** out of 5

Rating: Null/10 (26 April 2003)

Action is in a sad state of self-loathing these days. This is a genre that used to be about macho, adrenaline soaked fun. Now it seems to have been de-revolutionized into a contest to see who can hawk as many recycled ideas into their film. Now anyone who has been subjected to my flow of thoughts in the past will know that I am fully in favour of Luc Besson and his movement to bring integrity to action films that combines the big thrills with the tender art of French theatre. I guess that is why it was such a shame to see a film like this fail horribly at ever turn. This is the story of Frank, a transporter who helped criminals escape the police and also transports packages, no questions asked. He is good at his job, probably the best in the business. He lives by his rules and will die by his rules: number one, never change the deal. Number two, no names, and number three, never look in the package. It is rare to see that an action persona follows such a strict set of guidelines. He asks customers the weight and exact dimensions of their packages and maps out an exact time of deliver, but is a fresh and welcome change to the fold. Who ever said an action man can't be a perfectionist? But rules are meant to be broken, any individual with an active conscience knows that, and when they are broken there is usually little repercussion to accompany the crime. So what should happen if a man who puts his life on the line for his rules decides to break them one sunny afternoon? All hell breaks loose. After having to pull his car over to change a flat tire, Frank finds that the bag in his trunk seems to be alive. So being the gentleman he is, he buys whatever it is a drink. The bag turns out to conceal a young Asian girl who is bound and gagged. Of course with any standard action fare the villains find out about Frank's abundance of disclosed information, making him for death. One of this films major pitfalls is that it makes its central character extremely hard to like and except as someone with heroic traits. Frank is not a good guy nor is he a bad guy. He is a businessman who will do whatever it takes to get the job done and cares only for the payoff he receives from a mission accomplished. Unlike James Bond or Xander Cage for that mater he cares none for the people he deals with and the troubles they face. So when he decides to care for, possibly even love, this Asian girl and risk his life for hers it is hard to give heed to either party. I guess Besson himself is to blame for that, he produced and co-wrote the script to this film. But it is the direction from Corey Yuen that does this film the injustice that it is. Between trying to be as action packed as possible and as artistic as possible Yuen lands right in the centre with nothing with any meaning behind it or any thrills to aid it, to put it bluntly this film is just plain boring. The thing that made Besson's action masterpieces so splendid was that before divulging in action he made sure to have a full cast of characters and a story to back the needs of all supporting to the product. Besson supported his men with anything they needed to bring out the best in their character and in return they delivered him with fully emotive and humanly characteristic people. Here Yuen gives his men very little and they return the favour. Frank seems to walk in and out of action sequences like he has nothing better on his agenda to pertain to and the stories villain(s) are more annoying than threatening. With any Besson film there is a sensual romantic bond between the lead male and lead female. There is no exception here except the fact that it is entirely irrelevant. In one scene they don't care for each other, in the next they make love and in the next they never act upon it again. These feelings are not even made clear to the viewer in the end. The script also feels it priority to through in tremendous plot twists without explanation of given time to be exercised. If there is one pet peeve I have about action it is the whole `trust no one' scenario, especially when the director gives no time to explain of elaborate on any reason for this to be happening. Being as this is an action film there is undoubtedly going to be a mass amount of cliches. I will only touch on two of the worst offenders because I see them in almost ever film of this nature and am getting sick of them. The first one is the `untactful detainment.' This is where a henchman has the hero detained, usually in a headlock, and he still manages to take down all of the oncoming baddies. What is the point of putting a guy in a headlock if he is still able to beat up your men? The second cliche that gives me great discouragement to see is the `vehicular misconduct.' This is when a fight break lose in a vehicle, usually a transport truck, at top speeds on a highway. You all know what I am talking about that scene where the two rivals try to fight and steer at the same time and one usually finds themselves hanging out of an open door or kicked out a windshield. This is one of the most recycled action sequences out there and trust me, it does not get better with time. I do not know who scored this film but whoever it was should maybe consider resigning from the action field and entering into low-grade porn. That's right there is porno music playing during one of the film's more intense action sequences, not only ruining the momentum and structure of the scene but also sacrificing any enjoyment from the scene. This is a very kaleidoscopic film. It is a wide array of shifting fragments and colours to come up with something new around every turn. It is truly a film of great potential with the talent, on and off screen to make for a great action/art film in the same vein as La Femme Nikita but falls flat on its face from what I like to call `XXX syndrome.' Meaning it features enough action to deliver the thrills but has such a mish-mash of a story that it is almost made impossible to like, and in this day and age of low rent film making, story is key.