|Page 8 of 34:||               |
|Index||333 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This is the first time I review a movie, I have been wanting to start
writing for a while. Well here I go.
I've been trying to catch this movie on TV for quite a while, and 3 hours ago, I did. After seeing "Transporter 1" I was eager to see this movie since I liked the first one so much. All in all I think this movie is great, many say that it is not realistic and that kind of ruins the movie, I honestly don't think so, it's not so unrealistic, yes some parts are *spoiler?*(cars flying from building to building)*spoiler?* but that doesn't really mess up the movie from my point of view.
The storyline is great, after seeing the first one I think this is a nice change for the second one, I love the driving scenes, fighting scenes, shooting scenes, stealth scenes, everything. I also liked the way that this movie kind of added some comedy in the middle of all the action.
Also this movie has a great cast, Jason Statham is one of my favorite actors and I still haven't even seen "Crank" (supposed to be his best movie.) Alessandro Gassman does a great job being the "bad guy" in this movie. Amber Valletta did a great job in this movie though I don't think Matthew Modine (Mr. Billings) put on his best acting.
So that is my review for this movie, if you have seen it I hope you agree on some of the stuff i've said, if you haven't go watch it, you will enjoy it.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I saw the original transporter and it rocked my socks off. I think it was by far the best raw action movie, with all the familiar adrenaline boosters pushed to the limits. As a result, I was more than a little pumped for the sequel, so I rushed out immediately to the theatre to see it. I was pretty disappointed. I'm usually a pretty attentive viewer, but it took me the second viewing to figure out what the virus thing was actually trying to accomplish. I thought the first 2 acts of the movie were great otherwise. The action was just as good as the first, and the subplot with the inspector was a much needed relief from the lack of plot otherwise. I take issue with other writer's claims that all the action is unrealistic. Specifically, the car jump scene is beyond implausible, but thats OK, it could have just as easily not been there but then we'd be one explosion shy. Otherwise everything looked pretty authentic. I buy that Frank needs to drop more than a few bows to take out a 300 pound gorilla, or that he can beat a bunch of guys with a hose. In real life it probably just wouldn't work, but it could, so I'll take it. The ending is really the only terrible thing. They build up both the baddies to be the fight of the century and the girl gets one shotted and he fights the Latin lover in the cabin of a plane with no room to move. That was the most disappointing thing to me. If they threw a few roundhouse kicks Chuck Norris style or brought the dead back to life with the sheer force of their blows, then I'd probably soil myself, get back in line and watch it again. Oh well, here's hoping they put together a budget and a script for #3.
No doubt about it but Transporter was a good film it had a script,
settings, stunts and some sense of its limitations. Transporter 2
doesn't bother with the limitations though and just goes on stunt
overkill which is a shame really as cars aren't really meant to fly
well not in the way the Audi tends too in Transporter 2.
CGI aside for a while you have the questions as to why the female villain spends 80% of the time in her panties and bra to contend with, why no one runs out of bullets and then the chances of anyone surviving the ending it all makes the film rather like painting by numbers, you get a film but is it as satisfying as creating something original?
End result a mediocre film.
I thought that this was one of the few films that the sequel was actually better than the original. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the original film (great car chase scenes, and cracking fights)but the influence of the girl on the overall plot put me off. Number 2, on the other hand, is only enhanced by the females in it. I enjoyed the parallels between original and sequel, with original cast members being employed along with mannerisms from the original. However, the sequel excelled in all areas, like fight scenes, car chases and plot. OK, its a bit cheesy, some scenes are clearly CGI, and the script won't win an Oscar, but for stopping in on a Friday night with a few beers, you could do much worse than to watch this film.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Slight spoiler (if any). My problem with most adventure movies nowadays is that they're unbelievable without really being "escapist." This one isn't afraid to be - apart from the obvious "human drama" side, about protecting the little boy, it's PURE escapism. But in one area (for me) more than any. The Lola character, played by Kate Nauta, is such a completely over-the-top villainess (making the other characters seem down-to-earth by comparison), that you almost have to either roll your eyes through every scene she's in, or be very glad that some movies still HAVE such characters ; one extreme or the other. All her scenes with Frank, including the big showdown with him, are like this, putting the movie in a kind of "Bond" territory. Including her "weird chick" version of kissing him in the car. And that's another thing - I don't know the first "Transporter" movie, so I don't know if this would've been really out of place, but considering HOW over-the-top the Lola character is, I think it could have worked for the story to have an actual "Bond girl" kind of romantic scene between her and Frank. Anyway, even though I have nothing against those zillions of "empowered" women in adventure films nowadays (heroic ones, I mean), they have become a real cliché, so it's nice to see a "bad girl" of this kind for a change. This movie also had a comic relief character (more than one, really) that I think really worked (and I often think THOSE are a distraction).
Transporter 2 stars Jason Stratham as a man whose job it is to
transport things. In this movie we see him transporting the son of Mr
Billings a government official. All of a sudden a group of people
kidnap the little boy and then release him. However, as the transporter
works out what happening he realized that the kidnapping is more than a
The selling point from the movie is the action and it delivers very well. The car chases are very fast. Stratham's Audi doesn't just look good it also seems to drive well. In one scene he drives the car off a car park tower and into a level on a skyscraper. In another he flips the car upside down in the air to remove a bomb underneath. Unfortunately for this film the explosions suffer from computer-generated-flame syndrome.
Stratham is also involved in some good fight scenes. He's able to climb things like trucks very quickly. Some of the fight scenes in which he fights several people have him taking on one person at a time. I'd really like to a see a movie in which the protagonist takes them all on simultaneously. It would require very fast moves but it would be far more realistic and interesting. The closest I've seen to this is in Police Story when Jackie Chan fights a group of people in a shopping mall.
People die in this film that is no doubt but all the deaths are clean and sterile deaths, so most younger people shouldn't be put off too much.
If you are an action buff- this movie is for you. It may have a few parts that just don't seem realistic- but hey, it's an Action movie. Since when do action movies have to be totally real? This is a great movie, I highly recommend it, especially if you enjoyed the first Transporter. The acting is great, the background stories, sound. The film sequences of action with the dialogs all work, and Jason Statham again helps to solidify his role as an excellent actor. Highly recommended, only 7/10 because this is one of those movies that if you watch consistently over and over, you miiiight get a little bored of it, but it's great for an instant pure adrenaline rush.
I know this film has a lot of impossible stunts and actions but still I
found it endearing enough to see it through.
I liked the first one (gave it a 7) and this is more of the same only more unbelievable and crazy.
I think for the inevitable Part 3 they should tone it back down closer to the first one's energy and make it less like a cartoon.
Overall with all that is wrong with this film I still managed to enjoy it. I can easily see why people don't like this film but I think you have to be in a certain frame of mind or have some tolerance to enjoy this.
The first film is worth a buy but this is worth seeing once for sure. Only buy if you must have every movie in a series and you already own the first one.
I thought that Transporter 1 was the worst film and had the most unbelievable plot I have ever seen. I was wrong: Transporter 2 is even worse! It seems that directors and screenwriters do not give any credit to the IMDb, since they clearly have not read at all what users have written about the first film. People that had comments about the first film had lucidly told what was wrong with the first film. Here are some of my comments from the first film: "Irrational action from the start. The plot was really illogical. What's the fun of watching a film where you think that the good guy must be a god, because he can perform actions what humans are not possibly able to do. Therefore, you (the viewer) think that there is absolutely nothing that can happen to the hero and there is no point watching the film, since you already know what's going to happen. Such stunts are logical when a robot from the future or someone in the matrix does them but humans aren't supposed to be able to do such actions. I think though that the actor, Jason Statham has talents and I hope he will be seen in more classy films in the future." Well the second film had absolutely the same faults that the first film had. Luc Besson clearly has not been reading IMDb. Since the second film (if possible) was even worse garbage than the first one. We have seen Jason Statham in at least one classy film after the Transporter in "The Italian Job". But why on earth did Jason become involved with the same stupid project Transporter once again. Hasn't even he learned anything?
Greetings, Why did they have to produce such a disappointing sequel?
Can someone please tell me? In Transporter 1, although the plot was not
for Oscar, the scenes with the BMW Series 5 were awesome, the actor was
supercool, France was nice and ...why deny it, that movie was most
about the car and the chases.
Just before I sit and watch Transporter 2, I was willing to forgive any problematic plot, but I wanted to see a lot of c a r a c t i o n, with the hot A8. That's why I paid, that was the 1st movie had promised me.... And what did I watch in total? Merely 5 mins of action, and actually the driver was threatened the whole time by that blond skeleton.
So not much car action, and that totally disappointed me. But what about the rest of the movie? I was amazed (negatively) by the following: 1. The fight on the plane. The plane was going out of control spinning with probably 400 miles per hour and the two guys were fighting on their feet! Even when the plane crashed in the ocean, no problem for the guys . . .So unrealistic, even Superman would have a dizziness from all this, but not these actors . . .
2. The scene with taking the bomb off the Audi... So fake . . .shall I say more? 3. The green poison. So if u get injected with it, whoever breaths next to you dies? My god, what a poor imagination..
Again I repeat, I was willing to forgive all this for an overdose of extreme car stunts. This didn't happen in this sequel.
|Page 8 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|