Transporter II: a brief review

The first Transporter was a lot of fun. The second one...well, as much as I try to suspend my disbelief and lose myself in the moment, a few times in this one it just was not possible. The car flight from building to building, the scraping off of the bomb...those moments were so retarded and unbelievable they totally broke the spell. Nonetheless, it was a mildly entertaining movie that was perhaps best for a none-too-subtle sub-plot.
The rather thin plot revolves around outlaw driver/Transport "Frank" taking a temp job for a friend driving a boy to school and home. The boy is the son of the drug czar and a typical Hollywood mother...someone who looks good in lingerie and has no problem showing it. She and the father are attempting a reconciliation after a year-long separation.
The cause of that separation is never specified, nor is it clarified exactly how Jeff or whatever his name is is such a poor father. The fact remains that he is clearly implied to be a poor father and husband and the family is under strain because of it.
This leads to a strong subplot of the movie. A strong sexual tension is built between Frank and Audrey (the mother). This begins when Frank unobtrusively makes a minor driving move to help keep the kid from seeing his parents fighting.
The courtesy and respect are contrasted throughout the scene with the boorish behavior of the aloof, coffee drinking, arguing father and both are opposed to the typical emotional behavior of the woman between them.
I say typical because it is an artificial societal precept that women are emotional while men are logical. This does, often enough, become a self-fulfilling artifice, but that is in no small part because that is how women are always portrayed both in society in general and also in Hollywood. If you pay attention you will notice the woman is almost always shorter and more emotionally driven. If a man falls apart emotionally, it is only for comic effect (Kevin Nash in The Longest Yard, for instance) whereas if a woman falls apart emotionally, it is because that is what they do. This reinforces the stereotype and social structure...
What I mean is, by constantly seeing this behavior, women learn it is both acceptable and expected. In fact, the woman who refuses to wear her heart on her sleeve is viewed with suspicion...there is clearly something wrong with her according to societal interpretation. By contrast, the male who shows emotion is either weak or gay. Or both.
Anyway, Audrey clearly falls for Frank, who likewise falls for her. The difference? She respects his courtesy, his innate strength, and his NOT being her husband. His interest is relayed through his checking out her prominently displayed breasts (throughout the movie she wears sheer garments that allow the bra to be a peek-a-boo garment that...more or less...preserves the shreds of her modesty) and sensuous shape as she leans over the car window.
Later in the movie she shows up at his place in a deliberate attempt to sleep with him. He is clearly interested, and you realize something; this movie has brought you to the point where you are rooting for adultery.
Oh, it is cleverly done...first off, you already have an affinity for Frank. The odds that the audience has seen the Transporter are good, so he is naturally already a sympathetic character. Second, the father is an absentee father, a poor father, and quite emasculated throughout the movie. Whereas Frank beats the smurf out of people, the father is surrounder by security. Frank wears a sharp suit and is competent, the father wears horn-rims and loafers. Clearly he is not worthy of a piece of tail such as the mother.
Lest you think I think of her that way, I don't...that is just how she is presented in the movie. She has no interests, no job, no hobbies...she simply EXISTS to provide an emotional breakdown and sexual tension. She is very much a one-dimensional character, nothing but a plot point. That point is her being a piece of tail two men are symbolicly battling over.
Ultimately Frank rejects her, not because he wants to...clearly he would like nothing better than to bend her over like she did for him at the car and smurf her like an animal...but he rejects her because of "who I am", a clear reference to his criminal lifestyle as a transporter.
A closing scene of the movie shows the family reunited and he, on his way to break up the marriage after all (symbolized by the white roses), thinks better of it and drives off into the sunset, so to speak.
I think it is interesting how close this movie came to something Hollywood has been getting closer to. I actually expected the father to die which would then legitimize what would otherwise be adultery. I was surprised to see the family structure reaffirmed and infidelity relegated to a nether world apart from being good or bad.
So clearly the subplot that adultery is acceptable if the father is not a "good" father/husband as defined by the director is a growing fad in Hollywood. I predict we will soon see an explosion of movies where the family does break up in favor of the "hero" of the movie. For me, at least, that will be a sad day.