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 9 of 34: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [Next]
Index 335 reviews in total 

Missing Charm.

Author: Lee Bartholomew ( from Cedar Falls, IA
17 April 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The original was a bit of a surprise. It had it's charm. And wasn't an action movie staged in the USA. It's sequel has no such charm. So it wasn't quite so much fun to watch. Not to say it's not worth watching. All the action is there that the original had. But the sexual tension isn't quite there, and the transporter has technically been turned into a bodyguard. At least it hasn't lost it's sense of humor. That's still there. And I can definitely assure myself that I'm waiting for a third movie out of this series. Although hopefully the next one won't be putting Jeb Bush in the thanks portion of the credits ;)


Quality: 7/10 Entertainment: 5/10 Replayable: 6/10

Was the above review useful to you?

very nice movie provided you are out for an action ride

Author: nminlo from Cameroon
11 April 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

"Transporter 2" is a highly stylised action flick in the genre with all the necessary ingredients in the soup to make one hot steaming(or should I say boiling)movie in the action movies' genre to add to the catalogue.

What really brougth this movie down is just the fact that,it was a follow up to a highly renown and should I even add original action movie(in many ways)with its impressive car chase sequences and fight scenes and not least of all the story which left audiences clamoring for more.

"Transporter 2" is a very nice film in its own right but compared with the first film, you can't help but feel something lacking wholefully(especially in the fight scenes and not least of all the car chase scenes).Seeing a movie in which much weigth seem to have been placed on the car chase and figth scenes, one wouldn't have expected less from the sequel Perhaps I am being prejudiced but seeing is believing and anybody who has not yet seen the first movie should please try and do so and prove me wrong if I am.

Was the above review useful to you?

More action than just transporting.

Author: tbresson
1 April 2006

I was afraid that the sequel would be bad and wouldn't live up to the first one, but it wasn't. It was actually better than the first one I think.

Of course it goes a bit further than just driving/transporting, but mostly just aspects that adds to the excitement and action of the movie.

Lots of Hollywood special effects and some Jet Li moves here and there and only on a few occasions some bad scenes, but all in all a really good action flick.

There are some really nice car-action scenes in here!

Was the above review useful to you?

nice and entertaining but also too silly

Author: antoniotierno from Italy
21 March 2006

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

Totally non realistic, but fun to watch.

Author: nigelbam from United Kingdom
16 March 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This film I feel gives off a lot of energy, it's fast, exciting and humorous. However, I did feel the special effects were a bit cheap and so obvious, the worst being the plane falling out of the sky! The car was totally amazing!! I've never seen a car crash through walls and then not even have so much as a scratch! Perhaps if the makers had a bigger budget, then the scene where the car turns in mid flight and catches the hook that removes the explosive device would have looked more real too. Todays films seem to rely heavily on computerised special effects, This being the case, They need to be spot on! It could be the difference between a box office sell out, or a flop. I enjoyed the film, but found myself saying in a number of places "yeah right", as the storyline was good but a little far fetched (poetic licence?), the acting was good, but what spoilt it for me were the special effects. The first ever King Kong movie was as good, if not better.

Was the above review useful to you?

I wasted my money on this movie.

Author: Ole-Henrik Jakobsen from Norway
12 March 2006

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

Was the above review useful to you?

I expected more out of a "Transporter" sequel

Author: Gert ( from Belgium
9 March 2006

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 great movie!

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"!

Was the above review useful to you?

Better than the original

Author: udar55 from Williamsburg, VA
8 March 2006

I wasn't the biggest fan of the original TRANSPORTER because it wanted to be outlandish yet taken seriously. Thankfully, the sequel dispenses with all that and goes full on overboard. This is the best comic book spy movie not based on a comic book. I knew its heart was in the right place when Statham leaps out a window to catch two vials of virus antidote, lands on a taxi, jumps in the air to miss being squished by two cars, saves one vial from under the tire of a semi and then goes to his car to retrieve a new suit wrapped in plastic. Classic! My only beef is the cut down fight & chase scenes. When your movie runs 80 minutes, why are you cutting down on the stuff people come to see? The DVD offers extended versions of the action scenes and in every case the longer version is better. I can understand why some blood gushing was cut for the PG-13 rating but editing down vehicular mayhem during a car chase is a sin. If they can make another one like this, I welcome TRANSPORTER 3 with open arms. Oh, and if the talk of looney action scenes hasn't convinced you to see the movie, maybe blonde bombshell Kate Nauta will. That character of Lola is like 100 repressed Luc Besson fantasies rolled into one. Easily the best Bond vixen who hasn't been in a Bond film in the last 20 years.

Was the above review useful to you?

A Surprising, Fun Action Flick!

Author: morganstaf1921
7 March 2006

My expectations weren't too high for Transporter 2, but I was pleasantly surprised. I had never previously watched the first Transporter film, so I had nothing to compare the sequel to. After watching the film, I was impressed. But it was in the following days when I realized how much I enjoyed this movie. Certain parts of the movies would pop up in my mind at random at different parts of the day. I kept thinking, "Wow, now that was a pretty good movie!". If you enjoy an entertaining action movie, then I recommend this one. Are there flaws? Sure. But this movie wasn't made for the Academy Awards. It was made to entertain, and it certainly accomplishes that goal!

Was the above review useful to you?

Disappointing Sequel (Or is that Redundant?)

Author: Bob-45 from Savannah, GA
28 February 2006

After a promising opening scene, heavy on martial arts, "Transporter 2" deteriorates into a "child/world in distress" melodrama, heavy on car chases and pyrotechnics and nearly devoid of the elements that made "Transporter" such a hoot. The movie's secret, which seems ripped from "Mission Impossible 2" and a dozen other apocalyptic films of the last four decades, is trite and totally unsuspenseful here. Jason Stratham continues to impress, however, and one hopes if a "Transporter 3" is made, it will recapture the most successful elements of the first movie; those being martial arts, a love interest and some real suspense.

I give "Transporter 2" a weak "6".

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 9 of 34: [Prev][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [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