The Transporter [Archive] - CB Movie Discussion Forum & Message Board

PDA

View Full Version : The Transporter


Cogito
05-31-2003, 09:09 PM
I just read B1ade's review of The Transporter (http://www.filmhobbit.com/cgi-bin/movies/movies.cgi?action=showreview&review=transporter)...

And last night, I saw The Transporter...

B1ade claimed that The Transporter wasn't a very good movie. In fact, the words and phrases he uses to describe this flick, might even lead you to think that The Transporter is a downright bad film! And I gotta say, B1ade is a very, very, very kind man. A kinder man than me. It's a very good review actually.

But for my part, I gotta say that The Transporter is one of the most awful flicks I've ever seen. I'd need a very fat thesaurus of explicit words and phrases to truly convey the decrepid nature of this film. It is utterly unbelievable. A six-year old could have come up with a more convincing plot, character interactions, dialogue -- hell, it'd be an insult to six-year olds, to accuse them of having created this, unless the kid was under the influence of drugs, suffering a seizure, and being a goat.

The ludicrously bad horror-film "Coven," made by Mark Borchardt, as chronicled in American Movie (http://www.filmhobbit.com/cgi-bin/movies/movies.cgi?action=showreview&review=amermov1999) is better than The Transporter.

It blows my mind that Luc Besson could have anything to do with this. The dialogue is absolutely retarded.

The plot is senseless.

The motivation for the characters makes no sense whatsoever.

Here's the plot:

- The main guy is a super-duper car-driver, and works as a getaway-driver, but also transports things from point A to point B.
The first mission, he picks up some robbers, but objects when he sees that there are four of them. The deal was three robbers (at a specific weight -- he's such a precision driver that he adjusts the shocks on the car to accomodate the load -- now I don't know shit about cars, but even I know this is complete BS), he insists, and refuses to drive away. He has a special James Bond-like code thingie that ensures that only he can drive the car, so they can't shoot him. The robbers does the only logical thing (note: sarcasm): they shoot one of themselves, push him out the door, and Mr. Transporter drives away.

Next mission, he delivers a package: A bag, 50kg. But for no apparent reason, he breaks one of his rules: Don't ever look inside the package. He opens the trunk when he hears thumping. The bag moves -- apparently there is someone inside it. At 50kg, it's either a female, a child, or possibly a midget. It is, of course, a gorgeous woman, tied up with duct-tape over her mouth. I figured that perhaps he'll set her free, but noooooooo. He cuts a small hole in the duct-tape, and gives her some juice, through a straw. A little later, she has to go potty.

What would you do, in this situation? If you answered "Tie a really, really long rope around her neck and let her walk off into the forest," then maybe you have a career in the exciting and lucrative field of crime. This woman is REALLY clever, though. If I'm ever in the same situation, I'll have to remember her trick: She took the rope off from around her neck -- and then she ran away! Beauty AND brains! Mr. Transporter eventually decides that gosh, even women don't take half an hour to go pee-pee! He traces his rope and to his utter astonishment, he finds the clever gal gone.

Of course, he finds her, and carries her back to his car, over his shoulder, with shapely ass decoratively up in the air.

Now, you'd think that if he had enough sympathy to feed her, you jus might think he'd not hand her over to violent criminals, but nooooo. And you might think that all that considered, that another of his rules -- no improvisations and modification to the deal, would be a bad rule to be broken at this point. But nooooo. He accepts a job on the spot, to transport a metallic briefcase.

They claim the briefcase weight to be 1kg, which is just a silly little detail, considering all else that is wrong with the flick, but a briefcase that small would weigh more than 1kg even if it was empty.

And of course, the thing is filled with explosives. And of course, The Transporter is having a nice cup of tea at a restaurant, when it blows up.

The rest is just more banal dialogue, frequently interrupted by things blowing up, and car chases.

It is SOOOOO BAD, you'll literally grasp your skull with both hands and just go "OMFG!" and laugh out. It's THAT BAD.

B1ade Runner
05-31-2003, 09:40 PM
Well, I'm glad you liked the review. I'm even happier that this isn't another assault on my questionable taste. 2002 was not a good year for action. My advice: check out Kiss of The Dragon.

Evil Dead Junkie
05-31-2003, 10:44 PM
It was still miles better then XXX though.

B1ade Runner
05-31-2003, 10:50 PM
For once, I completely agree with you.

Bluntchop
06-01-2003, 01:02 AM
There's a French DVD out including the uncut, R-Rated version with about 15 minutes of added footage. I wonder if this version is any better?

B1ade Runner
06-01-2003, 11:38 AM
Unless it includes an alternate "good" ending, then I doubt it would help. It's not that The Transporter didn't make sense, it just got very stupid as it went along.

NotSoSecretAgent
06-01-2003, 11:54 AM
The added footage is mostly to the oil fight scene, I think. It does nothing for the movie.

When I saw it in theaters, I enjoyed it a little bit. But when I saw it on DVD, I completely changed my opinion. It was pretty darn terrible. Like B1ade said though, still better than XXX.

crappertay
06-01-2003, 12:22 PM
I saw a trailer for the DVD when I went to see X2. Terrible. I couldn't help but think that it's a movie that even Jean Claude Van Damme would have second thoughts about, even at his current career stage.

No watchy.

Cogito
06-01-2003, 12:28 PM
You gotta be kidding me, this outlandish, artificial nonsense is better than XXX? No way! Explain yourselves!

I think that perhaps you have become prejudiced against Vin Diesel -- and I can't really blade you for that, because his mass exposure has been 100% as a muscle-bound knucklehead, fair enough. But I knew about this guy long before he made it big, from his self-written, -directed, -produced, etc., short "Multi-racial," where he really shows off his acting talents. This guy really CAN act.

Some of the lines he delivers in XXX are genuinely funny. Like in the nightclub, when he approached the bad guys, and this huge body-guard realized who he is, and gets all enthusiastic, Diesel nods towards him and asks his boss, "Is he gonna hump my leg?" which was a damn funny line.

XXX was basically a James Bond flick for kids.

The Transporter was basically a James Bond flick for retarded kids.

B1ade Runner
06-01-2003, 02:06 PM
I have nothing against Vin Diesel. I just thought that he was one of the worst things about xXx. He looked like he KNEW he was being filmed, and acted cool for that reason alone.

Bluntchop
06-01-2003, 02:24 PM
Haven't seen The Transporter yet but I thought xXx was pretty entertaining. Diesel is cool but also kinda ... tardy.
Ugh, is that possible? :blat :D

Evil Dead Junkie
06-01-2003, 02:36 PM
The Transporter is better then XXX because while XXX kept trying to make these ill advised grasps at realism and retarded self refrential stuff, The Transporter just took its idiotic Idea and totally ran with it. Their is just something admirable about a movie embracing its own stupidity. I mean c'mon you're inner eight year old has just gotta love that part where he parachutes from like a mile up and lands perfectly on the trucks.

And I don't hate Vin Diesel, I loved Pitch Black, and he was the only thing worth watching in The Fast and the Furious, I just wish he would choose better projects.

B1ade Runner
06-01-2003, 09:51 PM
My problem is not with him, but with what Hollywood is making him. He is a real actor, and did real work before F&tF. His short film Multi-Facial is really good and he gave very good performances in Saving Private Ryan and Boiler Room. But with xXx, everyone has him pegged as an action star. I hope he can change their minds.

7therror
06-02-2003, 01:04 AM
So basically what you guys are saying is that anything that is similar to any plot in a James Bond movie, but isn't a Bond movie is crap.

I like both XXX and Transporter. They are just plain fun.

Oh it's going to get hot in here now. I can already feel the flames.

Evil Dead Junkie
06-02-2003, 01:31 AM
I'm all for mindless fun but XXX just abused the privilage.

Cogito
06-02-2003, 03:39 AM
The main character in The Transporter did not act in a reasonable manner. I don't expect him to always be perfectly logical or coherent, of course, but the way he (let alone the rest of the characters in the movie) acted, didn't make any sense at all to me. I couldn't relate to him. In essense, I could not suspend my disbelief and convince myself that he was a super-tough super-car-driving dude, because he kept saying things that you'd expect a 12-year old would say, if he was pretending to be a tough guy.

The bit about "No names" was SO artificial, I could only laugh at it. The basic concept of "no names" is sensible enough, in that you may avoid incriminating yourself (although in that line of business, I'd feel a bit safer, the more I knew, mind you), but he brought the "no names" thing up at absurd moments, which made the flick seem more like a Pink Panter film -- it was so awfully written, that it came off like a parody of itself, but not intentionally.

There are absurdities in XXX, but nothing like The Transporter.

CrapperTay, you're British, perhaps you can relate to this better -- I fear people over here just get too impressed with Jason Statham's accent that they automatically give him a bunch of bonus points.

Josh
06-02-2003, 11:17 AM
No Cogs you're right. People are just hung up on xXx which is a REALLY fun FANTASY spy movie, popcorn fluff and nothing more. But there is the Vin Diesel hatred so whatever.

Transporter is just total garbage. here is a list of things I enjoyed about it:

1. Stathom rings doorbell... when they walk towards the door he karate kicks it in

2. The ending, which was so HORRIBLE that it was hilarious: Bad guy's daughter is held behind some trees at the car. Bad guy tells henchman: If she moves, shoot her. Bad guy talks to the Transporter "my daughter will come around!" *BANG* (gunshot sound) "Maybe not."

LOL!

Horrid horrid movie and to even attempt to compare it triple x is just rediculous. I really love Stathom but Transporter is a horrendous stinker.

crappertay
06-02-2003, 01:47 PM
Not seen much stuff starring Statham and can't say I remember much of him from what I have seen but he's obviously being hyped as some kind of British answer to Vin Diesel because, uh, like he's bald and muscley, um yeah that's it, that's the way to go.

He dates a girl with gravity defyingly large boobs that are implant free, that's the only reason I give him bonus respect points. :lol

Josh
06-02-2003, 01:48 PM
He's pretty cool really Tay. He's very good in <I>The Italian Job</I> in his supporting role. I think that's really what he is best suited to though. Supporing stuff.

crappertay
06-02-2003, 01:52 PM
Italian Job... Bah! *phitooie*

:D

Doom
06-02-2003, 07:06 PM
Italian Job ruled

Josh
06-03-2003, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Doom
Italian Job ruled

Go post some more in the IJ thread Doom. We need to talk. ;)

crappertay
10-27-2003, 09:27 AM
You're not going to believe this... (http://www.filmhobbit.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50831)

B1ade Runner
10-27-2003, 03:17 PM
Jason Statham deserves a cool franchise. As long as Luc Besson was involved, I might check it out.

Tick
10-27-2003, 03:32 PM
Luc Besson involvement means very little these days.

crappertay
10-27-2003, 03:33 PM
B1ade is obviously hot and heavy for more homo-erotic fight scenes in motor oil.... :lol

B1ade Runner
10-27-2003, 03:36 PM
Oh yeah, you know what turns me on.

Josh
10-27-2003, 11:21 PM
How the hell can you call this a "cool" franchise??? DID YOU SEE THE MOVIE????????

It is without a doubt one of the worst movies ever made.

B1ade Runner
10-27-2003, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by FilmHobbit
How the hell can you call this a "cool" franchise??? DID YOU SEE THE MOVIE????????

It is without a doubt one of the worst movies ever made.

Hello, I wrote the friggin' review (http://filmhobbit.com/cgi-bin/movies/movies.cgi?action=showreview&review=transporter)of it. If the sequel is good, it could become a franchise. There are a lot of great sequels to lousy movies these days.

Josh
10-27-2003, 11:29 PM
This isn't Tomb Raider bad, this movie is Gigli bad.

Make some damn sense here B1ade.

Why would you ENCOURAGE or be happy about a franchise made out of this piece of shit???

B1ade Runner
10-27-2003, 11:33 PM
Because I have nothing to lose. I already dislike the original movie, so it makes no difference to me what they do. But in Jason Statham, there is a lot of potential. He saved The Transporter from being a complete wreck. What if they had decided not to do Blade II, Mission Impossible II, or--GASP--Star Trek II, because of the original, we'd be missing out on alot.

And did you even see Gigli?

Bordick
10-27-2003, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by B1ade Runner

And did you even see Gigli?

Good call. You notice how everyone jumps on the band wagon because it made like $1.85 at the box office. But if everyone says it sucks, then they must've seen it. and if they must've seen it it would've made more money.....bandwagon ****erdicks.

Josh
10-28-2003, 12:36 AM
I was trying to put it in terms you can understand... dont' change the subject to cover up the fact that you are defending a sequel to the frickin TRANSPORTER!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol

:)

crappertay
10-28-2003, 06:17 AM
Originally posted by B1ade Runner
What if they had decided not to do Blade II, Mission Impossible II, or--GASP--Star Trek II, because of the original, we'd be missing out on alot.



Last time I checked MI:2 was a piece of shit too. Just a more expensive piece of shit than The Transporter.

Tick
10-28-2003, 07:11 AM
Exactly, horrible example.

Bordick
10-28-2003, 10:12 AM
Well, look at Aliens or T2. Both those sequels actually made the previous one's that much better. You never know.

Tick
10-28-2003, 10:19 AM
Ofcourse there are examples like those, but in general I think you could say that 99% of the sequels damage the original and we would be better of without sequels altogether. Those few exceptions are a small price to pay.

Bordick
10-28-2003, 10:21 AM
I wouldn't say they damage them. They're still there. It's just worse for the sequel. I never hold a grudge on a Part 1 for a bad parts 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, or 10

crappertay
10-28-2003, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Bordick
Well, look at Aliens or T2. Both those sequels actually made the previous one's that much better. You never know.

Yeah, but those had BRILLIANT and classic movies as a basis to launch from. What does The Transporter have?

B1ade Runner
10-28-2003, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by crappertay
Yeah, but those had BRILLIANT and classic movies as a basis to launch from. What does The Transporter have?

Potential to be a good franchise.

The original was not a horrible movie. It had some good action, but went to hell around halfway through. The key for the sequel is to make sure the first half is cooler, and that the second half doesn't go to hell. Seems pretty simple to me.

Valkary
10-28-2003, 12:39 PM
well the Transporter DID have an interesting main character. I was disspointed by the final movie but I like the car and the guy driving the car. it's when he got out of the car that it was less fun.

and xXx was actaully a very good movie. much more fun than people give it credit for.

As to Vin, he was also VERY VERY good in Knockaround guys. Much better than fast and furious, almost as good as in Pitch black. (his performance not the movies themselves)

Josh
10-28-2003, 01:56 PM
The original WAS a horrible movie B1ade.

Eh, I give up! :)