We all have guilty pleasures, not the good kind. The type of guilt that resembles 'The Room', 'Jennifer's Body' and even 'Birdemic: Shock and Terror'! Alright alright, not that bad...but Transporter 2 is just so much fun that I launch myself from the sofa, find a hose and flail it around like I'm Jason flipping Statham. Can't find a hose? I just use a pole instead. Frank Martin, for reasons unbeknown to us, is now the personal driver of a rich family. A sinister man, who already lives the lavish lifestyle, wants money and infects the family with a virus? But he injected the antivirus into himself? Yeah...me neither. The story is basic, simple, dumb, pointless and simply a means to set up the action set pieces. The acting is monotonous, diabolically dull and has as much heart as a kettle...(literally the first thing I could think of). The visual effects, and there are some, are incredibly noticeable and outdated. The script is functional...that's it. It's far too short and moves along at a rushed pace. Yet...somehow, somewhere...in the bottom of my hollow shadowy heart...I love watching this. Every. Damn. Time! The action set pieces are so exaggerative and absurd, that I literally just go with it. An undeniably sexy Kate Nauta in lingerie shooting two silenced sub-machine guns at a doctor's clinic. Statham annihilating henchmen with a hose, filling it up which strangles all those entangled in it. Statham flipping his car towards a crane hook which rips off a bomb with seconds to spare. Statham leaping from a car travelling at 6283681mph onto the wheel of a private jet before it crashes and burns. Statham dramatically getting his face licked by Nauta. Statham driving a car. Statham kicking ass. Statham speaking. Statham, Statham, STATHAM! No one else could pull this off, not even Liam Neeson. I'm taking my personal enjoyment into the rating, I don't even care. Can I watch this again now please?

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.

I didn't enjoy this movie the first time I'd seen it, but maybe that's because I didn't give it my full attention, because upon my second viewing, it was MUCH better than before. In fact, I might go so far as to say this is the best of the series so far. It's definitely better than the third one.Here we have Statham playing Frank, who's now the driver for the child of a wealthy family in Miami, bringing him to and from school on weekdays. Well, he's asked to drive the kid to the doctor's office for a routine check-up, but that doesn't end well. As it turns out, a bio-terrorist-for-hire is after the boy to get to his father, Jefferson, because of his government job, and although Frank gives them one hell of a chase, they manage to take the kid and hold him for ransom. Frank's determined to get him back, and stop the terrorist plot our villain's got in store for Jefferson and the politicians he'll be seeing at the summit.If you thought the first movie was ridiculous, this one beats it for sure. It's got ridiculousness in spades; gravity-defying car flips, more one man army fist fights, and one of the most amusingly creative ways to dispose of a bomb on the bottom of your car--while you're driving it.Seriously, it needs to be seen to be believed.

The one thing that stands out to me in this movie is that there is a character (one of the baddies) that seems to have a serious allergic reaction to wearing clothes. At first I thought it was weird because it seemed that during a gun fight she would steadily remove items of clothing until such a time that she was only wearing her underwear, however it became clear that unless she was disguising herself as something, she simply walked around in her underwear, with her gun holsters strapped to her. Needless to say I actually found this character to be incredibly annoying and off putting – and it wasn't as if she was even attractive.Anyway, Stratham has come to Miami to help out of friend, and for some reason this French police officer has decided to come over as well (though I didn't actually think they were friends, just a couple of guys that seemed to always run into each other), however he spends his entire holiday stuck in a police station, because at first he is a arrested, and when they discover that he is a police officer (and innocent) they still don't let him go – nice vacation in Miami.As for Stratham, this time he is transporting a kid, but the kids gets kidnapped, but then halfway through the movie they release him, but the movie hasn't ended yet, because the movie is only halfway finished, which means that something else must happen. It does, Stratham drives a Mazarrati around Miami (or some other sports car) chasing a helicopter (and catches up with it), and then fights the bad guy on the plane (after dealing with Miss Underwear), and the crashes the plane into the ocean – and then the movie ends.Why, oh why, did I end up spending money on this trilogy. I am seriously not going to ever see that money again.