|
Directed by: Louis Leterrier Starring: Jason Statham, Amber Valletta I saw this at a bargain theater on Sunday. Apparently, no other goons bothered. Earlier in the day I watched the first movie, which had its share of problems, but my easily-amused friends adore any and all action. At least Qi Shu was hot. Plot issues: -Badass child guard has been done to death in the last few years. -Villains method of spreading evil disease is so convoluted as to be laughable. -Ending wraps up way too neatly given how bad things got. -French cop as FBI software wizard is such deus ex machina bullshit. Action issues: -Kate Nauta gets built up like crazy but the final fight involving her is really short and easy. -Plane crashes into ocean at several hundred MPH, but plane and passengers are essentially unharmed. WTF. -Oh I'm going to jump my car off this ramp, flip it in the air just the right way, and use a crane hook to detach the bomb on the bottom of said car. No biggie. -Random shot of car driving on rooftops. No explanation of how or why. -'The Driver' gets shitkicked a couple times by henchmen with no ill effects. Also, usual one guy beats up twelve guys stuff. -Nothing particularly new or exciting from the big special effects. Misc: -Kate Nauta needs to eat a sammich. -Matthew Modine's character is so  at first, but then it changes, something rarely seen in this type of film.-Some decent action sequences and fight scenes, acting isn't especially bad for an action film, things blow up, Kate wears not much clothing and gets wet. There are certainly worse examples of the genre, but I'd also classify this as mostly a waste of time. RATING: 2 PROS: Some cool fights, Modine's character stops being 2-D eventually CONS: Main character survives in impossible ways, plot is retarded/cliched, weak special effects ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0388482/ edit: Kate Nauta =/= Amber Valletta Ditch fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Jan 23, 2006 |
#
?
Nov 1, 2005 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 08:15 |
|
|
Seeing this film was like having adrenaline pumped into my eyeballs for an hour and a half. I loved every minute of this movie, they took all the outlandish action scenes so far over the top to the point of absurdity. It was hilarious. A lot of people tell me they hated it because the action was so unbelieveable, but to me that's the point of the movie. The acting was horrible though, but that just adds to it making it just that more hilarious. See it if you like big, dumb, as stupid as they come action movies. Rating: 4.5 Pros: Awesome idiodic action. Hilariously awful performances. Cons: It's really short and quick, but that could be a pro too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2005 19:18
|
|
|
I don't understand why someone would expect any form of realism in this movie. A movie where a man drives a car off a ramp, spins 180 degrees to latch a bomb onto a crane, then flip another 180 degrees, lands, and the bomb explodes just behind him. That's like asking for a totally serious drama to suddenly turn into a wacky cartoon. ANYWAY. This movie is really fun! It's not some sort of spectacular achievement in film, but it's entertaining. There are tons of wacky and excellent action scenes, with a horrible and hilarious plot. Also that 'hot' chick wasn't hot. Voted 4 because I had a blast.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2005 01:39
|
|
|
I agree with the above poster that to expect anything from this movie short of absurdity is ridiculous. However, in comparison to the original Transporter, (which was a masterpiece) the action is in spots (particularly the whole previously mentioned car-flipping-over-removing-bomb-on-crane stunt) excessively unbelievable. The original had all the ridiculous action you would expect of a white, English version of Jackie Chan who also doubles as a professional getaway driver. The sequel has the same, but slightly more unbelievable and slightly less well done, with a much more convoluted plot. However, if you enjoyed the first one (and if you haven't seen it, do so) this is definitely a worthwhile movie to check out. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2005 06:31
|
|
|
I went in expecting a totally ridiculous action movie, and I got it. It wasn't as good as the first Transporter movie. It wasn't as good as the first Transporter movie, but the sheer ridiculousness (I can't use the word ridiculous enough when describing this movie) made up for the lack. 4/5 immediately after the movie ended, but after considering it (and realizing i'd never really want to watch it again), it's more like 3/5.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2005 08:01
|
|
|
I found this movie to be a discrace to what was once - a fairly minute and well-assembled plot line coming fresh of the conveyor belt in frace. I saw this movie with my friends, It was quite enjoyable to the extent of which you think like a 5 year old watching the Lion King. It was so obsessively graphically overdosed that I almost got sick of it before the second half. The Plot: The plot was the "save the princess", "james bond" type of thriller. Although not a badly written storyline on it's own, there were certain aspects that seemed to rely too heavilly on graphical engineering to seem natural. The Characters: The main character, was this overly-badass freak from the fiery depths of hell. The bad guys are your cliche kung-fu master asswipe, who along with his posse of various different personalities tries to spread a disease. And the victims, were typically orchestrated personalities, nothing much to be said. The Graphics: The only reason this movie didn't simply fail on all aspects of movie critique. Ok, so the bottom line, this is a movie for people who don't quite have pubic hairs, and don't have the maturity to understand the physics of a car and how it's not actually able to spin in the air and hit a crane's hook to dissmantle a bomb which is latched to the bottom of the car, which then explodes milliseconds later. I will admit, this kept me occupied, and I felt none of the distractions that are commonly associated with bad movies, such as me wanting to stare at the ceiling, think of my mother, or simply leave. If you hate james bond, balled people, audi automobiles, and the french. Do not go see this movie. Rating: 2.5 / 5
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2005 17:13
|
|
|
I felt the opposite. The first Transporter was absolute crap because it couldn't decide what it wanted to be: a more serious, if ironically hip action movie, or something altogether more ridiculous. Transporter 2 shows that the powers that be took stock and realized they were going to wedge the franchise far more firmly into the second camp: absolutely ridiculous. And the film is far, far better off for it. Whereas the first film had the oil slick fight to its credit, and that's about all, Transporter 2 is chocked full of hilarious videogame level antics top to bottom. If you didn't roar with laughter every time the car (as noted) completely failed to take damage, leap into the air like a videogame car, or similar silly spectacle, then you went to the movie with an odd set of expectations. I guess if you thought the first Transporter was just the cat's meow then you might not like the second film, but to me it's them realizing that jettisoning reality would be the best thing for the franchise. Notice I don't take the insipid "turn your brain off and enjoy it" defense--the people making this movie were very much in command of their arsenal, much more than on the first Transporter. voted 4.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2005 21:53
|
|
|
I hated the first movie. This one is better but no matter how hard I tried to "shut my brain off" the retarded physics kept pissing me off. How the gently caress did he survive the loving plane crash after a 500 billion miles vertical dive?!? It's almost surrealistic at times and it should be classified as Action/Fantasy. 3/5.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2005 13:42
|
|
|
An excellent action movie because it doesn't even try to explain what's happening on-screen. It's just non-stop crazy action all the way with skanky bitches, French techno and flying cars. Jason Statham is actually able to execute a lot of the choreography he's given, which means you don't get the shaky-cam/cut every millisecond poo poo you find in your average Hollywood flicks. Some may disagree, but I think he's on the level of Chow-Yun Fat and other Hong Kong action stars. Minus for the crappy CGI plane sequence, but holy poo poo this movie was entertaining. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2006 20:04
|
|
|
Henaki posted:I don't understand why someone would expect any form of realism in this movie. A movie where a man drives a car off a ramp, spins 180 degrees to latch a bomb onto a crane, then flip another 180 degrees, lands, and the bomb explodes just behind him. That's like asking for a totally serious drama to suddenly turn into a wacky cartoon. Not mentioning the fact it was simply magnetically attached and remotely detonated, he could of simply pulled it off by hand. The drive through concrete wall of multi-storied parking garage with no scratches, sheet metal damage, or especially loss of momentum, wtf? OK, so they made one attempt at illustrating the reason he wasn't simply shot to pieces, by them all running out of ammo for their assault rifles, and have to run to the garage to the supply cabinet. Of course none of them had pistols at the moment, and get their asses kicked. Business jet scene, please, I mean at one point they had it in a flat spin. They would of been glued to walls by 10G's, and here they show them still fighting. Of course it wouldn't be a transporter movie without "the driver" getting oiled up a bit, this time with paint, but I will admit, it was subtle and brief this time. I tried to point out some stuff that wasn't already covered. This movie is crap, and I like this sort of crap, but not enough to like this one. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2006 21:38
|
|
|
I liked the first one and I knew this would be over the top with the action, but holy jesus is this bad. I thought Stealth set the bar for Hollywood poo poo this year, but wow, it's hard to describe how bad this is. The fact that they even filmed the car flip/crane scene, let alone used it in the final cut of the movie is astounding. .5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2006 05:46
|
|
|
This movie was absolutely hilarious and is everything I want in an action movie. It's completely mindless and over the top, so much so that you can tell it wasn't even aspiring to be taken seriously. I had a lot of fun watching it. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2006 00:34
|
|
|
Pros: One of the funniest movies I've ever seen. Cons: Terrible plot, terrible CG(helicopter WTF), crappy villains, anti-climatic. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2006 01:28
|
|
|
I guess if you view this movie as a "comedy with action" you'll enjoy it. Some of the action sequences (they've already been mentioned) were so over-the-top that there's no way that you can be expected to actually suspend your disbelief. Jason Statham's Frank Martin is a pretty likeable character, which is pretty much the only thing that redeems this movie from being utter poo poo. 1.5/5 here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2006 20:40
|
|
|
I saw this when it was first released in theatres for the matinee. After seeing the first one and laving the pseudo-martial arts, I expected more of the same. I guess my optimism is what killed me. The movie was awful. The acting was terrible, the realism was absent and I've seen better action in a softcore porn. This movie lacked any depth and was a mere 80 minutes long. It wasn't just a bit unreal, it was wholly unreal. Someone he drove the same vehicle the whole film and it ended up without a scratch on it? I don't care if you're a professional sexbot, you're still going to miss the girl's mouth once in a while. The only way this film could have been worse is if Wes Craven directed it. Scratch that. This movie cannot get any worse. Luckily for Jason Statham, this may not ruin his career. I am sick of Hollywood ruining under-the-radar movies like The Transporter and wanting to ruin them with sequels that almost pale in comparison to Vin Diesel movies. My rating is .5/5 just because I like Jason Statham and Audis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2006 21:14
|
|
|
When you see this put yourself in the same mindframe you would for Indiana Jones or The Mummy. Yes, it's extremely over the top, yes that car could never handle those moves. So loving what! People don't fly around in spaceships in real life and shoot lasers or fight with light sabers but geeks around the world explode load all over starwars and startrek. I think the action in this movie was great, because it was fun to watch. The driving was funny to say the least, the acting was completely mediocre. Don't expect anything from this movie and perhaps you'll enjoy it. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2006 19:35
|
|
|
Well... The movie was "ok", no more, no less. Canīt wait to see #3, thats when he MUST come out of the closet. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2006 01:06
|
|
|
A very enjoyable movie. Part of that is down to the style that Stratham brings to the role; it means that whenever an over-the-top stunt occurs, or a contrived plot device appears, you tend to roll with it instead of rolling your eyes. The fight scenes were the best part of the movie, and certainly had that "ouch" factor. That said there were a few disappointments- the bad guys plan seemed a little silly, and one of the fights was very anticlimactic, especially given the build-up through the rest of the film. It's one of those films that you can watch with a big grin on your face, while not being a complete "huh-huh look at that pretty explosion" popcorn fest. Heck, it even pulls a couple of surprise, such as the fact that at the end Frank doesn't get the girl. 3.5 /5
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2006 21:23
|
|
|
With the Miami backdrop, WMDs and the farfetched action sequences I couldn't help but be reminded of True Lies, a movie that did a much better job of blending comedy, tension and ridiculous action scenes. Still, the martial arts scenes in Transporter 2 are pretty well done. It's always entertaining to watch Frank Martin go from cool-calm-and-collected to incapacitating multiple villains with random flying objects. I have a hunch the vehicle sequences were written with the intent to induce groans and roll-eyes in the audience, so I guess they were successful in that regard. Also, the OP seems to have the actresses names mixed up. Amber Valletta plays the kid's mother, not the gun-toting tramp. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2006 09:17
|
|
|
I loved the first Transporter but this one didn't do it for me. The plot is a lot less interesting than the first Transporter(sorry, but protecting a little boy isn't anywhere near as interesting as protecting a hot chick  ). Not only that, but it is needlessly complicated. The bad guys go through many more steps than really are necessary to carry out their evil plot -- to a ridiculous degree. No, seriously, it's almost cartoonish; their schemes to me actually resemble something Pinky and The Brain might come up with.The action sequences are completely unbelievable. Now I'm someone who loves action movies. I don't even really need a believable plot in order to enjoy a good action movie; I'm perfectly capable of turning my brain off and just enjoying the action sequences. As a friend of mine said, you could put together a movie consisting of nothing but random fights, car chases, and explosions and I would watch the whole thing and enjoy it immensely. It's the entire reason I enjoyed Kiss of the Dragon. But the action in this movie is so unbelievable that my brain actually turned itself back on and said, "I can't believe I'm watching this crap." The repeatedly mentioned car flip/crane sequence was the biggest offender -- I spit out a mouthful of soda when I saw that part -- but there were others. For example, there was one sequence where Frank was hiding behind a wooden door and using it as a shield while another character unloaded clip after clip of Uzi bullets into the door and none of them managed to penetrate it. This movie wasn't even an hour and a half long. To me it just seems like it was quickly thrown together to cash in on the success of the first one. It makes me hope there is no Transporter 3. My ratings: Plot: / 5Action sequences: what  / 5Overall: 2 / 5
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2006 08:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 08:15 |
|
|
I didn't mind the fact that some of the things that happen are unrealistic because they were just so awesome. From the trailer I thought that this would kick a ton of rear end but all the action was pretty much shown in the trailer montage and I frankly thought the movie was pretty boring! 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2006 04:24
|
|
