Transporter 2 (2005) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
345 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Nothing complicated here.........
abahb118 September 2005
Just an all around fun romp at the movies. No new or complicated story here. We just get more of Frank kicking some serious tail. Implausible action sequences are forgiven with the wink of an eye from the director and actors. Some of the fastest action you will see that doesn't rely on wire-fu or CGI. Rather, we get a lot of the same from Frank and that is exactly what should be expected. I think in the modern era of the high concept action movies, they have forgotten how to just show the audience a good time. This movie and it's predecessor take us back to a time when action wasn't bogged down by complicated stories, rather the star's charisma and action were all that one needed to enjoy their time in the theater.

These movies have no lofty aspirations other than to give you one hell of a ride for an hour and a half. This outing delivers in spades.
60 out of 80 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Action, explosions, total disregard for physics. EXCELLENT.
Zawalick3 September 2005
So many critics are already lining up to pick at the plot, the action scenes, and the details it's just sad.

This is an action movie with twists and turns, some believable, some not so. If you liked The Fifth Element, The Professional, Le Femme Nikita, and True Lies, this is your movie. If you grew up on Bond, Dukes, and Blade Runner, you'll love it.

Just relax, ignore all those physics lessons on momentum, dynamics, and forces, and enjoy.

If, on the other hand, you want to pay good money to sit in a theater and keep a mental list of all the problems, bs, bad lines, and so on, it's your life.

Personally, I adapt and enjoy.
203 out of 298 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great popcorn flick
Thomassweet21 December 2008
Firstly, this film is never going to win any awards, but who cares when it is this much fun? Jason Statham gives us a likable turn as Frank Martin, and the rest of the cast aren't bad either.

The plot is complete and utter nonsense but is interesting. The stunts are completely over the top, but great fun to watch and very inventive (watermelon boxing gloves!). The film never takes itself too seriously and remains tongue in cheek the whole way through. Yes, it's all silly implausible nonsense, but remains very entertaining silly nonsense. Worth a watch if you want a mindlessly fun action movie. If you want something more intelligent, you'll have to look elsewhere, but I've seen far stupider films than this.
20 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Thoroughly Enjoyable
exntrc12 September 2005
Shakespeare it isn't, but it's not for the plot that I watch the Transporter movies. The action is excellent and is even better if you are able to suspend your disbelief for an hour or so. There are a number of scenes that are so outrageous that you need to decide if you're going to buy in or get out. I bought in. There were also a couple of obvious blue screen moments and several stunts that were totally telegraphed, but otherwise fast and clever. The only disappointments for me were wardrobe related - he had too much stubble and wore way too many clothes. There was plenty of T&A for the guys but we waited in vain for the movie to give even a little something to the ladies... no such luck. In spite these minor failings, I highly recommend that you go along for the ride. I'll certainly be back again - Transporter 3 anyone?
93 out of 141 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A good Friday night popcorn flick.
CapnMikel17 September 2005
I'm just an average guy who wanted to see a film on a Friday night with a few friends. And thats just what this film turned out to be.

Now, i'm all for a good action film, but this was a little TO Hollywood for my book. I went in expecting a somewhat good time, and came out having one more or less. Let me explain.

If your wanted to see this for plot, and as a realistic high standard action film, your going to be VERY disappointed. The stunts though really cool looking, are virtually impossible to pull off -- realistically. The transporter was almost superman-like in a film that was based on a realistic present day world, and he pulled off things that SHOULD NOT and COULD NOT have happened. This is the negative side to the film, and really the plot was Mediocre at best.

** PLOT Spoiler** The whole virus idea is so overused at this point in time, and since they didn't expand on it enough until the end it didn't really matter. The ending however well, it looked rushed. Althougth, it became more and more like a James Bond film then a driving film with each scene.

Now , the positives: If you wanted to see a action film that would mildly entertain you on a Friday night, this is a great little flick. Sure it's not the best, and sure it's not the most realistic, but it was fun overall. Now I know there are a lot of people who won't see a movie just because the plot is really unrealistic -- But if your like me, it dosn't take much to be entertained. Just to be simply entertained, this was a good film. You get to see some cool action scenes, and while they are Hollywood style, and almost superhuman at points, they are still very much so enjoyable. The plot can keep you somewhat entertained, as well as the characters, however they arn't the best. The action is the glue in this case.

Overall - It's an average film. I'd say 5-6 out of 10. If you want to see an action movie with decent fighting and stunts, or have nothing better to do on a Friday night, give it a look.

If your looking for a film to keep you entertained and enrich you in a realistic plot with realistic events, pass this one.
89 out of 139 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Silly fun action movie
simon_booth29 January 2006
TRANSPORTER 2 isn't going to win any awards for its story (whatever happened to Luc Besson anyway?), but for a fun action movie it's about as good as 2005 offered. Jason Statham reprises the role of Frank Martin, a driver with impressive skills in or out of his car. The 2nd film is at least as silly as the first, and not quite as corny in the script, making it a very entertaining way to pass 80 minutes.

Obviously the aim of the film is to capture some of the style of "Golden Era" Hong Kong action films, and Jason Statham does a great job with the help of Cory Yuen's choreography, which is very imaginative and clever (though he reuses a few ideas, e.g. the hosepipe from KISS OF THE DRAGON). Unfortunately the film is blighted by "Hollywood-Style" camera work and editing, which detracts from the choreography... westerners still haven't learnt how to shoot a fight scene as well as a Hong Kong crew (despite having 10x the budget available to do it)... too many closeups, shaky camera that goes against the movement of the action and editing which obscures rather than emphasises what's going on. I'd love to see the action scenes re-edited by one of HK's premier action film editors.

Still, small quibbles really since Hong Kong has pretty much stopped making action films this fun anyway, and TRANSPORTER 2 is still plentifully entertaining as it is :)
45 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Dear oh dear
james_norman198124 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I have a confession to make... I enjoyed the first transporter film! It involved car chases, martial arts action and all sorts of implausible things that kept me entertained for the majority of the running time. It was relatively short, had some pretty cool moments and was generally a bit of ridiculous fun that needn't be taken too seriously, although the concluding chapter sold the first half short (the final fight and resolution of the movie left me thinking 'They're ending it like that...!?!').

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the sequel, which suffers blisteringly from a syndrome I like to call sequilitis... a perilously common and highly contagious disease, with its epicentre in California. It leads to movies, which can be described at best as 'ok' or 'just above mediocre,' being unnecessarily dragged through another 90 minutes where everything is faster, bigger and more explosive. It can even happen to the better class of film, witness Godfather 3... Anyhow, here we have what may well become a test case to compare against all future sequels...

Now I've once sat down to watch an Uwe Boll movie... I endured at least ten minutes of Plan 9 from Outer Space... Whoever made Lost in Space got £5 of my pocket money (circa 1998)... And I once watched an entire episode of Corination street... All these were experiences I have tried, and failed, to forget, from the awfulness of the dialogue to the woodenness of the acting, the preposterous scenarios and the long list of other problems they all share. It is now time for me to add another 'film' to that list: Transporter 2.

This movie lacks just about any redeeming features. Clearly none of the production crew have even heard of the concept of physics while the director, who was also responsible for the Luc Besson penned snore-fest Danny the Dog (titled 'Unleashed' in the UK), doesn't seem to have the slightest clue as to what he's meant to be doing. He merges CG that a kid with an Etchersketch could improve upon with gun play that John Woo would say 'Now come on, that's really too over the top!' His wardrobe department deserve to be taken out and shot while the casting people may be lucky to escape such a fate...

Everything about this film sucks and Luc Besson would do well to stop penning any more of this dreary garbage. He's turned his once promising career into a litany of cinematic trash, producing, writing and being involved in dozens of films a year, none of which are worth watching. This isn't even the most recent catastrophe, with Revolver, Angel A and many other poorly planned rush jobs helping to fill videostore bargain bins across the world. The director of Leon and Nikita really should know better.

So too should everyone else involved. An audience really isn't going to accept that a car can fly upside down, clip a bomb on a passing crane, land on the other side of a bleeding one hundred foot wide (maybe more) river as the bomb explodes... and then drive off into the next scene... it's not just impossible it's insultingly preposterous and the dodgy CG only serves to further deny us any feeling that we're watching a film crafted with any degree of love or skill.

Instead we're inundated with ridiculous notion after ridiculous notion... implausible scenario after implausible scenario... and so on and so forth. From a female villain who goes out in nothing more than lingerie, a see through shirt and two fully automatic, laser sighted, silenced pistols, to a horrendously unsympathetic family who you practically want to die of a biologically impossible disease... no one emerges with any credit.

The exception, to a very small extent, is Jason Statham and it is he who gives the movie its only all right moments. Called upon to do nothing more than pretend to drive, look moody and occasionally beat people up, he shows as limited a range as he did in the first film... but is hardly being called upon to do much more. A couple of the car chases are OK, one or two of the 'one men versus a lot of other people' fights are quite cool and his demeanour throughout does allow us to believe that his character, Frank Martin, really would take this course of action. Other than that it's nothing but bad news...

Matthew Modine is wondering where his career disappeared to... Amber Valletta clearly regrets getting involved... Kate Nauta will not be gracing any films soon (God willing)... and the rest of the cast are generally asking themselves quite how they became embroiled in such an awful movie, Keith David and Francois Berleand, for example, are two men way above this kind of crap. Overall I can't warn you enough not to see this film, it's got practically nothing to recommend it and you'll only feel cheated of 87 minutes of your life (plus whatever the cost of the rental). Please don't waste your time... it's far more precious than this pile of rubbish.
17 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Entertaining Action Movie
claudio_carvalho13 January 2007
In Miami, the professional driver Frank Martin (Jason Statham) is working temporarily for the Billings family, transporting their son Jack (Hunter Clary) while his driver is on vacation. Mr. Billings (Matthew Modine) is an important member of the government and Mrs. Audrey Billings (Amber Valletta) trusts on Frank, who promises to protect the boy. When Jack is kidnapped by a mercenary hired by the Colombian cartels, Frank faces the criminals and the Miami police force trying to rescue the kid. When the boy returns to his family, Jack discloses the real and lethal intention of the abduction of Jack.

"Le Transporteur II" is a great action movie that certainly will never be indicated to an Oscar or discussed by intellectuals at a table in a bar, but very entertaining and recommended for fans of James Bond, Jackie Chan, Jet Li and movies with car chase and explosions. The story is full of adrenaline, funny most of the time, with very hilarious sequences. The performance of Matthew Modine and his grimaces is the negative point of this film. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Carga Explosiva 2" ("Explosive Cargo 2")
25 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Beyond silly and stupid
johnlnick20 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Saw it over the weekend with a friend who swears the first one was better. I have no problem believing that, because this one was so awful that virtually anything could've been better.

The acting was cheesy and the beyond-unbelievable plot was the result of a bunch of FX-lovers sitting in a room saying "Ooh, and NOW wouldn't it be cool if..."

Much of the silliness has been covered in other reviews, and if the movie had contained any element of a wink or a hint that it was working towards being a parody of the genre, rather than taking itself seriously, I could've sat back and laughed with the rest.

The movie includes a number of plot elements that are absolutely useless to the movie - including: a fight scene where the villain practices kendo against 6-8 of his henchmen and the psychotic female sidekick to the villain who wears lingerie and must have been in Cirque du Soleil before deciding to join the "dark side."

As an example of the unbelievable action, the movie includes a fight in a pilotless Lear jet. Just as the jet crashes into the ocean, the hero, who is standing in the aisle at the instant of the crash, leaps towards the back of the plane to survive the crash. He then puts a life preserver on the stunned villain and swims him to the surface just in time for a number of rescue boats (who must have all conveniently been right out of range of the shock wave from the plane hitting the water but still close enough to be in the right spot in a matter of seconds) to arrive.

I shudder to think what Transporter 3 will be like.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Right barrel load of cockney monkeys
MrsO_Again4 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Hahahahahahahaha! This was so rubbish!!! I could smell it from all the way over by the sofa where I was sitting, but I got my hubby through and we both laughed our heads off, cos this film is so bad, it's good. Jason Statham has the weirdest accent. He's straight from the "transatlantic, cor-luv-a-duck Michael Caine, Carey Grant, I think I'm a Yank but actually I'm a lovable barrelful of Cockney monkeys" school of acting. And everything he said sounded like it had been dubbed on afterwards, after he's been asked in post-production to drink a pint of neat testosterone. If you told me that's how they made it, I wouldn't be surprised. The colours were all a bit day-glo. Matthew Modine and his slutty-acting wife, didn't look anything like their little boy either, which worried my husband somewhat, but I just said the boy probably looked like the previous chauffeur, because that wife wasn't any better than she ought to be. And the baddies! What's with the lassie in the Lara Croft outfit blasting the sh *t out of everyone with two guns at once? It was like a character from a video game had shown up on screen. And her eye make up made her look like a robot, but maybe that was the effect she was going for anyway. I liked Jason Statham when he drove his car (which I think was KITT's cousin from Knight Rider) off a pier, twirled it in midair so that a handy chain could knock the bomb off the bottom of the car without exploding the car. A nifty move, one that I often accomplish when I get a car bomb under my car in suburban London and need to get rid of it quick smart while chasing a bunch of Russian ne'er-do-wells. I mean, it was like watching my life on the screen, the gritty realism of it was just off the scale! I don't really get who the friend with the French accent was all about. We kind of gave up after a while, but good effort all round. Hilarious! It was meant to be a comedy, right?
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Another Seqeul That Overdid It
ccthemovieman-124 January 2007
Held Great Promise, But Got Carried Away As with so many action movie sequels of today, filmmakers take what was successful and beat it to death on the second film. Usually it is the violence that is way overplayed and this film is a perfect example. The first movie, "The Transporter," had its share of action, but didn't cross the line and was very entertaining. This sequel gets ridiculous and insulting.

The first third of this movie is outstanding; the second third "fair" and the final third so ludicrous I kept looking at the clock to see how much time was left in the film. The latter got out of hand with one "Kill Bill"-type fight scene or car chase after another, each scene being less credible than the one before it. These filmmakers just don't know when enough is enough!

Once again, you have likable hero is Jason Startham as "Frank martin," the ex-Special Forces agent who is a now a "transporter." You have some wild-looking villains, especially in "Lola" (Kate Nauta ) who competes with Tammy Fae Baker n the makeup department (except this woman is hot) and you have an interesting story. There is just no restraint in it. Too bad because this film has a lot of style to it and held great promise in that first half hour
35 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Did someone call a transporter?
crazyrabbits9 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I'm sorry to say it, but this is one of the most ridiculous movies I have ever seen. The plot hardly makes any sense, the action scenes stretch the limits of plausibility, and the acting is pretty shoddy.

But I loved it.

I don't care whether it was implausible fun, but it was an enjoyable experience nonetheless. Yes, there are parts which are incredibly stupid, like the character of Frank Martin and the villain fighting on an out-of-control airplane, the silly things like having the French policeman from the first film being arrested and teaching the cadets at the police station how to make fine French cuisine(??), or the fact that there's this Jamaican guy that shows up out of nowhere at the end of the movie for comedic value(???), or the fact that you can spin a car in mid-air, have the bottom of the car hit a wrecking ball, which knocks off a remote-triggered bomb that blows up after dislodging, and land the car safely(????), or the fact that there are hardly any police to be found in the city...and so on. But, you'll probably enjoy this movie if you're a fan of the genre, and hey, it's always great to see Matthew Modine getting work.

Bottom Line: If you like fun, dumb action movies, you'll probably love this. I'd go see it as a matinée if I were you. The movie is less than 1 and a half hours long.
79 out of 142 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I Wanted to Like It, But I Didn't
moviewizguy27 April 2007
Professional driver Frank Martin is living in Miami, where he is temporarily filling in for a friend as the chauffeur for a government narcotics control policymaker and his family. The young boy in the family is targeted for kidnapping, and Frank immediately becomes involved in protecting the child and exposing the kidnappers.

As I said, I wanted to like this film. I actually thought it would be slightly better than the first movie, which I also liked but the plot is better in here. Having said that, the execution in the film runs out of gas.

What makes this film slightly badder than the first are the action scenes. Did I say action scenes? Yes, I did. You thought I might say that the film's action scenes was better than the first. I have to answer "yes" on that. But there's a flaw: There are too many action scenes! There is one after another and another throughout the whole film! It really gets tiring during the end when you just want no more action scenes! This is probably my first movie where I said that the action scenes were too much.

This film really had potential. I liked the beginning in the movie but not the rest as much as the first movie. The acting in the film by Jason Statham was good but Amber Valletta's acting was better. The special effects was good and yes, this film is more ridiculous than the first.

If you liked the first, or an action fan, this is a good action movie but you might get tired of the multiple action scenes in here. I say rent it.
22 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Disappointing sequel
CuriosityKilledShawn26 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The Transporter franchise suffers from some serious engine failure in this slickly produced sequel and only just makes it over the finishing line. The original had a thin premise and an anorexic plot but delivered brilliantly choreographed fight scenes and down-played gun violence.

For number 2 the action is relocated from the French Riviera to Miami, a city often featured in bad sequel movies (2 Fast 2 Furious, Bad Boys II, Police Academy 5). Frank Martin (a skin-headed, forever grimacing Jason Statham) no longer takes dodgy package from A to B, instead he's temping as a chauffeur for a wealthy family. But when the kid is snatched by stereotyped Columbian villain he springs back into action, kicking ass in his own special way.

It turns out that the kid has been injected with a deadly virus. And everyone he breathes on will catch it. And so on and so on. An interesting plot device that soon crumbles into a massive pile of plot holes.

The action doesn't have the same edge as it did before. I can appreciate far-fetched action films as long as they stay within relative distance of reality. Transporter 2 goes way beyond reality in well into stupidity, turning Frank Martin from delivery man into indestructible super-hero. After a while you'll realize this man can do anything and will always walk out of the worst scenario alive. It totally kills the excitement.

And as if the plot wasn't flimsy enough, the narrative just completely shatters and will leave you disorientated and lost among the brawling and battling. Characters come and go with no explanation, sub-plots are abandoned and the film is totally void of a denouement or climax. There's no satisfaction in the silly story being wrapped up.

All Transporter 2 really does is showcase a bunch of totally far-fetched fight scenes, while failing at everything else that could have made the film a contender. Even the relentlessly silly Danny the Dog did better than this.

Even though it's made by a European director and producer and funded with European money, something that gave the first such a unique feel, this feels an awful lot like a Hollywood trash flick. It's a shame the series had to stumble so soon. Since the end hints a third, one can only hope that Leterrier and Besson get their act together. What began as a series made in the style of Taxi, Ronin and Kiss of the Dragon has ended up tumbling into world where movies like Stealth and SWAT live. And that ain't good.

Oh, and I'm tired of hearing about the movie's so-called homo-eroticism. Like I just said, this film is made by Europeans who are not as homophobic as the rest of the world and see nothing wrong with a man visiting another man for a holiday. Frank Martin is not gay.
56 out of 100 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
a slippery slope of CGI nonsense and ridiculous stunts
dumpy6663 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I went into this movie with an open mind, even though my better judgement told me otherwise. the TV ad's painted this to be an overdone stunt fest and too over the top. there were a few colorful nods to the first film, but not enough charm throughout to save the sequel.

the stunts are the focus of this movie. they were the nails in the joists holding the walls together in the first movie, they're the entire foundation this time. The writers and director make frank out to be not a mere astute wheelman and fighter, but rather a one man army, a superman of sorts. they packed in more choreographed nonsense than the average Jackie Chan movie. I seriously cannot say enough bad things about this director. A few times he made a nod in Sergio Leone's direction, but minus the brilliance that director was known for. The fight scene with the female assassin near the end was so crouching tiger-esquire it made me literally shout obscenities at the screen. The final showdown on the plane was so predictable that the second the plane was introduced onto the screen, my friend said "here comes your BIG Hollywood ending.", he was right. Just pointless overacted tripe. Those scenes on the plane looked like an episode of the Thunderbirds circa 1966. As for the driving, this movie is packed so full of CGI car stunt nonsense it's sickening. CGI can look fake, but this...this looks like adobe photo-shop bad. The bomb on the car and hook on the crane thing, had me shaking my head. and you know who i feel the worst for, Jason Statham, because they ruined this character big time, using this sequel to try to make him the next Mega-action Hero. This movie is to the transporter series what Blade:trinity was to that series. Convoluted, self-absorbed, unintelligent, cinematic rubbish. Anyone who tells me that i'm being too harsh on this movie is obviously easily entertained. This movie will insult your intelligence.

Looking to a third installment i'd expect Frank will be transporting birthday gifts for orphans and fighting terminators.
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Statham - Superhero!
Tokyo101318 December 2018
Yes! I treat the Transporter series like Bond films. That's what they remind me of. This may perhaps be my favourite. Director Louis Leterrier(Who directed The Incredible Hulk) takes on the Transporter. He makes it exciting. Lots of over the top action. Fight scenes are fantastically choreographed(Cory Yuen). Car chases are beautiful. Kate Nauta is sexy. She is sexy as a nurse, sexy in pink, sexy in red, sexy in almost nothing, sexy with guns. She even has a song on the soundtrack. Amber Valletta is gorgeous! The perfect Bond women! The cars are supercharged. The villian is crazy, hellbent on destruction. The score by Alexandre Azaria is superb! Reminds me at moments of John Barry's music in Bond films. The songs on the soundtrack explode with techno beats that make you want to buy it. The 5.1 surround adds a big plus as well. All this, rolled together, make an entertaining flick. You can and should add this to your collection. Highly recommended action movie. Statham can fly, therefore......
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
ruins a good character/story
angryinvalid15 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Jason is an enjoyable actor, and a talented martial artist. Under the direction of a talented Hong Kong director (in Transporter 1) a great film/ character was created.

The French director ruined this movie franchise. Aside from hitting a ramp, doing a three sixty into the air and timing his rotation to clip an explosive device from the underside of his car (the point at the movie when I apologized to my friend next to me, who i had brought with the promise of a good action flick).

This guy had way too much fun in the editing room, instead of just making an alarm go off in the hospital, he has the camera wiggle and undulate with wave computer generated effects, and show the characters face of surprise as the sound and camera approached them. For a split second I was left to wonder if some freak amoeba weapon had been released in the hospital.

He couldn't even let the laser sites on the machine gun pass over the camera without making a fancy "laser noise"! Leave us not forget the gratuitous "establish Frank as a bad ass" footage, like him walking towards the fleeing Russian scientist (played by an actor who could not be ANYTHING but Englsih/Scottish/Irish) as he shoots at him, Frank makes no attempts to disarm him, just marches with his angry face, ridiculous, then the nice slow standing up after he hops over the wall, to slowly adjust his coat with his angry face.

His music video-ish character portrayal, and excessive fun with sound effects aside, there's the issue of prostitution: James Bond always had the Bond car, BMW was getting some advertisement, we always accepted that, but this was ridiculous, at one point, when in his fancy sports car ( not the Audi, the on at then end) rather than going straight he peforms a 360 degree turn, then goes straight. Just to promenade and show this thing off.

Then the lame fight scene with the blonde girl swinging from beads, attacking by sticking her feet out as she went by. If you've studied the martial arts you know that an airborne kick is not a matter of running, jumping (swinging in this case) then sticking your legs out....there's a kick aspect! this scene was pathetic.

Throw in some very odd African American characters (played by some very odd looking fellows), and a couple of Russian scientists who like to package biological agents in an assortment of beautiful glass containers, and you've got yourself a movie that destroys what could have been a great franchise.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Felt Different Than The Original.
BigHardcoreRed2 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The Transporter 2 is about Frank (Jason Statham), a man who will transport anything, no questions asked. All he requires is that you stick to the deal and follow the rules, of which he is very strict with. In the sequel, Frank is transporting a young child named Jack Billings (Hunter Clary) to school and back on weekdays. That's right- Frank is babysitting. Nothing wrong with that, as it has little to do with the actual story once the movie gets going.

Due to an elaborate plan by the main villain, Gianni (Alessandro Gassman), and carried out by his ruthless girlfriend/sidekick, Lola (Katie Nauta), young Jack is kidnapped. Of course, Frank is the prime suspect by the police and is pursued from that point forward by the police.

After following the kidnappers orders and paying $5 million, Jack's parents retrieve him safe and sound and everything seems great. Without giving anything away, this is where the real problem begins.

Katie Nauta delivers a stand out performance in what I believe is her film debut. She has an awesome screen presence and would have liked to see her have a bigger part. She is exactly what Hollywood needs, in my opinion. Someone sexy, new and a little different. She reminds me of both Rebecca Romijn and Fairuza Balk.

Jason Statham is great, as usual. Easily the best part of this movie. Jason is England's answer to Jackie Chan. The fight scenes are a little more over the top than the original movie and the same goes for the car chase scenes. While the chase scenes were wild in the first one, it does not come close to the absurdity in the sequel. As seen in the preview, the car jumping scene is not very realistic. It looks like it belongs in XXX: State Of The Union. Don't get me wrong, I liked that movie and I like this one. A lot. I just wish it could have been more like the original. I would still recommend this movie and rate it 8/10.
39 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Action for Action Fans! Highly Entertaining and enjoyable.
maximumdvd2 September 2005
This movie is as advertised and deserves the high rating on simply on delivering the Action, Action and more Action! Of the 88 minutes, it feels as if 80 minutes was pure action. If you are expecting to see Drama the likes of Saving Private Ryan or character acting like Pulp Fiction, you will be disappointed and missing the entire boat altogether.

This movie is a visual roller-coaster blast of 100% pure Action. Make no mistake, the action here is top notch, so all of you Action fans run to the theaters and see this movie. If you are the type that is going to try and find plot holes or can't enjoy ACTION movies for what they are, then don't bother going. I'm a fan of all movies (yes, even romance), and I must tell you, this movie is an ACTION fans dream!
74 out of 148 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Utter, utter, utter rubbish
petesake-113 January 2007
I don't normally write these kind of comments, but felt compelled to review what I consider to be possibly the worst movie I've ever seen.

Don't get me wrong- I LOVE this genre. When I had completed construction of my drastically overhauled 5.1 channel surround sound home theatre system, I wanted a movie containing tons of great noises- explosions, gunfire, fighting, cars, etc... what can I say, I'm a simple guy with simple tastes. So my buddies and I chose this. What a mistake. Now, I can put up with a lot of poetic license. But this movie really was beyond the pale. I don't know who the woman was who played the blonde femme-fatale (and I really don't care)but she was completely miscast. Utterly unbelievable in this role, I doubt she'd be believable in ANY role. I can't begin to list how many times I just plain got angry at this movie- the bullets from a sub-machine gun failing to penetrate a cheap plywood door, the 'removing a bomb from underneath a car with a crane hook' sequence... actually, just trying to list them is irritating. Do yourself a favour- never watch this movie.
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Stupid Overdone Action - but still a Guilty Pleasure
zickbert28 July 2005
I saw the movie at a pre-screening in Munich - people were cheering a lot but mostly at the (tremendously overdone) action parts.

Less driving, more fighting and lots of matrix-like action - not as good as the first one (it got those bullet air ripples). Although some characters are quite … likable - they are rather poor crafted stereotypes.

I don't want to spoil anything here so I just say that the story clearly plays second fiddle to the action- lots of things are left unexplained or not shown at best. The movie is really fast paced and fast cut so are the fighting sequences pretty similar to "Kiss of the Dragon" for example. The martial arts and action in general is really good but some of it is so far flung from reality that even the action enthusiast sitting next to me suspiciously raised an eyebrow especially at the end - sometimes it felt more like a superhero movie than like an action movie from France.

If you are going to see the movie leave your brain at home and you will have an entertaining time - if you are not prepared to do that stay home together with you brain.
47 out of 93 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The BEST WORST movie ever!
borixxx29 January 2006
Wow... just wow... I remember watching the first Transporter movie. I never had high expectations, and I was neither surprised or disappointed. Same thing went with this action flick. It was so bad that it was good! It did not have any real storyline, it was amazingly corny, and so badly directed that it was one of the most entertaining films in movie history! Definitely worth a watch, it seriously should also be categorized as comedy.... The only problem I had with the movie was... "Where the hell did the hot Asian chick from the first movie go? It's as if he dumped her and never spoke of her again...."

Either way, give the movie a shot, you will definitely enjoy it...

35 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Sequel to a great action film is in most ways better than the original, yet is some how missing something to make it perfect
dbborroughs3 September 2005
The original Transporter is one one of my favorite films. Its mindless fun with great characters that makes me stop every time I run across it while channel surf. How could they top it? Apparently quite easily.

The plot of the movie has Frank relocated back to the US, Miami in particular, where he is filling in for a friend who is the driver for the family of a federal drug official. During his time filling in he has grown close to the young son of the family and promises not to let anyone hurt him. Of course the boy is kidnapped and Frank is not only a suspect, he's also the only one who can save the boy and stop the real plot which involves mass murder.

The key thing to understand about this film is that it is completely fantastic and unreal. The stunts, the plot, the whole thing, is completely impossible. If you can accept that fact and just go with it the you'll have a great time. If you want reality in your movies stay home, this movie is completely unreal.

The action is spectacular, and the film makers have out done themselves. Its amazing. Everything about the fights and chases is absolutely first rate.

The characters are great. Frank is the same great character from the first film. We get to see him actually grow as a person. We feel for him as we see him act as the frantic surrogate father, and our heart breaks as we see somethings go wrong. Taconi, the police inspector is back, and is a joy to behold. I wish that he was better used, but just having him on screen is enough for me.

The villains are monstrous people who will do anything to anyone for money or pleasure. They are truly suitable foils for our hero. They are so good, that you never know from the get go how bad things are going to get, or if Frank will actually get out of this alive. Its so nice to have bad guys you can really hate.

The plot is much tighter than in the first film, which completely broke down about half way in. Sure, the first movie was fun to the end, but you had to ignore the fact that it really didn't work. Here the movie is a very tight very taut thriller that seems almost alien when compared to the first one, which seemed less serious.

The fact that this is a tighter and better plotted thriller makes the fact that there is a major plot jump less easy to accept. There is a moment when Frank finds out whats really going on and he doesn't really tell anyone. He doesn't clue in the police (which he should considering whats really transpiring) he just continues the one man crusade to get the bad guys (for those keeping score its about the time he leaves the bio-lab).

Yes, I understand that the movie up to this point has more plot holes than you could drive a fleet of trucks through, but there is a whacked internal logic that allows for some of the holes, but not this. It wobbles the film slightly in that other things become more glaring, like the sense the film is missing part of the soul that made the first film such a great balls to the wall thrill ride.

Don't get me wrong I love this movie and as a guilty pleasure its probably going to be on my list of best films of the year, but I should have liked it more... which is an odd thing to say about a film I'm rating 9 out of 10.

Great action. Great Characters. A plot with more holes in it than all the swiss cheese ever made. If you love action see this movie.
39 out of 78 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Pretty bad....
MovieMan197526 September 2005
"Suspension of disbelief" is applied to movies such as the most excellent James Bond movies, or Indiana Jones,... but not The Transporter 2. A terribly plotted action movie that has action soooo ludicrous that the movie becomes, well... completely cheezy and ludicrously bad. Even the FX were terrible. The characters were so clichéd and cookie cutter C-movie level. This shoulda be straight-to-video. Jason Statham is somewhat a likable hero with some screen presence, but in the movie, he turns into Neo from The Matrix, literally even flying at some points. Really really lame acting from the entire supporting cast... Horribly painful dialogue and plot points.... It didn't even look good... I don't even feel good writing this.

The first Transporter film was one of the better action films of the last coupla years (along with Jet Li's cradle to the grave, and Die Another Day for ex.), this trash, was disappointing at best.
12 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I plan on stabbing out my eyes to relieve the pain resulting from the intake of the film.
The-Internet1 October 2005
First there are a number of positive things that can indeed be said about this "film". As a stand alone movie, its a romp, a great Dukes of Hazzard including viruses adventure. Lots of gratuitously enjoyable T & A, action so densely packed you need to blink a little more often than normal to get ready for the next scene. And lots of good clean action-film fun. However, this was NOT a stand alone movie, it had a basis of rules we have come to expect this universe to obey. It had a very well laden rather uncommonly found, and well built foundation, and it is obvious that the makers of this film decided to completely ignore that foundation, thusly as a sequel Transporter 2, well, what can be said is that this was one of the worst sequels ever, why? Because it obeyed all the tried and true bad sequel rules, the most major two of which are addition of flavors, and acceleration of importance, both of these, thrown in with a brand new love interest, and a near cameo-appearance type performance by François Berléand, where he played a masterful and taught protagonist in disguise in the first movie, he played something more on par with Brain, the dog character from the inspector gadget cartoon, whilst the transporter himself, turned from a simple character with simple values, into an international super spy, relying more on gadgets and stealth, than his fists or personal cunning, but i digress, back to my previous point. The addition of a female assassin, who is so sexy she in fact does not wear a full set of clothing once in the movie, her entire wardrobe consisting of lingerie, and fishnets, with the occasional super thin robe, just screams desperation from the filmmakers, as an addition of flavor. While the first movie, had a more humanitarian plot, as the problem in question was not plaguing the planet, had it continued, it would not be on ones doorstep, but none the less is a hot political topic, whilst, the sequel, was more James Bond (not bad mouthing the legend mind you) and over the top than anything, as an acceleration of importance, this is supposed to put you into a state of recognition as a REAL threat, whereas this scale of global threat, presented in this fashion, was too unreal to ever even begin to believe. If nothing said so far as put this movie in bad perspective, then let me sum up the worst of scenes, in the entire movie for you, a bomb, threatening to detonate soon, is attached to the bottom of the transporter's super car, and so faced with this threat he decides to jump his car over a docking area, very close to a dangling chain with a hook on the end, so close in fact, that it hits the bomb attached to the bottom of the car hard enough to yank it off, without altering the trajectory of the car at all. In the shortest of terms "Perfect stand alone action film, devastatingly bad sequel"
21 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed