LETHAL WEAPON 3 (1992)

Directed By: Richard Donner 

Written By: Jeffrey Boam and Robert Mark Kamen

Based on characters created by: Shane Black

Cinematography: Jan De Bont

Editor: Battle Davis and Robert Brown 

Cast: Mel Gibson, Danny Glover, Joe Pesci, Rene Russo, Stuart Wilson, Nick Chinlund, Alan Scarfe, Mark Pellegrino, Sven-ole Thorson, Miguel Nunez Jr., Paul Hipp, Stephen T. Kay, Delores Shell, Steve Kahan, Traci Wolfe, Damon Hines, Ebonie Smith, Mary Ellen Trainor

Archetypal buddy cops Riggs and Murtaugh are back for another round of high-stakes action, this time setting their collective sights on bringing down a former Los Angeles police lieutenant turned black market weapons dealer. Lorna Cole joins as the beautiful yet hard-nosed internal affairs sergeant who catches Riggs’s eye.


This was my introduction to the movie franchise. Which, for a time, was truly dyslexic, as I never watch many franchises in order. Though at least watching this film pieces of the puzzle come together. As I had seen the previous two movies, in pieces. just never all the way through. Until after seeing this one which made me wanna go back and finally actually watch the first two films’ info.

Having seen all of the movies, I have to say that disappointingly this film doesn’t advance the characters. It kind of lets them stay the same and maybe review or remind the audience of the death of their friendship at this point, as partners. 

It feels like it’s trying to be contemporary. It still feels a little bit like a throwback just following a formula. I mean just look at Joe Pesci‘s Leo character who is now a bottle blonde with a crew cut. Also, the introduction of hollow point bullets known on the streets as cop killers, feels like something taken from the news reports of an escalating danger.

Don’t know if the cliché came first or if this helped create them as throughout the formula, feels like a sitcom, almost that Hass to hit certain beats, and show certain scenes and behavior of characters. At least in the previous films, we were getting to know or learn about the characters and see how their partnership developed here we just assume they’ve had a kind of standstill, and it is expected

It’s a film where you don’t really feel any suspense. Just can’t help but seem familiar.

As my first LETHAL WEAPON film, it was exciting and new though it didn’t offer anything I hadn’t seen before. The quality kind of dips in quality in comparison . as if not for the foul language and violence, could’ve easily been a typical PG-13 film as it is definitely made for an audience more than anything. There is no need truly for this film other than for the studio to need money.

Unfortunately, this was a sign of the beginning of the end that felt fun, but a minor effort as there was one more sequel after this.

In serious scenes, the actors seem more silly than serious, except for the chase scene through the subway. That might be one of the film’s main problems is that it plays like a comedy with action in it rather than an action film that happens to have funny moments it’s not as vicious as the previous films either 

Watching this film, one’s favorite pastime might be noticing how many times Mel Gibson slips out of his American accent to his more natural Australian one. this film is also the first where Martin Riggs, Mel Gibson’s character, isn’t as scary or dangerous. He’s actually mellowed.  

Another Hallmark of this franchise, this one just seems to color in the lines, but offers nothing new, just adding an addition to the overall picture that wasn’t necessarily needed, but isn’t that bad? No, I will say it’s the last classic of the old-time sequels as the next film part four comes across as more cartoonish.

The franchise is familiar enough, so this is almost like just another episode, but lacks the stakes of the other films. It does offer as it adds a character, just as part two introduced us to Joe Pesci Leo Getz, who became a fan favorite enough that he returns for the remaining sequels here, Renée Russo’s character, is introduced, and ultimately stays and survives so that Riggs finally fall for and keeps a love interest.

The film offers a crafty, smart villain that makes his mark but alas, slimy doesn’t have as many memorable scenes, acts, or punch lines as previous villains.

The teenagers with the guns and ammo who are supposed to be part of this gang that hits close to home for Danny Glover, Roger, as one of them has a connection to his son. Nick feels thrown in to give Danny Glover a dramatic second act so that he can make a return, triumphant in the third act.

The film doesn’t offer anything new nor for the characters to do as the first two films did. The violence seems much lighter and less severe than in the first and especially the second film.

It seems like they are supposed to be homicide detectives, but they seem to get involved in every other type of case.

This franchise is one of the last where you can check your head at the door and be purely entertained and feel like at least you were served something well-cooked. Though in the end the film and franchise are meant to be entertainment above all else 

Grade: C+

TRANSPORTER 2 (2005)

Directed By: Louis Leterrier
Written By: Luc Besson & Robert Mark Kamen 
Cinematography: Mitchell Amundsen
Editor: Christine Lucas Navarro & Vincent Tabaillon

Cast: Jason Statham, Amber Valletta, Alessandro Grossman, Kate Nauta, Matthew Modine, Jason Flemyng, Keith David, Francois Baerleand, Annalynne McCord

Transporter Frank Martin surfaces in Miami, Florida, and is implicated in the kidnapping of the young son of a powerful USA official.


Luc Besson is a director who has always flirted with more action-oriented projects as well as his own artistic ones. At a certain point, he seemed to abandon directing films altogether and instead write and produce continuous action films. Leaving the directing to others. Where you wonder if his brand is all over these films and lets up-and-coming directors spearhead the projects. Yet still maintains control.

As he is mroe than capable of directing them himself, maybe even he knows that they are mroe commercial projects and he wants to be seen more as an actual artistic director. Whatever the reasons he has made a fortune from writing and producing these mid-level budget action films that seemed to be everywhere in the 1990s and especially early 2000’s he seems to have set the rules somewhat for modern action cinema that unfortunately isn’t made anticipating the future and revising as the years go by More they are trashy and ridiculous yet fun and seek to stick to a formula and offer diversity and international casts.

This film became a franchise. One has to wonder was that always the intended aim to make this into a series of films or did the original make it easy to set up further adventures for the character who helped make Jason Statham An action star. In fact, the plan for most of his action films and scripts is to try to create a franchise and the others don’t do as well.

As there was never a sequel to LA FEMME NIKITA, there was not only a remake but eventually a television series. Which after a few mroe sequels was the same fate of this franchise. Even though Jason Statham only came back to the role to complete the trilogy with the next film in the series. 

This was only the second action film I saw Jason Statham star in after the first film. As I had mainly seen him in films by director Guy Ritchie when he was still making criminal caper films Such as SNATCH and LOCK, STOCK & TWO SMOKING BARRELS though he also was in the similar remake of THE ITALIAN JOB also. 

This franchise is like the character is an underworld James Bond of old. As he is usually somehow double-crossed in his own line of work or is brought into a conspiracy because he cares. Even though he has a supposedly strict set of rules. Yet in each new film, they are mroe stand-alone involving few recurring characters. Though no old girlfriends or attachments. Allowing for romance or sex for him in each new film

When it comes to this film It’s ridiculous, Loud, flashy, and fun full of  jokes and impressive action scenes where Jason Statham barely gets a R.I.P. on his suit 

This film is even filtered to be glossy where almost everyone seems to have a shin sheen of sweat that brings out any bright colors to almost be blindingly obvious 

Kate Nauta makes an impression as the villain’s henchwoman lover who seems to be a masochist. She is memorable in the film. One wishes she had been in more films or found a way to bring her back or get a spin-off or action hero series of her own

The film is legitimized by having Matthew Modine in the cast of having an actor who usually doesn’t appear in these types of films. While offering former supermodel Amber valets a role as a maybe love interest and whose scenes are more dramatic 

The film ends up being something that is hard to take seriously. As everything is over the top with the hero being the only one to truly not only save the day but figure things out. But also everyone is disposable especially when it comes to living g or dying except the heroes and villains.

Not to mention the action sequences are a sight to behold as they all truly depend on the fight choreography mroe than anything as the fights include so many people and the only way one can hold off so many are desperate luck and knowing the moves the others will make.

There is So much damage done yet you never question it and just want to see where it goes and how it resolves itself.

Grade: B

THE TRANSPORTER: REFUELED (2015)


Directed By: Camille Delamarre Written By: Adam Cooper, Bill Collage, Luc Besson Based on Characters Created by Luc Besson & Robert Mark Kamen  Cinematography: Christophe Collette & Vincent Richard  Editor: Julien Rey 

Cast: Ed Skrein, Ray Stevenson, Loan Chabanol, Gabriella Wright, Tatiana Pajkovic, Noemie Lenoir 

In the south of France, former special-ops mercenary Frank Martin enters into a game of chess with a femme-fatale and her three sidekicks who are looking for revenge against a sinister Russian kingpin.


I can understand the desire to keep this franchise going, but they needed to try a bit harder to make something more Dramatic that would justify it.

As this film with a new lead playing the character might as well have been a better-funded episode of the television series based on the films. As the lead is serviceable but like the film itself is forgettable.

As the film is basically more of the same from the original films only without a recognizable charismatic leading actor.

It still has plenty of action scenes that are hand to hand and gunplay as well as plenty of high-speed chases and car stunts. So you get what you came for. As well as plenty of beautiful European women in states of undress.

Here the story revolves around the past and has more double-crosses than you can count as the transporter’s father is part of the schemes and plans this time. As the transporter seems to the only character with a code.

Watching this and the movie HITMAN is confusing as they are both similar with noticeable differences. As they both have seemingly invincible leading characters only one is actually enhanced which is why he stays invincible and faces others like himself. Here the lead character is always smarter than everyone else and extremely lucky. Not that it is ever explained fully why.

It feels like more of the same but less personal. As we have to get used to an all-new driver who lacks history or any real charisma. As to why we should care. We seem here only to watch how he completes his mission. As he comes off more as a super-spy undercover in a criminal element.

So if just looking for a quick fix of action and pretty European locations. This is a film for you. As at least I can say you will find some fun and excitement at times with this film. No matter how generic it mostly comes off as.

Grade: D

BANDIDAS (2006)

BandidasFeatured

Directed By: Joachim Ronning & Espen Sandberg
Written By: Luc Besson & Robert Mark Kamen
Cinematography By: Thierry Arbogast
Editor: Frederic Thoraval

Cast: Penelope Cruz, Salma Hayek, Steve Zahn, Dwight Yoakam, Sam Shepard, Denis Arndt

In 1848, a New York bank wants to put a railroad across Mexico, so it buys up small banks around Santa Rita, Durango, and evicts farmers on the proposed rail line who owe money. The bank’s henchman is the murderous Jackson. He runs afoul of two women, María, the tough but uneducated daughter of a farmer, and Sara, the European-educated daughter of the owner of one of these banks. To feed the now landless people and to seek revenge, María and Sara become bank robbers, veritable Robin Hoods. But Jackson and his hired guns are after them. What are the women’s options?

Continue reading “BANDIDAS (2006)”