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 10 of 34: [Prev][5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [Next]
Index 335 reviews in total 

We loved it !!!

Author: movieboy-13 from U.S.A.
23 February 2006

My entire family watched 'Transporter 2' together - ages ranging from 13 to 40 + - and every one of us loved it. We all saw the first Transporter movie together and enjoyed that very much, and we'd all been eagerly awaiting this sequel. And I must say, not one of us was disappointed. In fact, we're all looking forward to the third installment!

Sure, most of the fight scenes and even the car chases are, for the most part, unrealistic. If you're looking for absolute realism, then the Transporter movies may not fit the bill for you. However, if you're looking for a quiet, very likable hero, who can be counted on to get out of any scrape, and conquer the odds no matter what, then chances are you'll find this feature quite entertaining.

Highly recommended viewing, for those who like a little action mixed in with their 'feel good' movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

Hollywood does it again!! . . . and that ain't no compliment!

Author: porcupinewebb from United Kingdom
22 February 2006

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

not nearly as good as the first one

Author: j from United States
21 February 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

okay action movie, nothing like the first one. i loved the first transporter, i thought the driving scenes/fight scenes were amazing, and there was just enough of a plot to keep the action moving. the reason i rated this movie so low is because it completely strays from the James bond style action and is even embarrassing at times (the cooking part, the part where the homeless person sees the car driving across the rooftop, the taxi driver w/ Porsche etc... corny). while the first movie was pure action this movie added some annoying elements that didn't fit in the genre. also the guns shot effects were poorly done and the fight scene directing was annoyingly chopped up. good part- the black Lamborghini's murcielago was really cool, i wish they had used this car more. the first one much better/worth buying, this one felt like a big let down.

Was the above review useful to you?

Does the Audi have a bigger trunk than a BMW? Of course it does! More room for action outrageousness!

Author: BroadswordCallinDannyBoy from Boston, MA
19 February 2006

Frank Martin, hero of the first film, is back doing what he does best: kicking serious ass. He now lives in Florida and works as a private chauffeur/bodyguard for a rich family. One day, during a routine trip to the hospital with the family's kid, Frank becomes tied up in a kidnapping plot and the serious ass kicking begins. Just like the over-top action scenes the plot goes from kidnapping of a young boy to chemical weapons smuggling! What fun!

This is pretty much a run-of-the mill "bigger and badder" sequel with trumped up production values and stunts, but it remains good action entertainment. Maybe it is because the film makers are Europeans they know more about "not over doing it" than American action directors. But in terms of over doing it, this film gets pretty damn close and you seriously have to leave your brain at the door to enjoy this movie. Another thing that may nag fans is the Audi S8. While an undeniably a cool car, would Frank, being such a BMW devotee in the first movie, give up his original car? Once again, leave your brain at the door.

The ending also promises a sequel, but seeing how close this film comes to being down right ridiculous, it might be a very bad idea, though the idea of three entries in this very entertaining franchise is a pleasant thought. 7/10

Rated PG-13: a lot of action/violence and some sexual content

Was the above review useful to you?

I wish I had one of those!

Author: RVBUILDER from St. Louis, MO
19 February 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie had great action if you are willing to suspend disbelief for the duration. The real star of the movie is Frank Martin's Audi. This miraculous ride gets sprayed with bullets, crashes into other cars, flies through the air, and swerves all over streets, sidewalks, and the beach. And all without getting so much as a speck of dust on its glossy black finish! I need one of those to get me through rush hour traffic! While we're at it, can I have one of those magic Hollywood cell phones with batteries that allow 2,365 hours of talk time on one charge?

Frank himself displays choreographed Jackie Chan-like fight scenes, but without the whimsical humor.

I will say again that it's not a BAD movie, unless you're looking for a coherent plot and a marginal modicum of believability.

Was the above review useful to you?

Average action movie ruined by a bad picture

Author: Luigi Di Pilla from Riehen, Switzerland
19 February 2006

I didn't watch the first but after I have read the many positive reviews from this sequel I decided to buy it. I thought this must be a good action movie with lot of suspense but it didn't met my expectations at all. First, there was the bad cinematography. Then, I found the story not so exciting and spectacular as it was written here. The special effects were not so great as I expected and everything seemed to be too perfect and all déjà vu. The actors didn't convince me and fortunately the running time was not longer than 85 minutes. For all these reasons I give 6/10 that matches exactly the actual vote on IMDb. Watch instead MAN ON FIRE.

Was the above review useful to you?

Bad guys beat up with a fire hose

Author: pharmhog from Kingston Springs, TN
4 February 2006

Take it for what it's worth. This was a fun piece of action film. Jason Statham returns to form with some excellently choreographed fight sequences. Of course, there are the gratuitous car chases. The car is way too cool. But hey, it was a rooting-tooting-shooting-polluting-high fa-luting good time. Even my roommate (who despises action flicks) chuckled a few times. That, in my book, means you're getting exactly what you expect. Nothing extra meets the eye in this one.

Granted, the plot is weak. But, that's not the reason to watch. Yeah, there's a criminal-for-hire, who teams up with a Russian bio-weapons expert who poisons a kid so that he can poison the father who is speaking at a dinner with politicians from around the world. Oh yeah, and the villain is financed by the Columbian cocaine cartels. So, there you have it. A very plausible story line that was light on the plot and heavy on the action.

So, if it's action you want and could not care less about plot. This is your film. Pop some corn, pour some soda, and kick back while you enjoy the ride.

Was the above review useful to you?

More enjoyable if you think it was based on a Marvel Comic

Author: ZOMBIE-8 from United States
31 January 2006

Now, I kinda enjoyed the first one, but it felt like it was missing something. Like it was taking itself too seriously or something. This one... well, you can't take seriously, but it's more fun in that all logic is thrown out the window. It's not like the acting is bad or anything (not even newcomer Kate Nauta's acting was that bad), it's just that as the film progresses, it gets more and more unrealistic. Once Frank is able to disarm a bomb under his car a certain way (won't give it away, but those who've seen this know this is the most infamous scene of the film), you should realize that anything can happen now... and it does. However, with this, the action is far more impressive, and has almost a seventies martial arts movie feeling. Basically, imagine crossing James Bond with Sonny Chiba and you'll get an idea of what this is like. Aside from that little example, it's like the first film was tired, sucked down as much coffee and caffeine as it could find, and then the sequel was born. The plot is far more complex than the first, but it's one of those plots set up for the sake of action. Like the first film, however, the last fight left much more to be desired, but it was still better than the first. Anyway, for action fans, this is definitely worth at least a rental.

Was the above review useful to you?

This Rocks

Author: bob-rutzel from United States
26 January 2006

Frank Martin (Statham) does a favor for a friend by driving a young boy of wealthy parents back and forth to school. Seems simple enough, but you know something is going to go wrong. You just know.

Yes, the story is well worn. This is a kidnapping. Oh hum. But, wait a minute, watch how Frank goes about rescuing the kidnapped. This movie is all about the stunts and it doesn't disappoint. The fighting choreography is simply outstanding, and the other special effects need to be recognized also. Watch Frank go from a speeding car to a light plane taking off. Unbelievable. Well, stunt men were probably used but even so, unbelievable.

Look out Spiderman, there's a new kid in town and he is doing good. Spiderman is cool and Statham, as Frank, is cool too. The way Statham moves tells us he may not have any bones in his body. What a contortionist. This movie is better than Transporter 1 and that was very good too.

Get past the dialogue, and the annoying acting of some, and just wait for the action to start and when it does, it's almost non-stop, but never boring and the stunts don't go on forever and ever. Very entertaining. Can't wait for Transporter 3.

Was the above review useful to you?

liked without profanity and violence

Author: boswalt from United States
25 January 2006

I enjoyed this movie basically for Jason Statham. I appreciated keeping his character true from the first movie. I appreciate no profanity in this movie esp from Jason's character. The violence and fighting were good for this rated movie. Glad not more expressive. I like knowing that the actors do most of the stunts themselves. The killer lady was a bit much for my liking. The relationship between Frank and the boy was good as an insight into Frank. I enjoy the unique relationship between Frank and the police man from France. I liked the police man's line when he opened the door and asked who are you and he said he was the cook. Carried over from the first movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 10 of 34: [Prev][5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [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