Compare and Contrast: Transporter 3 & The Punisher War Zone

So recently I saw two recent actioners on DVD, and under similar circumstances. I wasn’t expecting much from either. Each had poor Rotten Tomato aggregates (Transporter 3 a 38%, Punisher War Zone a lowly 26%). Plus I was watching them on DVD, free rentals from the library, so right there you bring different expectations then if you go the expense and bother of seeing the movies in a theater.

Then there were the films at hand. Transporter 3 was from the Luc Besson assembly line, and frankly, although I’ve seen a lot of Besson films–he’s one of the few people who’s been working the action field consistently for twenty years–I’ve never really found any one of them particularly satisfying. At best, like Taken, they seemed a competent three star flick, and few of them reached even those heights on the Ken-o-Meter. The previous two chapters in that particular series were, respectively, OK and meh.

Meanwhile, The Punisher War Zone film drew really bad reviews–again, 26% on RT. The previous two attempts at bringing the character to the screen were a) a disaster, and b) overlong and more than a little problematic.

In other words, my bar was set pretty low for both movies.  Given my expectations, a two to two and a half star movie in either case would have gotten the job done.  Yet one film, well, sucked donkey, and the other way surpassed my admittedly low expectations.  Still, the latter is one of those little flicks that keeps us slogging through the junk.  It’s nice to be pleasantly surprised once in a while.

The loser was Transporter 3–well, technically, I was the loser–and man, it indeed blew.  And that’s not just my opinion, because Techmaster Paul and his wife Holly felt the same way.  I knew it was a bad sign when the DVD box said the movie ran an hour and 45 minutes.  Why the hell does a Transporter movie have to run that long?  What happened to ninety minute movies?

And those extra 15 minutes were indeed excruciatingly fatty.  Again, I wasn’t expecting much here, but even so I ended up hating this movie.  The problems were manifold, but basically start with the most lackadaisical and unfocused plot (the Transporter again has to get a hot chick ‘package’ to a certain place at a certain time, at the risk of death, but despite having a bomb implanted in himself to keep him on track, he endlessly seems to take field trips whenever the mood strikes him).

Worse, the main character, previously the Bestest and Coolest and Most Professionalist Wheels Man in the World, is suddenly an utter moron; although he will literally explode if he gets more than like fifty feet from his car (that’s the plot), he at one point leaves it to make a phone call at a pay phone, and walks away from his car leaving the door unlocked and the engine running.  This leads to another ridiculous action chase, which isn’t the problem so much as the fact that it’s hard to care when the hero is such an outright idiot.

The heroine is another Hot Slinky Emotionally Damaged Euro Petite Chick, of a type newly popular (Hit Man and Quantum of Solace both star the current HSEDEPC archetype, Olga Kurylenko) but long a mainstay of Besson’s films, starting with his then wife Milla Jovovich in 1997’s The Fifth Element.  So she cries a lot and has her copious Party Girl masquera run all over her face, and acts all slutty, and takes drugs and gets them into jepordy over and over again because she has to act like a jackass, but it’s OK, because it’s all because inside she’s a damaged little girl with Daddy issues, and so she and the Transporter fall in lurv, which was strangely nausiating considering how completely predictable it was.  I guess it was because I was just hating both characters by that point.

Oh, and there’s a “sexy” scene where she can’t quite reach a gas station mini-mart bathroom (she also has a bomb in her, and since the Transporter is again a complete moron in this movie, when he parks his car to gas up he picks the gas pump farthest from the gas station building despite the fact that he knows she’s going to go shopping in there), she instead squats in an aisle, looks seductively at the at this point still hostile Transporter, shimmies out of her panties and pisses on the floor.  Call me bourgeois, but ee-yuck.  Yet I guess Besson likes this sort of thing, since a similar piss acts at the occasion of Jet Li seeing Bridget Fonda for the first time in Kiss of the Dragon.

I guess the idea is that these movies are now supposed to be ‘fun,’ in that way that means that the viewer supposedly has no right to complain that previously established characters are now complete fools.  And I’m telling you, the film’s languid pace literally had me shouting at the TV after a while.  All in all, I really loathed this film, and again, it was something for which my highest hopes were that it would be somewhat competent.

Oh, and although I was surprised at how bad an actress the female lead was, I wasn’t after I read this on the IMDB:  “While working as a hairdresser at a salon, she was discovered by Luc Besson, the co-writer of Transporter 3, in New York, when she crossed a street. He gave her acting lessons and cast her as the female lead in Transporter 3.”  I hope Besson really liked the sex.  Hell, I’m sure he did.  If so, at least somebody was satisfied with her.  I should note that she hasn’t again worked after starring in an international theatrical action film.

I saw T3 a month ago, and you can see that thinking about it still brings bile to my mouth.

This weekend, meanwhile, I watched Punisher War Zone.  Again, I wasn’t expecting much, given the character’s previous cinematic offerings and the thuddingly bad reviews.  Well, I was pleasantly surprised.  Sometimes you just want a cheeseburger (OK, I personally ALWAYS want a cheeseburger) instead of something fancier, and PWZ fits the bill.

If the Dolph Lundgren version was just an inept, cheapie flop (and it was), and the Thomas Jane one didn’t know what the hell it wanted to be, trying to add ‘depth’ to the Punisher concept while also employing extremely wild mood changes from one scene to the next, well, PWZ knows EXACTLY what it is and what it should deliver.  And it does so, in spades.

I kind of see what they were thinking with the Jane version, making him a more sophisticated version of a punisher, one who seeks to provide an elaborate and apt punishment based on one’s crimes.  However, Jane was a bit stuff, John Travolta hammed up the place as the villain (and not in a good way), and the film just basically rambled around.  Seriously, the ‘director’s cut’ of the film ran 141 minutes!!!! For a Punisher movie!

PWZ runs a far slimmer 103 minutes, and I feared that even this would be too long.  However, whereas T3 just wasted a bunch of our time during it’s similar running time, PWZ keeps on trucking.  Things seldom bog down, and each scene is kept to a minimum before we move on.  I award it the rarest of all praise for modern films; it’s efficient.

And because of this, it’s more effective.  Although Frank Castle’s–a.k.a. the Punisher’s–backstory here is established in about ten seconds’ worth of silent flashbacks, his pain is communicated and felt much more deeply than in the Jane version, in which we waste a whole lot of time meeting his entire extended family (dozens of people), all of whom we watch get slaughtered at length.

Hollywood’s inane compulsion to overexplain everything at excruciating length to make sure we ‘get’ it is well illustrated in the contrast between the two approaches.  See, the Punisher is an ex-special forces guy whose wife and young kids are collateral damage during a mob hit.  In response, he goes underground and spends all his time killing gangsters by the busload.  How much explication do you need here?  As it turns out, not a whole hell of a lot.  Here’s an idea the film industry REALLY needs to mull over:  Less is more.

This Punisher doesn’t waste time planning elaborate revenges, either.  Like in the comic book, he just employs vastly superior firepower to kills as many bad guys as possible as quickly as possible.  Castle must kill well over a hundred people in his movie just by himself, and (be warned) in extremely gory fashion.  The tone is set when he invades a mafia dinner party and hews and stabs and shoots his way through a dozen people or more in about twenty seconds.  I was also afraid that we were going to get a ton of slo-mo, CGI bullet effects and crap, but for the most part they keep things simple.  Thanks for that.

Ray Stevenson is easily the best Punisher so far, taciturn without being a Lundgren-esque lump, and displaying a quiet charisma that I’ve never detected from Jane.  The film provides him with a pretty believable moral quandry at one point, and this allows us to see Castle’s pain over all he’s lost without beating us over the head with it.  Meanwhile, Wayne Knight gives an actual performance, and I rather liked Dominic West’s broad ‘goobam’ take on Castle’s antagonist Jigsaw, which fit the old comic book character.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not pushing this as some sort of modern classic or anything.  Still, it paid the bills, which is a lot more than T3 or the previous two Punisher movies did.  Sadly, the film bombed (and I mean it BOMBED; I hope the reviews didn’t kill it), because it’s one I’d actually have enjoyed seeing a sequel to.  In any case, my advice is to skip T3 and stick with PWZ, especially if all you want is an hour and forty minutes of quality mayhem.

  • Edda

    This makes me wonder; did the Brave One or Death Sentence do that well? If they did not, then the old days of just throwing out a hard guy who takes on mobsters and/or especially terrorists has ended up as a bit old hat. I head that Stallone had the idea of starring in a Death Wish remake. Have they stopped pursuing that?

    http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2008/12/13/bloody-saturday/

    Greg Hatcher notes how old hat this idea has ended up.

    Sam Raimi noted that he would produce a remake of the Shadow. I wonder if that will still go through, and if it does, will they deemphasize the crime fiction, outlaw hero element?

    Incidentally, the reason so many of these vigilante or revenge films have such wide swings in tone may have to do with something Gail Morgan Hickman once said. He wrote Death Wish 4: The Crackdown. He said in the book Bronson’s Loose: the Making of the Death Wish films on page 85
    (available on books.google in a limited preview:
    I paraphrase: There are only two ways to tell a vigilante story. One is to tell it really seriously about the moral implications of living in a world where you can take the law into your own hands, what that does to society and what that does to you. If you are not going to do that, if you are going to make it into an entertainment, then it has to be a cartoon. Because really, this guy taking a gun out into the streets and killing people without trial really borders on irresponsible. So the only way to do it was to do it as a cartoon. I decided that’s what we had to do here. If we weren’t going to deal with the morality of this world, then lets do it for fun”.

    http://books.google.com

  • Nathan

    I was so sick of shakey cam action scenes where I couldn’t understand whats going on that I really enjoyed Punisher: War Zone simply because you could follow the action.

    I may be struck down with lightning for saying this, but I actually enjoyed these action scenes, and disliked the action scenes in The Dark Knight. (The fact I still enjoyed the Dark Knight despite disliking the action scenes shows how strong the rest of the movie was.)

  • Edda, I don’t think The Brave One or Death Sentence did particularly well, but Taken sure did. So…who knows.

    Nathan: Good call. I actually was going to mention the lack of shaky cam in PWZ, but forgot.

  • Nathan

    I’d add that Punisher War Zone also has a critical scene where he is presented with a no win choice, and unlike Spiderman, he cant cheat his way out of it. I liked how that was resolved.

    Just decided to put this on my netflix account.

  • Edda

    Taken still received a PG-13, not an R. Death Sentence and The Brave One went for an R-rating.

    Making an adventure film with a PG-13 strikes many people as odd, a bit of a cop-out or a betrayal. It makes the film not much of anything-not hard-boiled or gritty enough for exploitation purposes, and unless you want to do a George Lucas and invokes people’s sense of wonder with Star Wars or Indiana Jones (all theatrically released Indiana Jones films involved the paranormal), why go for a PG-13?
    —————————————————-
    Regarding the trend of vigilante or revenge films lately, it seems that quite a few filmmakers have political qualms with the concept. Remember the 1997 version of the Saint? Jonathan Hensleigh, a familiar name, wrote the early draft. Then Wesley Strick rewrote it. Strick, based on comments he has made about his work, does not want to encourage vigilantism.

    http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/lpop/etext/lsf/nevinscape24.htm
    In discussing the original Cape Fear, Strick said “And also I didn’t like the vigilante implications of the story–you know, there comes a point when a man’s gotta be a man with a gun and shoot this guy down.”

    [In fact the earlier film had ended with a ringing declaration by Gregory Peck that the studio had demanded to defuse any vigilante implications.] However wrongly Strick recollected the J. Lee Thompson version, it’s clear that he was determined to keep the new Cape Fear from turning into a close cousin of the Charles Bronson avenger flicks like Murphy’s Law (1986) and Death Wish 4: The Crackdown (1988) and Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects (1990) which Thompson had recently been directing.]

    “I mean, that was my real fear, that it would be like Death Wish, and I certainly didn’t want to promote the idea that guns ultimately solve problems.”

    Strick also, as noted, wrote the 1997 Saint film. Many people have noted that though in his print adventures the Saint had qualms about using lethal force (in fact, The Saint In New York got unofficially remade as the aforementioned Death Wish 4, as that novel and film the Saint went on a campaign to decimate organized crime in New York), in Strick’s version, the Saint refrained from lethal force, and even the main villain survives to see trial.

    Another filmmaker who seemed to have a problem with the vigilante theme, Larry Cohen with the 1982 remake of I, the Jury. Max Allan Collins said that Cohen bought the remake rights to I, the Jury from the estate of producer Victor Saville. If so, I wonder if he wanted to subvert the property, since the anti-Communist tone of Spillane’s writings such as One Lonely Night gets replaced by a project MK Ultra/CIA brainwashing with LSD scenario. This CIA group goes outside of the law to murder Communist terrorists-something that Spillane would probably applaud.

    Perhaps as political attitudes turn more centrist, we may see less vigilante or revenge films. Two properties that come to mid that might use this theme, the Crow and Death Note, involve the paranormal.
    Anyone heard anything about a reboot of The Crow?
    Anyone heard anything about an American version of Death Note? Death Note, in particular, deals with the corrupting effects of going outside the law.

  • Edda

    Correction:
    Strick also, as noted, wrote the 1997 Saint film. Many people have noted that though in his print adventures the Saint had *no* qualms about using lethal force

    The Saint did use lethal force in his print adventures and in earlier films.

  • JoshG

    Edda, I think Ken already answered why go with a PG-13-success.

    That said, I haven’t seen any of the three films mentioned, but is Taken really worse than the other two because it was rated PG-13? Also I don’t get this R or nothing mantra. I’ve seen quite a few good Action/Adventure movies that received a PG or PG-13. Were Eagles Dare, the James Bond movies, and Mission Impossible spring to mind.

  • Yeah, I’ve always found the resistance to PG-13 movies a bit weird. Admittedly, there are properties that should be R, like Punisher or Friday the 13th or My Blood Valentine. However, the sheer hostility that exists in some corners that they even make PG-13 action or (particularly) horror movies I’ve always found baffling.

    Nearly every great horror movie up until Jaws (and even the original Halloween would probably be PG-13 these days, except maybe for language and pot use) was functionally PG-13, PG or even G–look at The Haunting–by today’s standards, and what, now those aren’t ‘serious’ horror movies anymore?

    And it’s not like they don’t make plenty of R rated horror flicks. That’s the even weirder part. Even though plenty of horror flicks are aimed at the gore market, it still enrages some that there are horror movies aimed at other demographics. I just don’t get it.

  • ligerfanj

    Seeing that the Taken DVD will be a director’s cut helps solidify my theory that it was rated PG-13 so it could do better in the theaters with women and younger audiences.

  • MatthewF

    I like that the writer of Death Wish 4 thought that blowing people away on the streets without trial only ‘borders on irresponsible’. There’s a man with a pretty wide tolerance for craziness.

  • fish eye no miko

    Ken, I’m with you on the R-rated horror films. Some of my fave horror films have little-to-no gore, and easily fit into the PG/PG-13 range (some are rated thus; some are from before ratings existed). I don’t mind the occasional gory film (the F13 films have their share of gore, even the “lighter” ones), but the idea that a horror film NEEDS to be R is just ridiculous. And I feel that’s even truer for action films.

  • Edda

    Many people feel that too often the reason they go for a PG-13 amounts to attracting a younger audience, but the betrayal comes in when they decide to to make the violence seems less as profundity, they decide to go for a campy, ironic feel. So, if they make it campy, they won’t get a PG-13.