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 »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 3 of 34: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 339 reviews in total 

11 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

An insult to everybody

Author: (roibm)
24 April 2006

This movie had very few good ideas(say the taxi guy, partial the french guy). As about bad ideas, it had plenty. I guess it took the worst ideas ever from at least 20 other movies.

And what really made it sick is the open advertising of the new A8(I'm an Audi owner myself, but when I pay for a movie I don't want to watch no advertising every 2 seconds), the sick visuals and the blonde who shouldn't have received no pay for the acting(if you may call it acting), the advertising done for her(a lot) should have been enough pay.

All in all, sick... worthy of the "Mystery Science Theater 3000 Top 5 Worst Movies Ever".

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

Very likely the worst Major studio release of 2005

Author: BrownDerby ( from United States
26 September 2005

This was absolutely the biggest disappointment in a sequel that I've ever seen.

The majority of chase scenes are generic and those that are even a little imaginative are laugh out loud unrealistic (e.g. Wave runner on the street).

The vehicle stunts look like they were storyboarded by a 3 yr old with a perfect cartoon imagination and a good set of Hot Wheels. Vehicles jumping from one high rise into another which is 8-10 stories lower and then driving off unscathed. A 50' high ramp jump with the car rotating 360 degrees side over side into mid air in order to make use of an 8" iron hook dangling from the cable on a construction crane followed by the vehicle landing again on all fours and continuing on. I just knew that Wiley Coyote and the Road Runner had to appear at any minute.

Dodging bullets in a hallway after they have been fired from the gun from 20 feet away..........

Whats even more salt in the wound is the fact that the story is weak and most of the acting is too. He starts out as a babysitter and never gets beyond it or even comes close to the role he played in 1. There is absolutely no comparison to this and the original Transporter. It was like no one involved in this production even saw the first one. I walked out about 20-30 min before the scheduled end. A total waste of time.

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 36 people found the following review useful:

I plan on stabbing out my eyes to relieve the pain resulting from the intake of the film.

Author: The-Internet from United States
1 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"

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Nothing lower then 1 star? Darn

Author: robnels2000 from USA
24 February 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Aside from a very predictable story there were the car stunts.

I was very disappointed in this movie; I liked the original Transporter even though it took a lot of liberty with the driving effects. This took the facts of what a car can do and threw them out the window.

Not to mention what they did with the jet ski.

Oh my god, do people REALLY believe these things are possible?? Like you can jump a car flip, it upside down, and strip a bomb off then land on all four wheels and drive away. WTF???

Or crash through the safety wall of a parking ramp and land safely in the building under construction across the street?? How would you get down to ground floor, take the elevator?

More mindless car stunts to sell a week stupid script. Here's a clue, if you jump a car you need a take off ramp and once the car lands you need a flat bed tow truck to haul the wreck away.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

the most ridiculous unbelievable nonsense I've ever seen

Author: Neil from United Kingdom
29 January 2008

this film is tripe, the plot is contrives the action is just idiotic.

I loved the first movie. But this is crackers. I cant say i've ever seen an action movie that ever expected you to be a moron. Until now. you have to be a total idiot to take anything seriously. without spoilers. this film just sucks' there's about 300 completely impossible things in this movie. i mean stupidly impossible not just effects.

all i can do to get to 10 lines is say.

this movie is real crap, i mean cruddy , useless , daft, pointless, silly, dopey,

more lines needed, this film sucks ass its bad real bad

if yr on drugs. it might be a watch. if your at all normal.

is that 10 lines yet

don't bother.

1 out of 10

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

This movie is Terrible.

Author: jchavez-2 from United States
5 September 2005

This movie is just stealing and smothering the thunder from the first movie. Much less thought was put into this movie. You have probably seen every action sequence in another movie, and probably better done. It is stereotypical and mediocre at best. Terribly disappointing and I urge you not to spend money on it. God forbid this would become a trilogy. Lacks credibility, thought, taste, and any originality. Time and money would be better spent watching other great movies, like the Transporter One, Snatch, or Long Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Trust me. this movie is not worth watching. If you do see it, don't think it will be any better than the first 20 minutes...

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

Don't Believe the Hype - This Film is a Mess

Author: kptracey
6 September 2005

I went to Transporter 2 last night with low expectations. I wasn't out to the theaters looking for the movie of the century, just a flick to enjoy with my buddy; more something to do than anything else. But it was so bad I left feeling pick-pocketed - "Thanks for your money, Sucker!" The theatrics were OK and Statham marshaled all of his acting skills for a semblance of a good performance. But they were no match for the overwhelming limitations of the writers. A kid in grade-school could do better. You could see where Kamen's ideas, the guy who wrote the first film, were slaughtered by Besson and his blind vision of what he believed were the ingredients of a blockbuster film... leading to inevitable catastrophe.

I want my money back.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Mathew Modine: World's Worst Actor?

Author: davevine from United States
21 February 2006

Is Mathew Modine possibly the world's worst actor? I had to sit through this movie the other night at a friend's house and thought I would explode with disgust at the bad acting. I have seen Jason Statham in some decent roles, but the writing, acting and silly scenes in this Eurotrash movie were really bad. I wonder why they think something like this will really work. The French need to stick to doing what they do best, small art films that nobody but the French care about. And please, please for the love of all that is good in this world, stop giving Matthew Modine work. I have seen better acting in Elementary school plays.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Transporter Poo

Author: Mark Hale ( from United Kingdom
5 April 2008

Having enjoyed the 1st "Transporter" movie, I was severely disappointed by this sequel. Jason Statham and the rest of the cast go through the motions in a tired Miami-based 007 retread, all guns and gadgets and very little of what made the first film so entertaining. The car chases and fight scenes all look stagey and the use of CGI is too obvious.

It's hard to believe that Luc Besson would even think of lending his name to this grubby little film, but there he is in the credits. The man clearly has no shame.

Someone else with no shame is Kate Nauta, who plays a sub-Bond villainess with all the sexiness of a hatstand, despite spending most of the movie semi-naked, tricked out in high heels and some sort of combat body harness. All I can say about her role is that she must have been offered a lot of money.

I managed to sit all the way through "Transporter 2" but it was more in hope than due to any entertainment value. 'Surely it'll pick up soon,' I kept telling myself, but this was a forlorn hope. I still recommend the first "Transporter" as high-octane entertainment, but stay away from this diesel-powered golf cart of a sequel.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

The plot ain't bad, but the action sequences are outrageous and the computer generated scenes cartoonish.

Author: Ray Humphries from Wilkesboro NC
23 January 2007

The first Transporter film was interesting, high action fare with a stoic protagonist who operates by a firm, but restrictive, set of rules. This flick has a serviceable plot, a stoic protagonist with a firm rule set, but is burdened with action sequences more unbelievable than Jackie Chan's and without Jackie's concomitant humor. The computer generated portions are at best cartoonish, while the events they depict completely defy all known laws of motion. One can gloss over most of the bogus car chase sequences, the one in the black Ferrari looks real enough, but the BS in the airplane stinks up the whole deal. I was very disappointed by the film. Involved, fairly well paced action plots are too rare to have them lost in such a morass of unrealistic and physically impossible sequences.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 3 of 34: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

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