Uberfluff

Having watched most of Transporter 3 last night, I'm really in a mood about retarded evil masterminds.  (Though I didn't give up on it because of the dumb bad guy.  I gave up on it because of the obnoxious hot exotic chick, who spent the entire first half of the movie being a sullen, annoying twat.  Then, suddenly, she turns all seductive and vulnerable and our hero, instead of telling her to get bent, sleeps with her, then gets all protective of her.  This doesn't necessarily match up to my vision of hot, tough guys, who can generally get enough hot girls on their own, and are less likely to put up with crap from a random one who happens to be endangering his life.)

It has always annoyed me a little when movie villains shoot one of their henchmen on a whim.  I know that there's no better way to establish one's evilness than by killing one of your own, but it seems like a poor management decision.  It's hard enough to find good help without complicating matters by killing your employees based on your mood swings.  You know that can't help your retention rate.  And in Transporter, we have a guy who spends (what has to be) millions of dollars on an elaborate kidnapping scheme, including a highly sophisticated bomb system  meant to entrap the "best driver in the world" to take part in the plan--and all to coerce a government official into some toxic dumping contract.  Why not spend that money bribing some official in another country to do the same thing?  It would probably be cheaper, and have far fewer unpredictable variables.  Hell, for the cost of this scheme, you could probably have hired a scientist and figured out how to recycle the stuff into plastic lawn chairs.  And then you wouldn't have made the mistake of giving a James Bond clone hero a lasting grudge against you.

Leave a Reply