IMDb > Transporter 2 (2005) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Transporter 2
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
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
Promotional
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 5 of 34: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [Next]
Index 332 reviews in total 

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Makes Unreality Seem Realistic

5/10
Author: evanston_dad from United States
21 November 2008

Jason Statham returns as Frank Martin in this weaker-sibling sequel to the 2002 original.

This time around, he's filling in as chauffeur for a mucky-muck politician (Matthew Modine) and his wife, carting their little boy around from school to doctor to home and back. The little boy is kidnapped by a swarthy villain with an accent and a penchant for walking around with no clothes on and his right-hand man, or should I say woman, who stalks around in red heels and racy lingerie and looks like a satanic version of Twiggy. They inject the kid with a deadly virus in the hopes that he will infect his father who will then in turn pass it on to a conference hall full of world politicians. The villain's one mistake is in making Jason Statham angry, and he comes after him, using all manner of transportation, like cars, jet skis, school buses and, in the grand finale, a private jet plummeting into the ocean.

There's barely any plot, and what plot there is is incredibly preposterous. Many plot strands are left hanging, and the script doesn't even attempt to explain how all of the people infected with this deadly virus are cured of it. It's fun for a while, but even in an outrageous action film, I require SOME semblance of reality.

Statham kicks ass, as is expected, and the movie is (no surprise) at its best when it's moving. When it stops long enough for anyone to actually deliver one of the lines from the script (which could have been written by a 12-year-old), the effect is woeful.

Grade: B-

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

stay away if possible

3/10
Author: Oliver Page (oliverpage547@googlemail.com) from United Kingdom
14 April 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

James Bond looks seems very realistic after watching what this guy can do.

don't understand why they told him to get into an expensive car just to blow him up, when they had about 20 men with machine guns pointed at him. and yes he escaped...

the fighting was laughable, as the goons again attacked one at a time, this was something that always makes me laugh, the storyline was forgettable too.

and since when do FBI agents allow someone in custody to look through their files and speak to a wanted man on their phones? i couldn't believe what i was watching!

the icing on the cake for me was the main bloke, the voice he was putting on was obviously fake and irritating to listen to, so why bother? i never plan on watching this again, but if what i've described is your cup of tea then to each his own.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Transporter Poo

3/10
Author: Mark Hale (extravaluejotter@hotmail.com) 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?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

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

3/10
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?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

An insult to the viewer

1/10
Author: iddt from Sweden
17 June 2006

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!

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

What the hell?

Author: matrix_vs_badboys from Kuwait
29 April 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I tried watching this movie. i knew from the trailer that there was going to be some stupidity and far drawn out moments, fine, thats okay, I've seen more drawn outness from the matrix, and i loved it. so i decided to sit, forgetting about any mechanics or any laws of physics that might be challenged in this movie. I sat through the whole 1 hour and 27 minutes watching jason statham jump around from place to place with extremely dumb methods, i saw him catch a guy who was running by just walking, i saw him drive his car off a building into another building without even having a scratch on it. I've seen his car twist upside down to get rid of a bomb. I've seen a hot woman (kate Naute) hitting on him (waaaaaaaa?).I've seen him punch a fat guy with melons or some kinda of fruit on his hands. I've seen the Jamaican comic relief(who sucked by the way). I've seen him jumping into hot cars and speeding and making everyone else look bad. Now.......where am i going with this you may ask? even though i tolerated the lack of realism, the bad acting, the bad comedy moments and the bad story. I still found this movie highly excruciating. Why? Just look at it! the story was too cliché-ish. like a really sad version of "the professional". the action went too fast, the fighting moves were too unoriginal. the gun fights were just...too stupid. he quickly outsmarted everyone which is kind of hard to do to a 50 people. the bad guys were like villains with bad AI from an old playstation game. the super-villain guy was too cliché-ish, like he was super-badass kong-fu style bad guy from "showdown in little Tokyo". Other than that, the movie lacked intensity, thrill and good action sequence. even the power rangers movie had better action sequence and thrill. the movie went WAY too fast. it was hard to keep track of frank martin as he jumped here to there and before i knew it, he was vaguely fighting the super-villain (who officers lost, because face it, he's the supervillain). and the movie was over. so in the end we were left out with a far-fetched, limitless, tasteless, fast, crappy, rusty movie with bad action sequences, bad acting and a bad story which is set in Miami, the city of bad sequels.lets give a clap to Hollywood for another dumb sequel.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Video game movie for a Ritalin generation

3/10
Author: niangelo from Edmonton
6 February 2006

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 consciousness.

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Beyond silly and stupid

3/10
Author: johnlnick from United States
20 September 2005

*** 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Transporter 2 Movie Review from The Massie Twins

2/10
Author: GoneWithTheTwins from www.GoneWithTheTwins.com
25 November 2008

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

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Makes "Star Wars" look like a documentary.

3/10
Author: fedor8 from Serbia
2 April 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

So many things to learn from a 21st-century Luc Besson action film...

1. If you're fighting a drug cartel, don't ask for aid from the FBI or CIA, because quite frankly the only ones they are ever interested in apprehending are the wrong people.

2. The FBI have never solved a case on their own.

3. High-up government officials are all morons.

4. High-up gov't officials (like Modine) - which are all morons - will not be able to deduce that Statham is not a kidnapper based on the very simple and obvious fact that he brought Modine's son to the gates of the former's villa.

5. FBI personnel will also fail to add 2 and 2, hence not understand the simple fact that a kidnapper would not drive the intended victim all the way to the villa from which he should logically be trying to distance himself - if he really were a conspirator in the kidnapping.

6. The FBI recruits its personnel based on the "we need low IQs" policy.

7. The U.S. government hires people based on the "we need totally clueless, overly emotional in moments of pressure, morons (like Modine)" policy.

8. French directors who cast bad actress-model bimbos in historical spectacles as Joan Of Arc are incapable of rational thought.

9. If your fugitive suspect informs you of his own free will where the kidnappers are carrying the kidnapped person, choose not to trust them.

10. If you are a skinny, ugly 6-foot-3 fashion model, Besson will cast you as a totally unconvincing mob assassin.

11. Having ultra-skinny arms that have neither muscle nor fat tissue will not prevent you from holding heavy guns and then shooting them without missing. Even without looking at the target.

12. Being ultra-skinny and weak from not eating anything for days does not hinder your average fashion model from being the world's most dangerous killer.

13. The FBI and the U.S. police use helicopters that are always greased with oil so that when skinny fashion models shoot at them from a distance they can immediately blow them up.

14. The best way to fight anti-drug gov't officials is to introduce a virus into the world, which will then kill them all. The fact that these people will merely be replaced by new anti-drug gov't officials does not interest you nor does it maybe even occur to you.

15. If you're a Colombian drug dealer, throw a virus into a conference room full of your enemies, then watch as the virus spreads all over the world, killing all your potential customers - and then maybe even your friends and relatives.

16. Colombian drug-cartel bosses are even bigger morons than the FBI.

17. When the FBI apprehends a French police inspector, they let him sleep on a couch right next to dozens of computers with access to top-secret crime data.

18. If you are a super-hero who wants to save the world and are carrying an antidote that might save it, do NOT go to the appropriate authorities, that way speeding up both the investigation and the search for the criminals. Do everything on your own, as much as that might slow you down or cause further complications.

19. When an airplane hits a body of water at full speed, it will not break into tiny bits. Water, as any idiot knows, is too soft to break much of anything. After all, if it really were hard we wouldn't be able to drink it!

20. When an airplane sinks toward the ocean floor at a rapid speed, the deadly increase in pressure does not in any way affect super-heroes and super-villains.

21. All action-movie fashion-model bimbos have flat chests. A lack of an intake of foody substances ensures that no fatty tissues are built up in that area.

22. Casting very English-looking actors as Russian mobsters is a great idea.

23. When you aim a gun at someone who is also aiming a gun at you, neither of you shoot, but instead stare at each other. Why? I have absolutely no idea...

TT2 is strictly for morons.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 5 of 34: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [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