|Page 3 of 34:||            |
|Index||339 reviews in total|
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".
This was absolutely the biggest disappointment in a sequel that I've
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
Can be summarized as the most unreal action movie ever made and with a bad story too. The director must see the viewers as complete idiots. If you like to waste 1,5 hours of your life this movie is for you. This is a movie you should get paid for seeing. An example. In what world can you crash a yet plane with full speed into the sea and then just swim away? And his bullet proof car is really ridiculous. There is no material know to man that being about 3 mm thick and transparent can take hits from machine gun bullets and leave no mark. The same goes to the paint job on the car. Bullets leave marks on every car. But if its a bullet proof car the difference is that they don't get to the driver!
I didn't like the original Transporter the first time I saw it. It
wasn't anything in particular, It just didn't give me that sense of awe
and love that one gets when they're exposed to a great action flick.
After watching it a second time, however, I warmed to it. Maybe Jason
Stratham and that Asian babe had really planted themselves inside my
But Transporter 2? I can't see myself ever loving this mess.
Video game movies (not literally film adaptations of video games, but movies that suspend reality to the point of it resembles a video game, a la Charlie's Angels) don't upset me, and it's certainly not the sensibilities of this movie that drive me nuts.
The good things? The outrageous outfits of Lola, the over-the-top fighting and improbable action sequences.
The bad things? Look, I know this isn't a film-school archetype, but let's get real. The acting was horrible. Painful, even. Matthew Modine's performance came off as the most crass paycheck-grab in recent memory. And Stratham? Well, he elevates "emotionless bad ass" to a new level of rigidity. The car chase sequences, particularly involving the one with Lola, Frank running from the cops, was filmed with a disturbing lack of passion - as if the director forgot that close ups, slow motion, or even camera angles existed.
Actually, never mind about the other stuff. Modine's performance is enough to condemn this movie to film hell.
*** This review may contain 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.
Like many sequels, Transporter 2 does not surpass its predecessor in
quality or entertainment value, and actually manages to dumb-down the
intelligence level and over-do the already obnoxiously exaggerated
action. If you've heard of films that are "so bad they're good," this
second outing in the series might just squeeze its way into that
category. Transporter 2 isn't the worst movie ever made, but it has to
be pretty close.
Transporter 2 finds everyone's favorite rule-abiding mover of delicate goods, Frank Martin (Jason Statham), filling in as a chauffeur for the son of a powerful government official (Matthew Modine). When young Jack (Hunter Clary) is kidnapped by a dangerous mercenary-for-hire (Alessandro Gassman), Frank must uncover the nefarious plot behind the crime, rescue the boy, and generally save the day in as outlandish a fashion as possible.
For every well-choreographed, creative action sequence, there are five utterly ridiculous ones that truly epitomize absurdity. An intense duel with a hulking henchman in the confined quarters of a boat make for some unique camera-work and effective combat, and a martial arts-infused fight with a fire hose steals the show for most original and entertaining action sequence. But a dreadfully dull Tarzan-esquire battle with the main villainess, unrealistic bullet dodging, and an anti-climactic airplane crash quickly rescind this action vehicle's license to thrill. And if the majority of these scenes weren't disappointing enough, they're accompanied by awful one-liners and some of the most pitiful special effects in recent history.
The first Transporter movie, while entertaining in its brainless adventure, was wholly unrealistic. The second one practically redefines the word. It's difficult to come up with enough adjectives to describe just how detestably over-the-top every aspect of the film becomes, from the abhorrent, lingerie-wearing antagonist Lola (Kate Nauta) to the badgering use of music and skewed sense of plausibility. Frank retains his use of rules this time out, though the rules of realism have long since been lost. At least a healthy dose of car chases, massive property destruction, and martial arts mayhem keeps Transporter 2 barely watchable. Barely.
- Joel Massie
|Page 3 of 34:||            |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Newsgroup reviews||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|