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 6 of 34: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [Next]
Index 335 reviews in total 

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Great Movie - If You're 7 Years Old

Author: dgz78 ( from United States
1 March 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Crappy plot - bad guys and a bad virus; bad CGI, I mean really bad; bad acting - I've built tree houses out of 2 x 4s less wooden than some of these performances.

I like good action movies but they have to at least pretend not to insult my intelligence. This movie makes Gilligans Island look like Masterpiece Theater.

Item 1 - Jason Statham dives out of a 2 or 3 story building, landing on the top of a car with enough force to crumple in the roof. He rolls off like he's getting out of bed in the morning. I thought Michael Douglas getting hit by a car and not getting scratched in Basic Instinct was the worst non-injury scene ever but this one topped it.

Item 2 - He drives a car through a railing in a parking garage, across a street and fits perfectly into another parking garage. The physics are ridiculous. The motorcycle jump into the pool of True Lies was just as impossible but at least in that one the driver could see where he was going.

Item 3 - He goes from a car into the wheel well of an airplane as its taking off and then just pops up into a closet. This was unbelievable in so many ways my mind went numb.

Item 4 - The plane goes into a stall and begins a free fall to the ocean. Jason Statham and the bad guy fight like they are standing on the 50 yard line of the Rose Bowl instead of, oh I don't know, being affected by the law of gravity.

And don't get me started about the fight scenes. He takes on 10 bad guys at once, all of whom are nice to attack him one at a time. When he doesn't have a gun, hey, what do you know, neither do the bad guys. And when they have a gun, they don't shoot him.

Katie Nauta plays a bad villianess. I mean, her character is not only bad, she really is a bad actress. And the evil mastermind is even worse.

Never do you think Frank is in real trouble and that it won't end on a happy note. Most sequels are not as good as the original but this one makes Caddyshack II look as good as the original Caddyshack.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:


Author: The_Dinosaur from Australia
23 August 2006

This film is not a thriller or crime as it says in the summery. It is a pure action movie. The acting is not great but lets face it it is a action film and they did not want to waste the budget on 40 takes of the lead face telling billy it is okay. The action is done incredibly well. It is not overdone most of the time. It is over three quarters action. I myself am not a fan of action films and so watching it to begin with was more of a chore. When it was over though i was entertained, it took an hour and a half out of my life but i don't mind. Friends who like action movies loved it and they were the films target audience. Most action movies these days are just stupid but this was less stupid. Not stupid enough to draw attention to its own stupidity at least. The characters are easily identified as good or bad characters. There is not anything wrong with this film for what it is, which is a action film and that is all. For a action film it was made perfectly and did not make a attempt to cross genres which many action films do these days, ie; films try to put in mystery or crime and just make a bad film. this is what it is and cannot be criticized by somebody who doesn't know about action films.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

paint your bathroom instead...

Author: mr-syfx from United Kingdom
14 September 2005

OK, i watched the first transporter on DVD a few days ago, after seeing this i feel cheated out of my money, the first film was a little far fetched, but it worked in its own typical action movie way, #2 how ever is absolute garbage, how any man regardless of army special forces training can dislodge a bomb by 'BARREL ROLLING' a car up a pipe ramp onto a crane hook and successfully land on all 4 wheels is beyond me, i doubt god himself could do it.

next the car chase with the psycho hooker with the Uzi's leaping a 100 feet into a half built tower block, and ass usually, stopping 5cm before the edge (typical) and then a helicopter being blown up by a few Uzi rounds is to put it mildly, very far fetched... it would been better if he had decided to elbow the crazy lady in the face a few times, knock her groggy, open her door and shove her out. end of movie, what a way to spend my £6 on a ticket :D this film is frankly total garbage, its like Kenan and Kel on acid with a fire arms permit, i SERIOUSLY hope that he was paid well for this rubbish.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

Might end up on the worst of 2005 list

Author: Greg ( from Oakville, Ontario
11 September 2005

Ranking right up their with the audiences yearning for another sequel to the Bad Boys franchise, Jason Statham is back in the very cleverly titled Transporter 2.

Now for those of you who can hardly remember the first film, don't worry. Both it and now its sequel are tailored so that you can waste time inside an air conditioned theatre and forget almost everything you've seen just hours after the lights come back to full illumination.

This time round script writers Robert Kamen and Luc Beeson decided that it would be easier to just copy the premise of last year's Man on Fire and throw our hero Frank Martin (Statham) into the Denzel Washington role. That means there will be a kidnapping of a small child that was under the protection of our hero and there will also be plenty of mindless violence as he searches for the youngin he feels responsible for losing.

Now I happen to like Jason Statham. I liked him in Snatch, The Italian Job and even Cellular. He has a charisma to him. A coolness this side of Steve McQueen. Problem is he keeps picking up scripts that even John Saxon would have turned down.

Transporter 2 has nothing going for it outside of Statham's presence. It's filled with enough bad stunts and even worse cartoonish villains that even the most outlandish of James Bond films would be embarrassed to utilize such farce. Take for instance the scene where Frank must flip his car through the air to hit a suspended wire in hopes of tearing from the autos underbelly a very well hidden car bomb. I watched this scene uneasy in my theatre seat and would not have been surprised if Wyle E. Coyote was shown in the background huffing and puffing as his plan was foiled.

Things do go boom and Jackie Chan would probably be impressed with the fighting contests in particular one clever scene where Frank utilizes a fire hose to engage the baddies. But amongst the few half decent moments there are countless mindless scenes and plot lines that include a virus antidote being stored inside the bad guy (never seen that before!) and a completely implausible ending that takes place inside a private jet.

Transporter 2 may not be the worst movie of the year, but I highly doubt that by the time I get to the end of the calendar for 2005 that this clunker doesn't end up on a few Bottom 10 lists.

Recommendation: Stay away at all costs. It will be on TBS four times a week starting in 2006.

Was the above review useful to you?

35 out of 69 people found the following review useful:

The BEST WORST movie ever!

Author: borixxx from Canada
29 January 2006

Wow... just wow... I remember watching the first Transporter movie. I never had high expectations, and I was neither surprised or disappointed. Same thing went with this action flick. It was so bad that it was good! It did not have any real storyline, it was amazingly corny, and so badly directed that it was one of the most entertaining films in movie history! Definitely worth a watch, it seriously should also be categorized as comedy.... The only problem I had with the movie was... "Where the hell did the hot Asian chick from the first movie go? It's as if he dumped her and never spoke of her again...."

Either way, give the movie a shot, you will definitely enjoy it...


Was the above review useful to you?

Never make a promise you can't keep....l

Author: FlashCallahan from Leicester, United Kingdom
16 November 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Professional driver Frank Martin is living in Miami, where he is temporarily filling in for a friend as the chauffeur for a government narcotics control policy maker, and his family.

The young boy in the family is targeted for kidnapping, and Frank immediately becomes involved in protecting the child and exposing the kidnappers.....

The first one was a surprise hit, and it was easy, high concept stuff, so it would be silly to not make a sequel, and Jason Statham's star was on the rise too.

And it's more of the same stuff, Frank losing his shirt several times, comedy bad guys, a villainess who wears almost next to nothing for no apparent reason, and of course,there is always the comedy sidekick who helps Frank on his way, and gets him out of scrapes.

But, it's not as good as the first movie, and its blatantly stolen from Man On Fire, but with this time, the added bonus of an airborne virus.

The fights are as thrilling as the first, and the last act is hilariously over the top, but you cannot shake that feeling of Man On Fire.

And wondering what happened to Matthew Modine.

Was the above review useful to you?

Funnier and more action-packed than its predecessor

Author: brchthethird from United States
9 November 2014

Now having seen all three of the Transporter films, I feel comfortable in my assessment of the third one as pure crap. While this and the previous entry don't really qualify as great cinema, they can still be enjoyed as entertainment. This sequel offers up a similarly thin premise, but executes it effectively and with little downtime for needless exposition. In fact this one is more streamlined than the first, clocking in at about 6 minutes shorter. The basic plot has Frank racing against time to get the antidote for a virus that infected a US government official and his family (and potentially a whole lot of other people). However, despite the shorter running time, everything that was good about the previous film is better in this one, namely the action sequences. The acting is mostly decent, although one of the villains, a female, didn't do as well as everyone else. Thankfully, she was quite a character and fairly easy on the eyes. Of course, it almost goes without saying that the fight choreography was excellent, done by Cory Yuen, who directed the first one. There was a really balletic quality to the fights that made them fun to watch, and the shooting style was able to adequately capture Jason Statham's abilities. The editing was a bit tighter this time around, but it also had the effect of making the hits seem harder, which I suppose is a good thing. There are only a couple of other things I feel worth mentioning in terms of the overall look and feel of the picture. Even though is from Luc Besson's production house, at times it looked and felt like a Michael Bay film, but not necessarily in a bad way. Part of this is due to the over-saturated color scheme which Bay uses in his film these days. Part of it could also be that it was set in Miami, which is where BAD BOYS and its sequel were set. Other than that, though, the cinematography was better and the humor was more appropriate than one finds in a Michael Bay film. Overall, the plot is just as ludicrous and convoluted as the first, perhaps more so, but the fight choreography and action sequences are a slight step up. Recommended for fans of the first one.

Was the above review useful to you?

Arguably the Best of the Statham Trilogy

Author: Nexus Engel from Canada
8 August 2014

I didn't enjoy this movie the first time I'd seen it, but maybe that's because I didn't give it my full attention, because upon my second viewing, it was MUCH better than before. In fact, I might go so far as to say this is the best of the series so far. It's definitely better than the third one.

Here we have Statham playing Frank, who's now the driver for the child of a wealthy family in Miami, bringing him to and from school on weekdays. Well, he's asked to drive the kid to the doctor's office for a routine check-up, but that doesn't end well. As it turns out, a bio-terrorist-for-hire is after the boy to get to his father, Jefferson, because of his government job, and although Frank gives them one hell of a chase, they manage to take the kid and hold him for ransom. Frank's determined to get him back, and stop the terrorist plot our villain's got in store for Jefferson and the politicians he'll be seeing at the summit.

If you thought the first movie was ridiculous, this one beats it for sure. It's got ridiculousness in spades; gravity-defying car flips, more one man army fist fights, and one of the most amusingly creative ways to dispose of a bomb on the bottom of your car--while you're driving it.

Seriously, it needs to be seen to be believed.

Was the above review useful to you?

Diverted but yet better than the first

Author: Nishant Srivastava from india
30 July 2012

The duo of Luc Besson & Robert Mark Kamen does the magic again to keep up their reputation. Much better screen play then the first part but a bit diverted, how? i will discuss as i go further. This movie is a tribute to Michael Stone (director of photography for this flick) , who died in an accident. We will surely miss him & remember him with his implacable Cinematography in flicks like Pearl Harbor & Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.

Movie starts as Frank has relocated to Miami, Florida where as a favor to a friend, Frank is driving for the wealthy Billings family . He unexpectedly bonded with junior Jack Billings age 6, who he drives to school. But when Jack is kidnapped, Frank must use his battle- tested combat skills to retrieve the boy. At first it looks like a kidnapping for ransom but it turns out much bigger conspiracy.

With better screenplay & much better villain(Alessandro Gassman) who fights till the end, which is so real to watch. Jason Statham shows his skills in performing stunts. That fighting sequence with water melons as boxing gloves was so creative & hilarious at the same time & the sprint on the roof was amazing.The leading lady Amber Valletta as Audrey Billings was much more powerful in her performance then Qi Shu in the first part.

Many negative aspects again haunt this sequel. To start with main theme, all that illegal transportation ,with those rules in the first part gone .Fighting sequence with Lola(Kate Nauta) should have been more thrilling, it was very short.The stunt where frank removes the bomb plotted under his car by flying through the ship anchor was so unrealistic. Matthew Modine (Jefferson Billings)performing so weak in this flick with much better screenplay,this flick again lands 6/10 in my list with so many loopholes , i recommend it only for entertainment.If u want to watch some thing which is more meaningful better watch something else.

Was the above review useful to you?

A good film, but unrealistic

Author: Pjtaylor-96-138044 from United Kingdom
26 January 2012

So i watched transporter 2 yesterday, and let me say, its one of the most ridiculous films i've seen. But that's not to say it's bad. It's good fun and has some great fight scenes. It's under 1hr 30mins, so its short. But the film offers some good moments. I liked the far fetched car chases and action scenes. It provided a break from the many realistic action films out there. And that's what this film is. Pure action. From beginning to end, it provides thrills. This is one of the better action films i've seen, but by far not the best. But this is a good film to watch when you have a spare hour or two. I would recommend this.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 6 of 34: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [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