Transporter 3 is a 2008 French action film, and is the third and it is believed to be the final installment in the Transporter film series, as well as the first not to be distributed by 20th Century Fox in the United States. Both Jason Statham and François Berléand reprised their roles, as Frank Martin and Tarconi, respectively. This is the first film in the series to be directed by Olivier Megaton. The film continues the story of Frank Martin, a professional "transporter" who has returned to France to continue his low-key business of delivering packages without questions.

This was felt like a porno trying to be more than it was.... "it time to make sex." I don't think i heard an audience laugh for all all the wrong (or maybe right) reasons. I was expecting a lot more... I guess I was hoping it was more like Crank than the previous Transporter films. I think this was the worst film in the series though.

With the down-to-earth Bond and Bourne series bringing forth a new breed of action hero, it's nice to know we still have the Transporter willing to bring unrealistic scenarios to the screen in the most kick ass ways possible.

In the third entry of this undying series, Jason Statham ("The Bank Job") returns as Ex-Special Forces turned criminal chauffer, Frank Martin. After his last mission, Martin decides to take a vacation and refuse his latest job offer to transport a man known only as Johnson's (Robert Knepper, "Prison Break") precious cargo.

Unwilling to accept Martin's decline of services, Johnson captures Martin and forces him to transport his materials. With a special explosive devise now attached to Martin's wrist that will detonate if he moves too far away from his car, Martin, along with a mysterious girl must complete figure out how to get out of Johnson's plan alive.

It's hard to believe that after that six years, this small grossing franchise about a deadly car driver is still around, delivering the same thrills. And when I say same, I literally mean same.

Besides the director, supporting cast, and slightly altered plot, "Transporter 3" looks and feels almost exactly like the first two films. In most movie cases, that wouldn't be considered a good way to bring in new and broader audiences. In the Transporter's case, originality is overrated.

While the series will never be considered one of the all time greats, with Statham at the wheel, they will always be fun to watch.

After being chased down and surrounded on a bridge, Statham says, "Do I look like the kind of guy that would drive halfway around Europe to die on a bridge?" No, Mr. Statham, but after three films, everyone has learned that you are the only guy alive that can successfully strip and kick ass at the same time. Add that with his new talent to drive a car on two wheels between two semi-trucks and it is easy to see why he is one of the coolest action characters of all time.

Director Olivier Megaton relies so heavily on Statham's overpowering screen presence that he forgets to tell the audience what the story is about until an hour in. Sure Knepper makes things interesting with his evil voice and attitude as Johnson, but its not until halfway into all the action do we learn what his master plan is. Megaton must have thought the techno soundtrack and Statham's ripped chest would distract audiences enough to forget about any plot.

With "Transporter 3" being as entertaining and consistent as the first two flicks, it seems the only thing that will stop Frank Martin and the Transporter series will be a lack of stuntmen willing to take Statham's beat down.
B

Your writing style is fine; it's your taste that sucks.

Haha, thanks! People seem to unanimously argee that my taste sucks!

The review is alright, two things:

Too many paragraphs (paragraphs ARE important, but it's not necessary to have 20 of them inone review) and it kinda feels disjointed.

Writing movie reviews is a lot harder than it looks. I wrote at least three per week for two years. Organization, especially figuring out what to start with, was always the part I found the most difficult.

you didnt really give any thoughtful analysis. they were just small little tidbits of what you thought were cool. You had a lot of sentences that were set up complicated that didn't have to be and you don't need a comma every few words.

Not trying to sound like a dick, but that review shouldn't be published anywhere

Saying something like that certainly does anything but.

Also, is this for a college newspaper? Just wondering.

its called constructive criticism. i've read many of the kids reviews, his writing style is solid. that's just a piss poor review

Well, trashing someone or their work is never constructive. I know from experience. And how can anyone expect "thoughtful analysis" about something as unabashedly brain-dead as a Transporter movie?

And if people were saying that your writing is getting worse, I'd tell them to show you whether they can do better. If they won't, they should take a hike, so to speak.

i'm nto trashing someone, he asked for what we thought and we told.

You need to learn to fucking read.

Yeah, that's one of those reviews that pretty much screams, "I don't really know what to say about this movie, so I'll give an overly complicated plot synopsis and mention a couple things I thought were cool."

You've written much better reviews than this before, so I'd just chalk it up to Transporter 3 not exactly inspiring a rush of creativity. Everyone is entitled to at least one mulligan, so unless your editors are just total cocks (or all of your reviews are like this before they edit them), I don't see why they'd kick you off the paper.

One thing I'd recommend is try and talk more about what is actually going on in the movie. The camera does this and it means/makes me feel this (apply this to everything - the editing, the score, the acting, whatever).

When in doubt, use this and this as a template. If you are going to steal, steal from the best, and those are two of the best film analysis/criticisms published by a news publication I've ever read.