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 6 of 34: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [Next]
Index 340 reviews in total 

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

The Only Thing that Makes it Worthwhile is Jason Statham

Author: Jakealope from Albany, NY
22 September 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

with his cool cockney attitude. You can like him and he makes the best out of a harebrained, cliché ridden infantile plot. Basically, the movie is all impossible stunts, the Matrix in Miami today. But Statham's non Bond performance is so much more watchable than wooden Keanu's Neo. Here is an example of the silly stunts that make it so ridiculous; the bad guys place a bomb under his car which he discovers by it's reflection in another car's window. So they let him drive away so they can remote detonate it. Instead of looking for some bump or obstacle to knock it off, it's only held on by magnets, he pulls this amazing corkscrew barrel roll in mid air so that the hook on a construction crane can knock it off 20' in the air. Get it now? The car, some hopped up V-12 Audi, is almost the co-star. Then throw in his culinary orientated French friend for laughs, along with a crew of demented Russian bio war creeps and some Italian Kung Fu master evil lord type, and you can guess this is not ripped from the headlines like Law and Order. Final stupid stunt, the good and bad guy fight in an out of control jet and when it crashes into the water in a dive, the shock doesn't turn them to jelly. Of course, the evil guy has to be saved by Mr Good so they can use his blood to save his little boy charge and the kid's obnoxious powerlunch parents. Basically, there is this incredibly complex plot to infect all these anti drug big wigs by infecting the kid; who'd spread it to his father then to everyone else. Since the virus is spread through coughing and they have the antidote, you'd think they could just send one of their infected guys to cough on the kid in public. But no, the geniuses have to murder the kid's doctor and nurse in a real brutal way and impersonate them so imperfectly that our cockney Bond sees right through itSaccharine!

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Won't transport you very far.

Author: BrigitteD from Canada
17 September 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

An inevitable sequel to its 2002 predecessor (which I have never seen), "Transporter 2" reintroduces its multi-purpose action hero, Frank Martin, whose driving and crime-fighting are all part of a regular day's work.

Jason Statham is a debonair, albeit, inferior James Bond wannabe. Overall, he's not a very impressive actor, but as an action man, he's rather efficient in the material he's presented with.

The material in question is nothing more than a montage of implausible stunt sequences and cartoon villains conjured from the creativity of director Louis Leterrier and French screenwriter Luc Besson, in the kind of child abduction avenging scenarios we have seen executed many times before, in a much better fashion.

Seeming to borrow elements from one such example, "Man On Fire", Frank is assigned to chauffeur Jack (Hunter Clary), the young son of a wealthy couple (Amber Valetta, Matthew Modine), on his daily route to and from school. It is soon obvious that there's a strain in the couple's marriage, and beneath the wife's gratitude towards Frank, there is also an undercurrent of attraction as well.

Soon, the boy is kidnapped by drug ring smugglers who intend to use Jack as a human weapon by injecting him with a lethal virus which would ultimately infect those around him.

Suspecting that more than just a simple ransom demand is involved, Frank sets out to locate both the boy and obtain the antidote to the administered virus before it's too late.

Because the whole premise is overly outrageous and because the villains are more slapstick than threatening, the viewers are never inclined to invest much sympathy towards the victims or any interest in the outcome.

Otherwise, if you're looking for a last dose of mindless entertainment from the late summer's leftovers, or simply looking for a temporary substitute until the next James Bond installment, this film should be quite effective.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Pure Cheese

Author: FANatic-10 from Las Vegas, NV
14 September 2005

This has to be the cheesiest movie I've seen in ages. So cheesy it should have starred Jason Stilton and Amber Velveeta. Its loopy enough to make one of Sylvester Stallone's wretched 80's action films, say "Cobra" look like a masterpiece. I'm willing to suspend disbelief to a large extent on a movie like this, especially for the action sequences (its astounding that Audi still looks brand new and unscratched at the end), but this movie couldn't even get the basics right. For instance, was the kid in this adopted? He's supposed to be the child of Amber Valletta and Matthew Modine (who's slipped a long way, by the way)? Did they check out his ethnicity before hiring him, or think nobody would notice that he seems to be Latino? What the...? I went along with this for a while, in the spirit intended, but by the end this seemed funnier than most of the lame-brained comedies Hollywood has foisted on us this year. At least I laughed way more. In that sense, it is entertaining and there's cheesy action galore, but don't expect logic, coherence or good film-making.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

When Directors change, so do the standards

Author: SpiderbiteStudios from United States
11 September 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Now I will be the first one to admit that 'Transporter 2' was an exciting movie, with lots of action and a great lead actor (Jason Statham). But what I will not do is lie to you about what a different Director can do to the overall feel of a sequel.

This movie was a little over the top, even for an action flick. Many times when different Directors take over a sequel, they lose that little something that made the first one so good. In this case it is some basics of reality and gravity, not to mention the way 'Frank Martin' even acts toward his enemies. In the first movie, he was just a guy that could kick butt, but when the guns started blazin' he would get the hell out of the way just like everyone else. In this movie the director has him walking toward some people firing a gun at him, like he is the T1000 from T2 ... I mean what the hell?!?! When fight scenes in the first movie took place, he used what he had on hand to fight the bad guys. An excellent example of this was the shipping container doors ... just some really good use of space. In this movie, they tried to do the same thing (since I guess they know that is what made the first one fun also) only they do it in such a way that just takes you out of the reality of the moment, and it is very distracting. The only fight sequence in the sequel that comes close to keeping reality a factor (if only for movie reality) was the 'firehose fight'. But the jumping from the car to the landing gear, I just could not believe that they even did that.

And one other thing ... I like a girl in her underware firing a gun as much as the next guy, but to put it in a movie like the Transporter 2 was almost like saying "look, I know this movie isn't going to be as good as the first one, so let's stick a half-naked chick in there to get the kids to come see it." The bringing back of Tarconi for comic relief was kind of nice, but again ... it kind of felt like they really had pulled away from so many things that made the first one enjoyable. And I just hate it when a director does that, even if he DID work on the first one with the first Director.

All in all I am glad that I saw this movie, because of Jason Statham, and because it is a sequel, and I am a movie junkie. But to try to put it along the same lines of quality as the first one ... it's just not going to happen.

5 out of 10 stars

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Pretty Bad

Author: searsts from Texas
9 September 2005

Here's the deal. This movie is far-fetched. "Well," you may say, "so was Star Wars or Rocky." The thing is, a plot must make itself believable within its setting. If its setting is in outer space, then naturally there are greater possibilities (which is why there are some many kick-butt alien movies). But the action in the Transporter is so unbelievable that you don't even get excited when something exciting is supposedly happening. Its too good to be true, so its lame. The best comparison I can make is to the popular conception of Benny Hinn. If he is really healing people, that is one thing; however, most people don't think he ever could so he just looks silly up does our protagonist in the Transporter.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Dim witted and action packed

Author: chatpilot from New York
6 September 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I must admit that I am a fan of the original Transporter.When I found out that there was going to be a sequel to it I put it on my must view list.Unfortunately after going to the opening I must say that I was very disappointed with it.

My main problem with it was some of the action sequences.There was one scene in particular that caught my eye.Our hero Jason Statham runs toward a moving truck.Lunges on to the hood and climbs up the windshield and up onto an overpass.Besides the impossibility of anyone ever pulling off such a stunt,It felt as if you could almost see the wire pulling him up.Although it was not visible the way he flew up that truck well you can almost imagine seeing the wire.

Also I was disappointed with the last fight scene.The villain is shown in one scene of the movie kicking several guys asses with his kendo stick.But when he fights Statham it's done on an out of control airplane which took away from the climatic fight scene in my opinion.

If you go in expecting a blockbuster you might be disappointed as I was.But if you don't mind some of the absurdities then you might enjoy it.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Take your popcorn and cola and....

Author: petarmatic from Sarajevo B&H
21 January 2014


It is a cute film. Actually I liked it better then the first one. It has better stunts and a girl is cool. Well, all that car action and breaking glass and stuff, I guess it has to happen. Really cool film for relaxation.

Acting is cool and up to par with this kind of film. Plot is nonsense but it wants to be. It simply it is that kind of film.

If you like to relax with your girl friend on the love seats this is a film for you.

Otherwise go elsewhere.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

I want an Audi W12 and a Panerai wristwatch.

Author: David Love from United Kingdom
31 January 2013

Rule 1. Respect the man's car – the man respects you. Rule 2. Greet the man. Good afternoon, Frank. Rule 3. Put on your seat belt. Rule 4. Never make a promise you don't intend to keep.

Frank likes rules.

Jason Statham is brilliant again as Frank Martin, Transporter. The accent is still a bit odd, but consistent this time. Francois Berleand (Inspector Tarconi) is back as the only other surviving decent actor from the first film, though he's a bit more of a comic turn in this one, which is shameful waste of his talents.

Of the newcomers, Kate Nauta is stunning as Lola. I liked Amber Valletta as Audrey Billings (nice relationship with Frank). But the other performances are poor again. What is it with this franchise? Other films find decent actors.

The over-the-top action is more knowing, more witty in this one. But the camera-work is less good. Still we get a great opening sequence and more stunning driving scenes.

The fights are well choreographed again but not as well filmed as Transporter 1. Overall though, I think this is a better film.

I want an Audi W12 and a Panerai wristwatch.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Very silly big budget action-masturbation flick

Author: Framescourer from London, UK
10 December 2008

Another slick, music video of an action film from the pen of Luc Besson. This one has a seriously improved budget which Louis Leterrier has clearly spent on a real actor (Modine) and a filter for almost every lens. The film looks bleached in hot urine.

Good things. Statham - actually, he's not as good as I was expecting, but he's got a charisma which carries a film such as this. The choreography is just OK but is enhanced by the manner in which it is filmed and stuck together. The art design succeeds despite the colour-cranking filters and young men should be very happy with the sub-Lara Croft weapon-wielding waif who'd prefer not to have any wardrobe at all.

There's too much silliness though to allow one to engage with the film. The story's perverse and worn at the same time. Statham's escape rate makes Bond look like he prefers to stay out of trouble. There are at least five different stunts which are difficult to construct even with CGI. Worst of all, Statham turns down Amber Valletta coming on to him when she's drunk. Impossible. 4/10

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Makes Unreality Seem Realistic

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?

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