Any time is the right time for Transporter!
Trumbo - see Begum
Trumbo, I take that back about Begum. I know Paul wanted to see it to, so I propose a Transporter screening Thurs night at casa del Jeff y Emory y Leslie. It'll be so choice.
Has Paul not seen the original?! Or has he just not seen it in awhile?
I think he just hasn't seen it in awhile. It has been 3 years since the original, after all.
I am SO DOWN with this. Especially the part where I can just hitch a ride with Paul!
Post a Comment
<< Home