I saw this on its opening weekend, yet forgot to review it.
I remember suspect_5's pretty negative review of the movie, and I thought..."If that guy liked BAD BOYS 2 but hated this sequel, what does that say?"
Instead, we get a movie that of sorts actually is an improvement from the first movie of the franchise starring the Limey Bald Badass that is Jason Statham. Instead of a bone-grindingly plot that dragged the film despite the fast editing and Statham kicking ass left and right, we get a plot that works, if only serviceble at best, yet it matches the narrative fine without feeling artificial, as I noticed in my VIDEO BIN REVIEW of the first TRANSPORTER picture.
*SPOILERS*
There are some things I dug about the film. For one, you actually have a villain, which we learn is a mercenary for some generic Latin American drug cartels, who admits that the film's conspiracy of planting a fatal virus at a Conference meeting of all the Drug Czars in the Western Hempishere......really doesn't make any sense, but he does it anyway for the nice paycheck. Really, no melodrama bullshit or lame garbage we're used to.
Maybe of sorts this is Producer/Co-writer Luc Besson's $30 million "Fuck You!" letter to Michael Bay. I mean consider that Bay's BAD BOYS 2 was shot in Miami for a ridiculous $150 million, and yet the $110-120 million cheaper picture THE TRANSPORTER 2, yet contians as much insane stupid shit that we are so used to seeing in Bay's picture, but cheaper and maybe of sorts not as insulting to me..and oh was shot in Miami as well. Consider Statham launching his car into the air to disarm the bomb attached to it, or driving through cement walls(as if they were cardboard) of a skyscraper's roof and landing onto a building next door, and so on.
Grossing over $70 world-wide and still opening up in new foreign territories, and who knows the money it'll do(good rental/selling grosses I say) on DVD.....I guess FOX will call up the services of a "Transporter" for a 3rd time soon?
