Transporter 3

Read through all the reviews of this movie. Big fan of the first two myself and just got back from watching this. Pretty surprised that nobody has articulated the real reasons why this movie doesn't work.

Firstly, if you didn't enjoy the first or second movie all of this probably won't be very relevant. I would have thought that most people watching the third would have likely seen and enjoyed the other films in the series.

So, why is this the weakest film in the series? Anybody's review who criticises it based on a unrealistic plot or implausible action is missing the point. This might be obvious but there are numerous reviews citing these as the reasons for the film being average/bad. It's also an important part of the formula that worked well in the first and second films.

The reason this third effort doesn't work as well and is not as enjoyable is due to a variety of factors - TONE and PACING probably being the key reasons and also areas where it departs from the previous instalments.

By tone i mean a few things. Is there ridiculous over the top action in this film? Yes, most definitely, but the problem is in how it is being presented. The other movies made you laugh in their almost comic book presentation and stunts. This film is genuinely trying to sell itself as a serious action movie. They completely took the humour out of all the potentially very humorous moments through the more 'arty' editing, over the top score dramatic score (soundtrack definitely plays a big part of the different tone in the 3rd movie) and generally lousy script.

This leads on to the pacing, which is far too slow at times. Way too much dialogue between Statham and the girl. Yes we know the character fairly well but the movies were always about the action and less the dialogue. Jason Statham is capable but the script can't really be saved here.

So, a dramatically more realistic Transporter movie but sucked dry of all the humorous and fun tone that made the previous instalments so much fun. As I said there are plenty of silly and deliberately humorous moments but the way it was constructed and presented meant I wasn't laughing anywhere near as much as I was in the other films. This in conclusion is the main failure of Transporter 3 - 5/10 just for being a new movie in an otherwise cool franchise.

I do not fully understand why this film has been so severely slated. As far as action films go it ticked all the boxes, plenty of guns, car stunts, good fights, romance and even some corny humour, and has a happy ending .........what do people expect ..........Sir Laurence Olivier doing bloody Hamlet?

If you have had a crap day at work, and want to watch a good action movie which is not demanding then this is very good "action" film, if you require something demanding then watch a good foreign film.

I had as much fun watching this as I do watching a James Bond or Jackie Chan film. 8/10

This film was brilliant. One of the best films I have seen in the past decade. Im only joking. It wasn't.

If your an aspiring chef, definitely watch this film. There are so many comments about different foods, different restaurants that you kind of get the feeling that the female character is a wikipedia for recipes. If your an avid BMX fan, then you can learn some swift new moves from Jason. Overall, this film was about as entertaining as a microwave meal. Oh, and the sound quality was terrible. In a cinema, I expect to hear things clearly. When the Russians or whatever they were spoke, it sounded like they were talking Jelly baby. As a side note, I've learned how to make a lobster thermidore.

Also, if the bad guys had watched the other 2 transporters, then they would have surely realised that Jason CANNOT be beaten. Even by a group of 10000000 guys. The guys a soldier. You have to give him that.

After my crabbing that Quantum of Solace didn't give me the James Bond rush I expected from the series, I happily saw Transporter 3 with Jason Statham's taciturn, scowling super Fed-Ex-like operative, Frank Martin.

He's low-rent Bond, but more Bond than Daniel Craig's current revenge-seeking, brooding, post-modern version of the ol' happy-go -fornicating super agent made mythic by the ironic Sean Connery version. Transporter has the requisite genre-demanding gadgets (a wrist band explosive device, for instance), sleazy girls (his companion has long legs and very short skirt), and Ukranian thugs in leather jackets—is there any other international villain stereotype working in thriller films today?

Transporter 3 is cheap on thrills (car races a plenty, one four wheel Audi goes sideways on two wheels) and women, a delightful diversion in a world of angst-ridden modern heroes.

I loved both Transporter and Transporter 2, and I couldn't wait until opening day of Transporter 3. I recruited a few of my friends and we made a girls' night outing to see it. My big disappointment was with the director's comic fast-frames in the fight sequences. Jason Statham moves so fluidly in fight sequences, that it's both beautiful and a turn-on to watch. However, with jerky camera movements and the ridiculous fast-forwarding, the elements of grace and power were lost. The director tried to substitute plenty of still moments with a shirtless Statham in an attempt to give us some eye candy, but none of this did Jason justice, nor was it a fitting substitute. Natalya Rudakova was much too young for him as a romantic interest (kind of creepy), and I was unconvinced by her cheesy accent and her character's incongruent language mastery. Her character went from describing gourmet delicacies in perfect English to saying "what means ____" (insert basic word).

I loved François Berléand again, and of course Jason put in another outstanding performance. Natalya could have been a fun character, without the bad accent and romantic twist to the plot.

Please give us a Transporter 4 more in line with the previous two films!!