|Page 9 of 35:||               |
|Index||341 reviews in total|
Frank the transporter (Jason Statham) has a cushy job ferrying an
irritating rich kid to school and back, but when criminal mastermind
Chellini (Alessandro Gassman) decides to abduct the boy, the ex-special
forces driver goes to the rescue, uncovering a devious plot to kill a
room full of top politicians.
I really enjoyed the first Transporter movie: it had just the right level of craziness to the action scenes and Statham played his part to perfection, his grim seriousness counteracting some of the more absurd moments. This sequel, however, verges on Crank territory (gack!), with its attempts to outdo the first film making it absurd in the extreme.
As Frank attempts to locate the antidote for a virus that has been injected into the kidnapped kid by the film's loathsome villains, he performs countless superhuman feats that make one wonder whether he is secretly a member of the X-Men. Whether leaping a vehicle from one building to another, flipping a car to detach a bomb from its underside, or surviving a headlong jet plane crash into the sea, Frank is clearly indestructible. It's all several steps too far, sapping the film of any genuine excitement.
"Transporter 2" (2005) takes its franchise strongly into the action
mode, hardly ever letting us up for a breather. Jason Statham never
works up a sweat as he exploits his martial arts and automobile driving
skills to the hilt. The fights are marvels of speed, quick reactions,
leg work, still mining the Bruce Lee vein. There is less style,
however, and more magnitude, taking on 7 or more opponents at once. The
franchise pays lip service only to further developing the psychology of
the hero or those around him. Pure action gets boring after awhile, so
the producers opted for unrealistic stunts and battles. The movie
entered the realm of fantasy and super-hero. Echoes of Bond occur at
some moments. The dialog is not as sharp or incisive as in the first
The movie as a whole is not up to the first. In the end, it's another mindless action movie with cardboard figures running through it. Statham alone cannot lift it from the rut of mediocrity, but he does manage just about to hold this one together. The film looks slick and shiny and clean, part of the franchise. This works. The eye takes it in. There is a bad machine-gunning girl-villainess in this one, and she's played to the hilt by Kate Nauta, looking very skinny, very blond, very made-up, very stylish and very leggy. She too is worth seeing.
For various sequels to original films, they all usually have the same
trend in common. That trend is the law of diminishing returns. There
are also groups of very few series that have follow-up films that
surpass its first entry. Then there are the later installments that
work differently than their predecessor, but just match their parent.
With this sometimes it works, while other times depending on how good
the first was doesn't help it to begin with. For Jason Statham's
Transporter (2002), it was an entertaining fluffy popcorn action film
that had its moments of ingenuity but was for the most part fairly
predictable and cliché for a lot of its running time when it came to
character development and plot. Another weak aspect was the backstory
to what the villain's motivations were. Thankfully, even for these
flaws they did not outweigh the better parts of the film's execution.
Surprisingly even with much of the cast and crew being more of a French production with its release, the film gained a sequel. Continuing to write the sequel is Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen (creators of the first movie). As an entire movie, it feels like a better film but in fact, it feels roughly the same as the first. Jason Statham returns as Frank Martin, the ex-military guy for drive-hire (aka a Transporter). However instead being given a special assignment, Martin's in a bit of slump in his career at the moment. Currently, he's doing daily pickup jobs for a parents' son Jack Billings (Hunter Clary). The parents, Audrey (Amber Valletta) and Jeff Billings (Matthew Modine) are on bad terms and are trying to mend their differences, but it's slow moving. One regular day when picking up Jack, Martin's car is hijacked by a trained killer named Lola (Kate Nauta) who works for a hired mercenary named Gianni Chellini (Alessandro Gassman).
Turns out that Chellini is testing a viral solution that if injected becomes highly contagious just by breathing it in and the only cure is with him alone. For writing, the screenplay suffers almost the same flaws from that of The Transporter (2002). For one, the whole viral bacterial disease subplot has been used time and time again. What evil antagonist hasn't tried this method yet? The film's most noticeable flaws however lie in its connections to the first film and various assumptions that are made for the audience. Connection wise, other than François Berléand gladly returning as Inspector Tarconi from the first film, there is no other mention to what happened after the events of the original film. The storyline ended properly but it seemed as if Frank Martin acquired a new girlfriend. If not, there should've been at least a mention for the audience. Assumption wise, the screenplay makes various short cuts so that once a conflict is over, everything is hunky dory. When in fact, other than focusing on the main characters, nothing else is concluded when it comes to several other characters. That's rather important.
Again though, these mistakes are happily made up for with everything else. One thing that is better in this particular screenplay than the prior one is that it does not include the typical "female falls for protagonist" subplot. Another is the direction headed by Louis Leterrier (Co-Director of the original), which instead of having Martin doing his job, he's forced into doing one he doesn't feel is right. That's much different than breaking your own rules like of the first film. It's also not as contradictory either. For action, the sequences that take place are more elaborately stylized and it works well at being fun to watch. The Transporter (2002) had a great scene involving being slicked up in oil and being hard to catch. There's a small reference to that here but there's also a scene that involves using a fire hose. Can you imagine the strength and speed needed to use it the way Statham would? That takes skill. All actors do nicely in their role as well. Nobody felt out of place or miscast. Even veteran actor Keith David has a small role.
The cinematography shot by Mitchell Amundsen was well handled. Although he has more credits for being a second unit and camera operator, Amundsen demonstrates he is capable of being the head director of photography. There are plenty of shots that capture all angles of the setting. Whether it is with scenes that involve movement or stationary work, the camera is steady and allows its audience to clearly see what is being portrayed on screen. Composing the music for this entry was Alexandre Azaria and although it is not as jazzy or slick sounding as Stanley Clarke's rendition, Azaria created a reoccurring main theme for Martin. Plus Azaria also includes a mix of organic orchestra, synths and deep piano keys. Those particular cues are not always memorable but they are different on a listening experience level.
Its plot still suffers from clichéd writing but in other areas. Also the connections between this and the original are untouched. Other than that the choreographed action scenes, steady camera-work, music, direction and acting is all acceptable. No better and no worse than the first.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Frank's car is attempted to be robbed. Great start to a great series or
franchise. Seatbelt is the third rule of the car. He drives Jack(Clary)
a kid home from school. ON one of the days, he picks up the Jack to
drop him at a party, he is somewhat caught in a crime spree. Frank is
forced into a kidnapping AGAIN. as this time, the son of
Jefferson(Modine) are being held. So this time Frank spends the whole
movie searching down the culprits. However we later learn that it
wasn't a kidnapping. It was actually something to do with Jefferson's
Job. So he has been infected with the virus, and the wife
Audrey(Valletta) and of course the son. Anyone who breathed the stuff
would be infected as its airborne. and as such a search for antiDote
I found this movie to be exceptionally fabulous. However with the movie, thou, the title may need to be researched as the movie didn't deal at all with Frank actually Transporting packages etc., He transported a kid to school and spent the whole film in actually tracking the culprits etc., etc., Statham's acting capabilities much better than the first one. I find that Statham is much better acting alone than say the Expendables series. That belongs to Sylvester Stallone. Like his use of everyday objects as fighting mechanisms like the firehose , etc.,e ttc., And can anyone explain how did Frank get the AntiDote to the conference and to the folks. That wasn't explained.
Once again, we have a Statham movie, where the story isn't the focus and doesn't matter much at all. The allure of this film is the terrific characters created by Luc Besson. The mysterious driver with OCD is back, but is well into his retirement. Instead of helping the bad guys get away, Frank Martin (Statham) is driving rich people around, but he's forced into action when their young son is kidnapped. The story here is somewhat simplistic, but the bad guys are as creative as you will ever see in this type of film. I'm not sure where they found Alessandro Gassman and Amber Valletta, but they were so much fun to watch. He is a self-obsessed drug lord, with ridiculous moves, and big plans, while she is a deadly assassin, whose ability with a gun would put John Wayne and Clint Eastwood to shame. When Statham is added to the mix, you have the perfect formula for one intense movie. Transporter 2 was terrific in that it never stops moving and you will see things you never thought were possible outside of CGI, it was unbelievably entertaining. From the stand point of a film aficionado, while these amazing moves and characters make for a lot of fun, the story and dialogue are severely lacking. This film is not for people looking for a great story or lovable characters, it's made for adrenaline junkies who want to see explosions, long fight scenes, and intense thematic action. If you're all about the action, you won't find much better than this, but if you want there to be some greater purpose, a worth-while cause to fight for, or want to see the world become a better place because of all that happened, you'll be disappointed.
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.
It has some gripping and watchable moments but for the most part it's nothing but an commercial car; action scenes are well paced and lean, nevertheless some sequences are so ridiculous (for example of the disarming of the bomb under the car) that the film cannot even be rated as a B-movie one. Too many things are terrifically impossible and dumb, besides several fight scenes and the AUDI A-8 chases are really unbelievable, although Jason Statham's allure is undeniably intense. The plot reminds "Man on Fire" but it lacks its energetic formula and its narrative skills. Amber Valletta and Alessandro Gassmass certainly below the expectations.
This movie contains a lot of cool action, but doors made of wood is not
bullet proof. The point is; If you like typical Hollywood action this
may be you're kind a movie, but when I watched this movie I thought:
"Damn! This movie is silly!" I often enjoy action movies, but it must
be well done. The CGI effects done for the air plane scene, looks like
it's been done with some Microsoft product.
The humor they're trying to use or say, fail every time or has been done before. I don't say an action movie must contain humor, but when it does, it's also must be good.
I haven't watched the first movie, but the story in this one.... I could write it on one page.
Anyway, I will see this movie as a commercial for Audi, Panasonic and Nokia, and it's clearly true :p
Lets start of with saying I loved the first transporter movie. It was
interesting, kept me watching, had some variation in it, .. It was a
And of course I expected nothing less of the sequel. It was easy, all they had to do was stick to their formula. I can only guess that someone important to the first script killed himself, thus leaving his legacy to be screwed over by some ignorant *generic insult here* responsible for writing every Hollywood action movie. (pardon my choice of words.)
Transporter 2 starts with one assignment and that one assignment is what the rest of the movie is about. Like any action hero, he becomes the underdog, tracks down his enemy and succeeds wonderfully in his attempts. Lots of car stunts (some slightly over the top.. The one with the crane really lacks credibility) and lots of fighting. The later made me realize that these days, dance oriented movies still exist. A new and updated version that is! The dances are made to appear like "Fights to the Death" but in the end, its still a dance. And usually I can live with that.. But this was again just ever so slightly over the top. The whole fire hose scene for example! A sequel wouldn't be a sequel if it didn't involve parts of the first movie. And this is a sequel! He drives .. cars .. and its the same person driving .. ... OK, this might appear a bit thin to really call it a sequel! ... So they poured in another character (more of a caricature to be honest) from the first movie & there we go :) We have a sequel. And this time.. he s in Miami!! Exciting isn't it! well, no! Its where any action movie happens these days! I was happy at the time of Transporter (one) to see an action movie set in France, inundated in French culture, that was new. But thats one of the aspects they decided to change in the sequel. Why move to Miami? It seems quite simple to me.. I'd guess to appeal to the general American public. I hope it worked! I was disappointed anyway. The story lacked the twists the first one had and the whole plot engine .. was OK, but not genius, or fresh for that matter.
In the end, I'm not saying that "The Transporter 2" is a bad movie.. Its just that I had expected A Lot more. Maybe its right to say they just "sold out"!
The first transporter, a brilliant film. An almost unexpected hit. The plot not too far out, the action sequences not too far out and certainly believable. Hollywood sees a chance to make some money and thinks it can do better, puts up lots of money and obviously wants to call the shots. Hey presto - a sequel too far! With too much CGI work for its own good and action sequences that are like doggy doo-doo from Chine, just a little too far fetched. Statham is his usual superb self again, then I have never seen a bad performance from him to date. If you like your action sequences written and directed by Hans Christian Anderson and produced on an X Box you'll love it. Better rent the first one again than this one.
|Page 9 of 35:||               |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Official site|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|