Transporter 2 (2005) Poster

(2005)

User Reviews

Add a Review
342 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
7/10
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.
53 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
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.
201 out of 294 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
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.
15 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
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?
91 out of 138 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
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 :)
44 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
A good Friday night popcorn flick.
Mike (CapnMikel)17 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.
86 out of 135 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
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
34 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
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")
23 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
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.
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
a slippery slope of CGI nonsense and ridiculous stunts
j thorsvik3 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.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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