Available Quality: DivX, DVD, Hi Def, iPod, Hi Def, Hi Def
Director(s): Louis Leterrier
Country: USA, France
IMDB Rating: 6.1
Frank Martin is the best in the business. The ex-Special Forces operative hires himself out as a mercenary transporter who moves goods--human or otherwise. Very simple, he delivers, no questions asked. Frank has relocated from the French Mediterranean to Miami, Florida, where as a favor to a friend, Frank is driving for the wealthy Billings family. Theres very little that can surprise The Transporter, but young Jack Billings has done just that Frank has unexpectedly bonded with Jack, age 6, who he drives to and from school. But when Jack is kidnapped, Frank must use his battle-tested combat skills to retrieve the boy and thwart the kidnappers master plan to release a virus that will kill anyone with whom it comes in contact.
|Transporter 2 (iPod)||Resolution: 480x208 px||Total Size: 368 Mb||
|Transporter 2 (Hi Def)||Resolution: 852x368 px||Total Size: 764 Mb||
|Transporter 2 (Hi Def)||Resolution: 1920x816 px||Total Size: 8130 Mb|
|Transporter 2 (Hi Def)||Resolution: 1280x544 px||Total Size: 600 Mb|
|Transporter 2 (DVD)||Resolution: 720x296 px||Total Size: 575 Mb|
|Transporter 2 (DVD)||Resolution: 720x296 px||Total Size: 578 Mb|
|Transporter 2 (DivX)||Resolution: 624x260 px||Total Size: 612 Mb|
(21 May 2013)
what i really wanna say is that this movie is really good but its not better than the previous one, the ransporter is much better and story is much better. thats really good.
intheknow (20 May 2013)
Even though we didn't see transporter the original movie, this was a good story with non-stop action. The special effects are awesome. The lead character is perfectly cast in hid roll! If you miss it on the big screen be sure to catch it on your home theatre system on DVD.
JonT (12 May 2013)
Is this even a sequel to the first movie. I loved the first one, but this movie was trash. The acting was a little better but the action was weak and extremely unbelivable (helicopter scene). Overall it should not even be compared to the first movie.
Simon Booth (11 May 2013)
TRANSPORTER 2 isn't going to win any awards for its story (whateverhappened to Luc Besson anyway?), but for a fun action movie it's aboutas good as 2005 offered. Jason Statham reprises the role of FrankMartin, a driver with impressive skills in or out of his car. The 2ndfilm is at least as silly as the first, and not quite as corny in thescript, making it a very entertaining way to pass 80 minutes.Obviously the aim of the film is to capture some of the style of"Golden Era" Hong Kong action films, and Jason Statham does a great jobwith the help of Cory Yuen's choreography, which is very imaginativeand clever (though he reuses a few ideas, e.g. the hosepipe from KISSOF THE DRAGON). Unfortunately the film is blighted by "Hollywood-Style"camera work and editing, which detracts from the choreography...westerners still haven't learnt how to shoot a fight scene as well as aHong Kong crew (despite having 10x the budget available to do it)...too many closeups, shaky camera that goes against the movement of theaction and editing which obscures rather than emphasises what's goingon. I'd love to see the action scenes re-edited by one of HK's premieraction film editors.Still, small quibbles really since Hong Kong has pretty much stoppedmaking action films this fun anyway, and TRANSPORTER 2 is stillplentifully entertaining as it is :)
BrownDerby (08 May 2013)
This was absolutely the biggest disappointment in a sequel that I'veever seen.The majority of chase scenes are generic and those that are even alittle imaginative are laugh out loud unrealistic (e.g. Wave runner onthe street).The vehicle stunts look like they were storyboarded by a 3 yr old witha perfect cartoon imagination and a good set of Hot Wheels. Vehiclesjumping from one high rise into another which is 8-10 stories lower andthen driving off unscathed. A 50' high ramp jump with the car rotating360 degrees side over side into mid air in order to make use of an 8"iron hook dangling from the cable on a construction crane followed bythe vehicle landing again on all fours and continuing on. I just knewthat Wiley Coyote and the Road Runner had to appear at any minute.Dodging bullets in a hallway after they have been fired from the gunfrom 20 feet away..........Whats even more salt in the wound is the fact that the story is weakand most of the acting is too. He starts out as a babysitter and nevergets beyond it or even comes close to the role he played in 1. There isabsolutely no comparison to this and the original Transporter. It waslike no one involved in this production even saw the first one. Iwalked out about 20-30 min before the scheduled end. A total waste oftime.
Mike (07 May 2013)
I'm just an average guy who wanted to see a film on a Friday night witha few friends. And thats just what this film turned out to be.Now, i'm all for a good action film, but this was a little TO Hollywoodfor my book. I went in expecting a somewhat good time, and came outhaving one more or less. Let me explain.If your wanted to see this for plot, and as a realistic high standardaction film, your going to be VERY disappointed. The stunts thoughreally cool looking, are virtually impossible to pull off --realistically. The transporter was almost superman-like in a film thatwas based on a realistic present day world, and he pulled off thingsthat SHOULD NOT and COULD NOT have happened. This is the negative sideto the film, and really the plot was Mediocre at best.** PLOT Spoiler** The whole virus idea is so overused at this point intime, and since they didn't expand on it enough until the end it didn'treally matter. The ending however well, it looked rushed. Althougth, itbecame more and more like a James Bond film then a driving film witheach scene.Now , the positives: If you wanted to see a action film that wouldmildly entertain you on a Friday night, this is a great little flick.Sure it's not the best, and sure it's not the most realistic, but itwas fun overall. Now I know there are a lot of people who won't see amovie just because the plot is really unrealistic -- But if your likeme, it dosn't take much to be entertained. Just to be simplyentertained, this was a good film. You get to see some cool actionscenes, and while they are Hollywood style, and almost superhuman atpoints, they are still very much so enjoyable. The plot can keep yousomewhat entertained, as well as the characters, however they arn't thebest. The action is the glue in this case.Overall - It's an average film. I'd say 5-6 out of 10. If you want tosee an action movie with decent fighting and stunts, or have nothingbetter to do on a Friday night, give it a look.If your looking for a film to keep you entertained and enrich you in arealistic plot with realistic events, pass this one.
christian123 (04 May 2013)
Jason Statham returns as Frank Martin, the mercenary who will move anykind of goods, no questions asked. His latest assignment has himworking in Miami as the driver for a politician's young son, a job thatgets much tougher when a drug cartel tries to kidnap the boy.The plot isn't very original as there have been many films aboutkidnapping like the recent Man on Fire. However, the story of the filmisn't very important as the action is all what people care about. TheTransporter was an okay film, nothing great but not a complete waste oftime either. I didn't really have high hopes for the sequel though.However, the sequel turned out to quite entertaining and it ended uppassing the original. The film is obviously not for everyone. It's highly unrealistic so ifthat bothers you a lot then don't see it. Again, the plot isn't new soif you're looking for something more original then don't see it. It'salso a short movie so everything is rushed which could be a bad thingor a good thing depending on the viewer. I think it's a good thingsince it makes things more exciting. Of course if it was longer thenthe story could have developed better. Also, Qi Shu is not present,which I think is a good thing because she was really annoying in thefirst one. The acting is a non-issue here but it's not as bad as one would expect.Jason Statham does a great job at playing Frank. He is cool, cut andconfident and defiantly makes a good action star. Amber Valletta does adecent job at playing the mother of the boy and she's a lot moreinteresting to watch than Qi Shu. The rest of the supporting cast playtheir roles well enough. Louis Leterrier does a good job of directing and he improves this filmover the original. The action is great and is done really well. Some ofthe fights may be unrealistic but they're still nicely done. There arealso a lot of funny scenes like the opening scene is pretty good andthere are also a lot of cool cars. If you're looking for a mindlessfilm then you should choose this one as it's better than recent actionmovies like XXX2 and Sahara. In the end, the movie was a lot of fun andit worth checking out in theaters. Rating 7/10.
jeremyglick (03 May 2013)
I'm all for judging a movie based on the director's intent versus somehigh-minded ideal of what a film should be. For instance, I would giveboth Citizen Kane and Terminator 2 10 out of 10 stars because they bothperfectly embodied the vision of the creator (character study vs.adrenaline rush). I would consider it elitist to think Welles's goal tobe more worthy than Cameron's. So I approached Transporter 2 not onlywith that in mind but also having liked the first Transporter.But this one still bites.CONTAINS SPOILERS We know that character and plot development are not the priorities inan action film, but the audience needs something. The characters haveto be at least mildly interesting and the plot borderlinecomprehensible, otherwise we get distracted and lose interest. Halfwaythrough this movie I didn't care what happened anymore and was justholding out for a good action sequence.First, the characters. Our hero is a robot who literally dodgesbullets, never changes expression, and can take any amount ofpunishment. Ho-hum. Our villain is a Columbian drug lord (what, theNazis weren't available?) who is a pure sociopath with unlimited moneyand henchmen. Our hero's friend is second-banana comic-relief who helpsour hero Â and the plot Â as needed. He's also not funny. None of themdo anything unexpected, and none of them change. Heck, the tertiarycharacters are more fleshed out than these guys.Now the plot. As near as I can determine, the villain's plan is this:he'll help his drug trade by killing a bunch of drug enforcementofficials ("czars") at a big conference. Instead of a conventional bombarrangement, he opts for a 100% lethal communicable disease that killswithin 12 hours. So he kidnaps one czar's son THE MORNING OF THECONFERENCE, infects the kid while holding him for "ransom", thenreturns him in time to infect the father before the father leaves hissick and traumatized son to head to the conference. Got all that? Oh,and the bad guy decides to test the deadly communicable disease on hisown henchmen the morning of the kidnapping. And the kidnapping isplanned the day before. I'm betting not unlike the script.The kicker is, the Columbian drug lord's plan WORKS. The czar does getinfected, he does go to the conference and infect others, and theothers do leave the conference not knowing they're infected. By thetime our hero gets his hands on the antidote (which is enough for maybe10 people), half the city could be infected. But that's probably just aminor loose end. Maybe Transporter 3 will be set in a post-apocalyptichellscape.So is this sloppy writing, or just efficient? Other indicators saysloppy. Yes, there is a stereotypical scene near the end where the heroconfronts the bad guy and the bad guy explains his entire plan to him.Yes, the villain could kill the hero but delegates the job to ahenchman. Yes, the henchman could easily shoot our hero but literallywalks within hand-fighting range and gets disarmed. And yes, thevillain walks away assuming the hero got killed. So I say sloppy.But let's say you don't care about any of that, just the action. I'mafraid you'll get a mixed bag. There's the standard gun play, carchases, and twelve-against-one martial arts fighting, plus there is oneexcellent scene where our hero disables a bunch of bad guys with a firehose. That's all well and fine, but where it really breaks down are theCGI scenes, which are fake enough to be insulting. One scene shows thetransporter's car jumping from the middle of one parking garage acrossthe street to another parking garage, and another is the final fightscene in an out-of-control Gulfstream jet. Both look like cartoons. Theidea of a special effects shot is that you're not supposed to be ableto tell it's a special effects shot, and these fail miserably. Even thenon-CGI stunts are silly. At one point our hero spins his car 360Â° inthe air (so that it is belly-up at one point) in order to dislodge abomb from the bottom. Sounds cool to see, right? It's not. The audiencelaughed.The insults don't stop there. There's product placement. When the heroopens his fridge, there are 3 bottles of Heineken staring at us, allwith the labels positioned perfectly for the camera. Within the first60 seconds of the movie we have a 2-second ad for a watch and a58-second ad for the car. In fact the whole movie serves as an Audi ad.The car does not receive one dent, ding, scratch, bullet hole, orbroken taillight the entire film. Even James Bond loses a taillight nowand then. If you're going to stretch the bounds of credulity to thatextreme, at least make a joke about it. As it was, the audience waslaughing unintentionally.If you're a fan of the first one, maybe rent this. 3/10
(03 May 2013)
I've seen the first film a couple of times and thought that whilst it was OK and Jason Statham can just about act it was nothing special. I really wanted to hate this, but came away liking it quite a lot. The filmmakers knew what they wanted here. Its brainless entertainment with tongue firmly in cheek, and they know it.... In fact I enjoyed it more than the first film. The villianess in bra and panties, endless ridiculous car chases, fight sequences that have to be seen to be believed. Its all done with style, panache and a "don't care if this is not real" attitude that other films , that take themselves too seriously (i.e. Mission Impossible 3) could learn from. So if you let it wash over you, you will have a entertaining hour and 3/4. Don't think about it just enjoy!
(02 May 2013)
I like the leading actor, his martial art styles. Superb transporter!!! Hope to see Transporter 3!!! Rated 5 star general!!!
Benjamin Wolfe (30 April 2013)
In time, many a studio attempts to capture the 'magic' of the Original.From the sexy little beast girl, that was long and lean that took outthe doctor and even with the hallway shoot-em'-up and the explodingtank that sends her to the floor, with incinerator power scorchingalmost everything in that front office way, yet with her doctor's coatburned by her neck and head, she and her platinum blond locks,unscathed! On top of this, with the police baring down on her in thestreet as she has lost sight of the 'transporter' she has enoughsilence after the police give her a command to drop her weapons, shetakes a call on her headset and takes an order, hangs up then proceedsto, in one sweeping motion drop the empty clips, not just one but bothand re-load then turn with two non verbal police officers, apparentlythey didn't have anything else to say to a half naked woman in thestreet, that has fired at least 150 rounds. She is holding twoautomatic weapons that could cut them in half and they have hadtactical training, from the academy...but she is simply too much forthem and in a second guns down two officers standing with the squad cardoors as Shields. Talk about escape from reality. There seem to me tobe too many things that would not work out ...unless your 007. Maybethis is just a poor attempt at making a professional driver Bond film.Who knows? In addition, it has a look similar to an episode of C.S.I:Miami, which I am a fan, but it has definitely departed from the firstfilm and it's feel. And the situation with the marina, and the goofballhe's chasing? What in the heck was that?? Too much unguarded stuff, tobe a place that I can jump into and simply believe. and of course thephone call at the end, while he is sitting in his Audi to summon yetanother adventure.The first in 2002, was an escape surely, but this was that now, pushingthe envelope way too much for me.I would recommend if you are looking for a real Hollywood action flick,to check this feature out...if not well. Sometimes a sequel just is notthe answer. (**)
fee_slice (30 April 2013)
For those who enjoyed the original Transporter, but have not yet seenthe sequel, don't waste your time or ruin your memory of the first filmwith this steaming pile of doggie doo.This is easily the worst movie of the summer. The acting isn't theworst I've seen, but the inane dialog, MISERABLE special effects andhackneyed, amateurish direction and editing are more than enough tomake you regret spending your money.Honestly, the special effects in this film are worse than those of thecheesiest early Bond films... and come with none of Bond's kitchappeal. I've seen more realistic explosions in a Power Puff Girlsepisode.And the plot? There are more holes in this storyline than in Bush's WMDargument. Absolutely NOTHING makes sense. At this point, we've all seenenough "unstoppable virus" films to know that a disease like this onecould never be contained so easily. Also, how the HECK did they removethe antidote from the villain's bloodstream? The only good thing aboutthis movie was the bad-ass chick henchman of the villain. Smoking hot.
(27 April 2013)
This review is from: The Transporter 2 (Widescreen Edition) (DVD) My husband is a big Transporter fan, and I was happy to find this for him for his birthday! A great movie!
(26 April 2013)
Jason's hot and the action is constant in this sequel. Not as many cool fight scenes as the first, but still fun to watch.
Bob-45 (25 April 2013)
After a promising opening scene, heavy on martial arts, "Transporter 2"deteriorates into a "child/world in distress" melodrama, heavy on carchases 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 lastfour decades, is trite and totally unsuspenseful here. Jason Strathamcontinues to impress, however, and one hopes if a "Transporter 3" ismade, it will recapture the most successful elements of the firstmovie; those being martial arts, a love interest and some realsuspense.I give "Transporter 2" a weak "6".
lewmyschkin (24 April 2013)
John Woo-like action! The movie contains excellent fighting and racingscenes. Yet an ordinary story, but a must see for every action fan.A former special force soldier Frank with lots of war experience worksas a driver and bodyguard. The person he is supposed to protect becomesa target of some Columbian drug terrorists. They invented virus andanti virus (reminds of mission impossible 2). so the story develops andfinishes in a ordinary pattern. Frank is an interesting character as through the movie he never uses agun. He disarms his opponents and does some fine kung fu liketechniques worth a comparison with Jackie Chan.We definitely want to see more of this director!
(22 April 2013)
I loved the first Transporter, the music, fight scenes, storyline... and it was overall a kick ass movie. The second one? The ONLY thing that I found enjoyable was Jason Statham fights and his driving. The director obviously watched too many Miami Vice shows and decided to throw in as many cliches as possible. The south american drug lord with his white suits, and shoes with no socks. The soundtrack was all instrumental. I'm sorry but alot of what made the first one so great to watch was the music that went along with the fight and driving scenes. The acting in Transporter 2, everyone besides Jason was really bad....it was comical. I bought the second one without watching it, and a group of friends who enjoyed the first one all sat around to watch. We had a hard time watching it, so full of cliches (the bad girl walking in lingerie, jamaican cab driver, and worst of all the guy with the blonde dreds)...that after we finished it...to redeem our night, we watched Snatch. We decided against watching the original Transporter because we knew we'd just get more pissed off at how bad the second one was. If you want to watch a movie that will make you laugh and obviously reaches a B-movie status, then go ahead. Transporter 2 has been added to my B-movie shelf, right beside Elvira, Mistress of the Dark (a good movie because it was meant to be funny and not taken seriously). All I can say to those who think the 2nd one was great...we obviously have different tastes and expectations out of our movies.
Thomassweet (21 April 2013)
Firstly, this film is never going to win any awards, but who cares whenit is this much fun? Jason Statham gives us a likable turn as FrankMartin, and the rest of the cast aren't bad either. The plot is complete and utter nonsense but is interesting. The stuntsare completely over the top, but great fun to watch and very inventive(watermelon boxing gloves!). The film never takes itself too seriouslyand remains tongue in cheek the whole way through. Yes, it's all sillyimplausible nonsense, but remains very entertaining silly nonsense.Worth a watch if you want a mindlessly fun action movie. If you wantsomething more intelligent, you'll have to look elsewhere, but I'veseen far stupider films than this.
Autlan (20 April 2013)
I was created, yet I am nothing.I tell a story, yet I have no substance, continuity or suspense.Within my domain even sounds are visual.'What am I?''Tramsforter 2,' chirps the annoyingly quirky kid.'Bingo! You lose!'I'll start by saying it's a good thing driver doesn't appear anywherein the title, because driving is only a third of what Frank Martindoes. He's a pilot who doesn't need an aeroplane. He's an acrobat in agraviton suit. He's a martial artist with an overactive imagination.He's even a driver in a vehicle without wheels. Starting to sound like an entertaining B Movie, right? Well, no. Youwon't find any 'I tried my best, but I guess I just suck' here. It'slike someone hand picked the members of Team Fail. A Cinematographertrying to emulate Technicolour; a minimalist special effects troupe,led by an eccentric who never considered life outside his bouncycastle; a truant script girl; a plot jerked along by a piece of toiletpaper, snared to King Kong's shoe; and an overactive product placementsupervisor.So what is the story? A well-manicured, ugly South American is hired bysome of his countrymen, who are outraged that the Law is eating intotheir profits. They hatch a brilliant plan involving a Sovietexpatriate Biochemist, a green biological warfare agent, a purpleantidote, a mercenary, a gun toting lingerie model and the ruling bodyof the Drug Enforcement Administration. So some bureaucrat gets hiscoffee poisoned? No. The public are poisoned and the DEA is held toransom, while a mother-load of cocaine is pushed over the border? Nope. It's hard to tell if the plot is supposed to remain a mystery untilhalf-way, or if it's just delivered poorly, so I'll reveal itcarefully, without any pointers as to the obvious outcome. POSSIBLE SPOILER POSSIBLE SPOILER POSSIBLE SPOILER POSSIBLE SPOILERThe son of a DEA big shot is kidnapped against the best efforts of hisschool-run driver Mr. Martin, infected with a virus and then bizarrelyreturned without any of the millions of ransom money being taken. Thekid infects his father, mother, driver and half the Miami policedepartment with this highly contagious airborne pathogen. The uglySouth American transfuses himself in about ten minutes with whatappears to be the only half litre of antidote in existence and triesreally hard not to go to the bathroom.Seems to me an extremely convoluted delivery method and a ridiculousinsurance policy, but then I'm not a French screenwriter.I'd advise everyone to avoid this and watch the original instead. Tothose people who are now chanting, "Suspend your belief," I say, okay,I've got a great investment opportunity for you. You give me your cake,I'll eat it, and then all you have to do is give it time to mature.Trust me. It's going to pay off!
Michael Margetis (20 April 2013)
Going into the movie theater showing 'The Transporter 2' I wasn'texpecting a good movie to any extent. The original was aguilty-pleasure bang-bang shoot-em-up action flick with a lot ofunbelievable stunts and some so-so acting/writing. The sequel to 2002's'The Transporter' isn't really much different, in fact I personallyfound it to be way more entertaining and fun to watch. 'The Transporter2' like the original follows the smooth-talking and slick-dressedlimousine driver Frank Martin (the ultra cool Jason Statham) who is akung-fu trained transporter for different people. While filling in fora job of his buddies, chauffeuring a little pre-schooler/son of agovernment hot-shot from and to school, he gets caught up in anelaborate kidnapping scheme to wipe out a bunch of politicians with adeadly liquid virus. The city's only hope to stop the mass-murder ofthe government officials and save an innocent little boy is FrankMartin, and he's not gonna let them down. Sounds a little unbelievable-- hell yeah! But it never ceases to entertain, and you have to give ita slab of credit for that.I personally thought Jason Statham did a pretty decent job in his rolebesides some of the overly corny dialogue his character had. Stathamseems to have amazing screen presence and he really succeeds in gettingyou (the audience) to like and root for his hard-boiled, sarcastic,butt-whooping hero with a heart of gold. Besides Statham, the acting isaverage at best with very low-key performances from Mathew Modine (whoI'm sure most of you haven't seen in anything since 'Bye, Bye, Love)and model Amber Velleta. The villains in this one seem to be more evil,and Frank's french police inspector friend provides a few chucklesduring the movie. The action in 'Transporter 2' is exhilarating buttotally unbelievable. Some of the stunts Statham pulls (especially withhis car) you'll be rolling your eyes to, but most likely still enjoy.The writing seems to be a tad more solid in the sequel then it'spredecessor and so is the directing from Louis Leterrier.In conclusion, I can't quite recommend 'Transporter 2' for theaters butit's definitely a good rental. It's nothing new or innovative, butthat's what I kind of like about it. Most action films now days try tobe new and inventive or take themselves too seriously, something'Transporter 2' never even attempts to do. You get what you pay for, aloud, corny and entertaining wild ride that will be mostly embraced byaction fans (a.k.a. - it's a guy movie!) If you like explosions andaction but want to check your brain at the door, 'Transporter 2' mayjust be the flick for you. Grade: C+ (screened at AMC Deer Valley 30,Phoenix, Arizona, 9/02/05)my ratings guide - A+ (absolutley flawless); A (a masterpiece,near-perfect); A- (excellent); B+ (great); B (very good); B- (good); C+(a mixed bag); C (average); C- (disappointing); D+ (bad); D (very bad);D- (absolutley horrendous); F (not one redeeming quality in this hunkof Hollywood feces).
Review total: 20, showing from 1 to 20