IMDb > Transporter 2 (2005) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Transporter 2
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Transporter 2 More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 11 of 35: [Prev][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [Next]
Index 342 reviews in total 

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A better sequel. This is good trashy fun.

Author: jamiemarks-1 from United Kingdom
7 August 2010

I didn't like the first Transporter but my dad who loves the films propelled me to give the sequel a go and as it turns out this was enjoyable tosh and actually good trashy fun. Yes the script and dialogue is still cheesy with little character or plot development but the action is even more enjoyable than the first with some terrific stunts, nice scenery and great soundtrack music.

What propelled me to give this a higher rating was the acting, which is much better. Jason Statham has improved vastly since the first one and has more emotion in his voice. Francois Berleand who returns as Inspector Tarconi provides the comic element and is much more entertaining in this as he has more to do. But the revelation is Amber Valletta who played the mother Audrey Billings. Her acting was terrific (which is surprising for a film like this). You feel the love and worry she has for her son when he is kidnapped. She has been under-rated in this and deserves more praise. She gives the movie more heart and emotion. All in all I enjoyed this more than the first as the acting has improved and dare I say this had heart.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A lot like the original.

Author: Paul Andrews ( from UK
2 May 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Transporter 2 is set in Miami where transporter Frank Martin (Jason Statham) is now living after the incidents of the original film, he has been acting as a chauffeur to Audrey (Amber Valletta) & Jefferson Billings (Matthew Modine) young son Jack (Hunter Clary). While taking Jack to the doctors for some jabs gangsters try to inject Jack with a deadly virus but Frank manages to prevent this, however the gangsters lead by Italian criminal Gianni Chellini (Alessandro Gassman) kidnap Jack for which the authorities blame Frank. On the run from the police Frank is determined to get Jack back but when Jack is returned seemingly unharmed Jack has to convince somebody that he is in great danger as is everyone else from the deadly virus but no-one will believe him & Frank has to go it alone to stop Chellini & prevent thousands of innocent people being killed by the deadly virus...

This French American co-production was directed by Louis Leterrier & has the same sort of tone as the original The Transporter (2002) which no bad thing to be fair, while not a huge improvement on the original Transporter 2 is certainly up there & I would say just as good. Unfortunately while Transporter 2 shares all the positives of the original like the cool action scenes, likable character's, a quick pace (Transporter 2 runs a mere 16 seconds less than The Transporter which may or may not have been deliberate) & an enjoyable sense of fun & adventure it also shares many of the original's flaws with a weak script full of holes & moments that are just plain silly like when Frank spots a bomb under his car he drives off a ramp, does a mid air spin during which the hook of a crane snags the bomb & removes it from the underside of his car before it blows up while Frank just lands the car perfectly & zooms off, also if your going to make a deadly virus & release it why make such a small amount of antidote? Surely if the virus is as contagious as is said it would have the potential to wipe out thousands if not millions across the globe including those who were responsible for it? How did Frank get into the plane at the end? Anyway, once again like the original if you can forgive the sloppy writing & plotting Transporter 2 is a lot of fun, there's a bit more plot here with the relationship between Frank, Jack & Audrey while Jefferson as a politician is the center of a complicated assassination attempt using a deadly virus, I suppose Transporter 2 tries for some darker thriller elements amongst the high octane action. Frank is back with his rules & again those are mentioned constantly, the French policeman is back in a pointless cameo role even though it's nice to have him back although the entire film is shifted from France in Europe to Miami in America.

Again the action scenes are where Transporter 2 shines but they do stretch credibility at times & are often very silly, there's a bit more variety to them this time & they are on an even bigger scale from exploding buildings to car chases to a silly bit where a car jumps from a car park to an unfinished office building (how did they get back to the ground?) to a cool if silly scene in which Frank chases a bus on a jet-ski, the climax is great as Frank & Chellini fight it out on an out of control plane as it does barrel-rolls & some really great balletic fight scenes which go for energy & spectacle rather than brutality as once again Frank uses whatever he can to beat the bad guy's including a fire hose. The film looks great once again, nice sunny bright locations, some really sexy fast cars, guy's in sharp suits & Lola the female assassin who doesn't dress in much & wields twin laser sighted sub machine-guns. The whole film has a clean, bright, colourful & sharp look about it. I suppose Transporter 2 is pure spectacle, apart from the dazzling action scenes & bright colourful look the plot is a mess & not that much is going on. I did like it though, hell I'm easily pleased I guess.

With a supposed budget of about $32,000,000 this was made because of strong DVD sales of the original apparently, filmed in Miami in Florida. The production values are good & you get plenty of action for your money although the CGI computer effects are poor at times & I mean really poor. The original had little CGI while this one has a fair bit like Frank falling out of a window ten storeys high or a car jumping from building to building or the out of control plane at the end & none of it particularly impresses. The acting is alright, again Jason Statham proves to be a likable hero.

Transporter 2 basically shares both the positives & negatives of the original & is pretty much more of the same although this one is maybe a little bit too silly at times for it's own good. Great action & a really nice colourful look to the film help disguise the plot holes & lack of a story, overall I enjoyed it for what it was. Followed by Transporter 3 (2008).

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Not the worst action movie/ but certainly not the best

Author: RoodyMan from United States
28 January 2006

I don't reveal any information that couldn't be seen in the trailers of this movie, so unless you haven't seen them, this shouldn't give anything away. I do agree with the common comments about this movies unrealistic moments. There are at least 5 extremely ridiculous scenes, however, I don't necessarily find any of them to be involved with the hand-to-hand combat. I only believe that the vehicle scenes were pathetic. What from jumping a car off a huge building, and somehow landing it on a floor of a building under construction; to a machine gun blowing a helicopter up in about 3 bullets. Oh, and let's not forget the notorious super jet. Somehow reaching impressive heights in a matter of moments, then spinning completely out of control, but somehow regains control several times, only to radically lose it again. However, the actual fight scenes I found quite satisfying. They seemed nothing more far-fetched than any of Jet Li's movies (coming to mind Jet Li taking on roughly 30 black belts with weapons, in the end police station scene of Kiss of the Dragon). I did notice that during one or two scenes, they tended to do the boring one-enemy-at-a-time routine. I hate that, you have the hero hitting one guy while the others wait their turn. Other than that, the other scenes seemed to be adequately entertaining. Not to mention, the music in this movie seemed to flow quite well. I do find that the main plot was exceptionally decent, but they did seem to trail from it at times. At least it seemed more in depth than the first one. Now don't get me wrong, I like The Transporter a lot, but the whole plot behind it was kind of simple. One more thing, Jason Stathom is turning out in more and more movies, and I feel that he deserves it. I like him as an actor, and find him to be very believable. Not to mention, I enjoy him doing most of his own stunts. Always makes you respect an actor in action films more. Overall, if you're looking for an action movie, and don't mind several extraordinarily unbelievable car/plane scenes, then I would recommend seeing this movie at least once. I've seen it more than once, and I still don't mind it.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Know why you elected to watch it and you're OK

Author: gradyharp from United States
15 January 2006

Luc Besson and Louis Leterrier created such a terrific action thriller with THE TRANSPORTER in 2002, giving Jason Statham the opportunity to create a man of crime so clever and dignified that the film was an instant success. And so what does that mean in movieland? If a little is good, a lot is better. Wrong! As is often the case with sequels the initial creative bite gets diluted as though success of the original will carry the sequel without much work. In the case of TRANSPORTER 2 the story and supporting cast border on the ridiculous, but if you're watching the film just to see Jason Statham in action, then you'll be satisfied.

The appealing aspect of Transporter 1 was the setting - the French Riviera that served as a gorgeous background for all the derring-do of a top-notch cast. Now in Miami, in a role far less interesting than the original plot of Transporter 1, the film strains credibility and that detracts from the thrills. But the good news is that Jason Statham is intact and as fascinating and dexterous as ever. You just have to settle for that (which is a lot) and the movie will satisfy. Let's hope they don't make Statham consider a T 3. Grady Harp

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Could have been better

Author: Loganwolfey from United States
30 November 2005

I must say hearing that there was another Transporter movie really excited me. I was all Gun ho for it. I got to the movie, got in my seat and readied my popcorn and coke. The movie started off good but I soon realized that the people who made this sequel took advantage of there fans and wasted 87 Min's of my life and my money.

We all know that the great thing about the first transporter movie was that the action the fights and the story was different and great. Yes the fights and action would have only been possible if you had a horse shoe up your rectum but they were still shot with some sort of realism to them. Well that was lost with this sequel. Including a car stunt that didn't even remotely look real where the car does a spin in midair and still manges to land on its wheels and a fight with a woman who seems to hover through her whole fight sequence. The story was good and there was still some great fight sequences as long as they left out the matrix/hidden tiger flying butterfly crap but the several mess ups just totally ruined this movie for me. Fans might want to wait for the rental store on this one if they even watch it at all.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Just plain sucks

Author: oenmet_een_k from The Netherlands
15 October 2005

I went to this movie with a fresh mind. I find Jason Statham an excellent actor (just watch 'Lock, Stock and two smoking Barrels' and 'Snatch'), so I hoped for at least a watchable film. But boy, does this one stink.

I don't know about the first 'Transporter', but this one has such a twisted series of events, that the script must have been missing while they were filming.

The action scenes are really over the top. Still,these sorts of films can be fun to watch. This one isn't, the setting is awful, and something fundamental for a film is missing (aka a descent storyline). And to top it off, the 'evil lovers', in the beginning presented as capable of delivering a good fight, are dealt with in seconds, leaving you (well, me at least) really disappointed.

This is really a wast of anyone's time, even if you like B-movie style action films. I really hope to see this 'Statham' in a decent movie though.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Transporter 2 Goof

Author: slim10067
4 September 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The pilot of the private jet sends his co-pilot back to check why the landing gear hasn't risen after take-off at the end of this feature.

Yet in the next scene the exterior of the plane is shown in a tailspin and the landing gear is fully retracted.

Overall the film is really fantastical. Why are federal marshalls conducting an apparent kidnapping, why is the member of the French Surette given free reign of the marshalls computer network, why can they not track the transporter through his car's satellite network connection....?

I could go on but there are so many holes in the plot that the film really doesn't stand up.

As a work of fiction it is OK but only OK.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

It was a Hollywood movie

Author: rdisgo from United States
4 September 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If the movie had a sensible plot and toned down the way over the top sequences, the movie would have been entertaining.

OK. The premise is understandable. The actors understand their roles. However, you never feel like there is real harm or peril. Maybe it was the production style.

The fight sequences were cool, which I guess this is all the movie was about. The chase scenes were just to stupid for words... flying jet ski? car fits perfectly to roll over two buildings. Give me a break oh, and the bomb, if my car could maneuver like that... someone say handy crane? Anyway, if you want to see fight scenes, but silly plot....


Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Action forsaking logic, and it works!

Author: Mr_Censored from Maine
20 August 2009

Jason Statham reprises his role as Frank Martin in "Transporter 2," directed by Louis Leterrier ("The Incredible Hulk") and written by Luc Besson ("The Fifth Element"). Retired from his previous day-job, Martin is now living in Miami and is relegated to playing driver for a wealthy couple and their young son, and he wouldn't have it any other way. He lives a nice and stress-free life, playing somewhat of a nanny by day and enjoying a beer or two on his time off. All of that is put into a tail-spin – naturally – as he gets tangled up with some biological terrorists who plan on infecting the masses with a deadly new virus that kills in just four hours. It's a race against time for as he finds himself once again embracing his talents and matching wits against an Italian with a mean-streak (Alessandro Gassman) and a sexed-up but lethal vixen (Kate Nauta).

"Transporter 2" is the best kind of action film you'll find these days. When you want to turn off your brain and simply soak up as much high-octane action as you can, this is exactly the kind of movie you should be searching for. The action is outrageous and defies physics, but none of that matters in a movie like this. If you can check logic at the door, the film will reward you all the more for it. You also don't need to be very well-versed in the previous film, as not only is the character of Frank Martin re-established well enough, but also because Jason Statham plays essentially the same role in every film he does. As always, he is in top form, charming and intense as the hero du jour. The film is host to some over-the-top performances from its villains and some ridiculous action scenes (get a load of how Martin rids his car of a bomb!) but is brilliant, stylish and energetic. In the context of the film, you buy the silliness at hand and just sit back and enjoy the ride. If you want a film that respects all you learned in science class, then you have made a wrong turn, my friend. If you seek a thrill-ride of epic proportions, however, you've come to the right place.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

This movie fell short

Author: flyerben311 from Portland, OR
7 September 2005

When I saw the first Transporter movie I was very impressed by the class and attention to detail it possessed. It was one of the best action films out there (in my opinion, of course). It had a European elegance that I thought was very cool. However, the Transporter 2 lacked most everything that made the first one awesome. If you enjoy the mistakes that only Hollywood productions can make, by all means, go see it. It did have an entertainment value and kept me guessing, but I was just guessing at what the production team was thinking when they made some of the choices they made. The only redeeming factors of this movie were the action-packed fight sequences. They maintained some of the originality of fighting that the first one had but still seemed quite preposterous. They should come out with, "The Transporter 3 (we were only kidding about the 2nd one)." All in all, it did not dampen my opinion of Jason Statham who made the movie worth watching. Just don't expect the original.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 11 of 35: [Prev][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
External reviews Parents Guide Official site
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history