Again?
Over the weekend, I watched two film sequels. One because I happened to enjoy the first one enough to think the sequel might be a similar simple amusement, and another because the first was so bad that I was just curious to see what they would do with it.
I am talking about Transporter 2 and Dungeons and Dragons 2.
First, Transporter 2. I thought the original was a lot of fun, one of those Saturday night video rentals where you take a gamble and end up with something that does what it’s meant to — provide an hour and a half of entertainment to accompany some pizza and a few cans of beer. The plot was just enough to string together half a dozen occasionally excellent car chases and some so-so quasi-Hong Kong fight sequences. It was James Bond and Police Story pushed through a seive and made suitable for ingestion with minimal effort. Hardly great cinema, but that wasn’t the point.
I had thought that this was a formula that would be easy enough to repeat, so why is the sequel so bloody awful? It’s not the character, because Jason Statham provides the same mildly smug, understated performance he did in the first. In fact, it’s so similar to the first film that it would seem he can’t really do anything else and he had better hope that British gangster films get popular again if he wants a career. I think my problem with the film comes from its lack of respect for the line that separates the amazing from the ludicruous and the exciting from the unbelievable. It is the line that we move willingly in the much-touted audience-author conspiracy of the suspension of disbelief. The makers of Transporter 2 evidently looked at the standard line, erased it, redrew it about a mile further out and then walked over the new line anyway.
It’s not that I have a problem with ridiculous plots and stunts as such. I can enjoy the excesses of wire-fu and the reality-warping vehicular interactions of the Bond movies. These films support their fantastic elements by ensuring that the surrounding elements are equally fantastic or by simply not taking themselves too seriously. The successful film-makers also go to great efforts to implement their stunts with panache, with fluid edits and confident effects work. Transporter fails on both these counts. The setting is mundane, meaning that there’s no reason to just accept our hero’s amazing car accessories or that his French cop buddy is capable of casually breaking into the U.S. Marshal’s computer system.
What is missing here is the fun factor of seeing what will happen next. When Bond gets given a cigarette case that turns into motorbike or whatever, we are set up to see how he’s going to use it to get out of a sticky situation. We’re sold the fact that this thing exists (and similar items) up-front. Here it is, just believe it, come join us, we’ll entertain you. And we go along, and mostly they do (But the invisible car? Guys, seriously…). When the transporter has a bomb attached to the bottom of his car, we’re allowed to briefly consider the reasonable options for him to escape the scenario. Perhaps he’ll just jump out, perhaps he’ll quickly stop the car and remove it by hand, perhaps he’ll drive over an obstacle on the ground and destroy it that way. It’s a good setup, but then we have to watch as he spots a crane, jumps the car off a handy ramp that seems to appear from nowhere and then somehow manages to cause the car to spin with no apparent force available, knocking the bomb off with the hook on the crane. The film-makers have lied to us, they show us a reality, and then employ magic to save the hero. This is not fun.
So what about D&D2? Well, obviously it is pants. However, it is an earnest effort and I found myself on the side of the film. I wanted it to exceed my expectations and the limitations of its budget and third-rate TV actor cast. The desire to do well is apparent in touches of flair in the script, some applaudable sets and even the occasionally well-delivered line. I got the impression that this wasn’t a film created by a bunch of jaded film-makers trying to wring a few dollars out of a straight to DVD licence but rather by people keen to do as much as they could with the materials they had been given.
However, to be blunt, it is a direct to DVD sequel created by some odd UK-Lithuanian collaboration with the obvious business model of get cheap license with built-in audience, create film with minimum of expense, put DVDs in front of masses -> profit. I’m guessing the plot is actually a campaign that the scriptwriter DMed at some point as it is claustrophobically focused on the party and basically involves them going from point A through E, collecting items and having random encounters with baddies as they go. I wouldn’t have been surprised if one of the cast had declared that they had levelled at some point, you can almost hear the dice rolling. Despite this, and despite the ridiculous make-up, wooden delivery, total lack of originality and general lack of quality in any respect, I enjoyed it. It was fun, the remarkable cast of, I’m guessing, Lithuanian locals doing extra work in the crowd scenes almost made it worthwhile in itself. If you watch it, check out the guy playing the endlessly amazed/confused sidekick to the head mage. The total inappropriateness of his expression had me laughing for ages.
So, Transporter 2, crap and no fun. D&D2, even worse, but fun. There you have it.
