Most Ridiculous Movie Scene EVER! - Transporter 2 (2005) Discussion

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SleepTime 19 years ago

You are a comedian gamefanatic12308, i completely agree aswell. Funny.

reply

[–] Hiro_Protagonist_78 19 years ago

What about at the end when he is in a plane doing twists and what not and then it crashes into the ocean from like 30,000 feet and he survives! I think I actually saw him jump over a shark at that precise moment.

reply

[–] tylerdow190 19 years ago

you guys are complete Comic Book Guys. Cmon, ITS A MOVIE, IT DOESNT HAVE TO MAKE SENSE

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ahh_mirza 19 years ago

"" you guys are complete Comic Book Guys. Cmon, ITS A MOVIE, IT DOESNT HAVE TO MAKE SENSE ""
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You call it a movie??? It should have been named:

' THE FANTASTIC INVINCIBLE FRANK '

Come on!!! He was supposed to be living in our world, not in the Matrix world!!! Even comics dont have such *beep* scenes... also, I forgot... The door he always uses as a shield is alwayz bullet proof. The jumps he makes.. No scratches in the car... The time bomb scene... Throws people in the dumpster... survives a crash... NOT a single scratch..................................... This movie makes you constipated, you cannot accept such crappy stuff!!!

reply

[–] gzilla32 19 years ago

This movie makes you constipated, you cannot accept such crappy stuff!!!-ahh mirza
this is my gonna be my new sig

"Join Us"-Evil Dead 2

reply

[–] PINESKA 17 years ago

Did you see the end of this movie? His face was scratched!!!And yes, it's JUST a movie. And it was entertaining!!!

reply

[–] Green_Hornet 19 years ago

Hmm... I deeply disagree. A movie doesn't need to be REALISTIC, that's a fact (Matrix, Star Wars and so on, for example), but it's ABSOLUTELY NECESARY to be BELIEVABLE. If Superman gets a shot in his head and he doesn't even blink, that's not realistic but it's believable because damn, he's Superman. If Superman slips in a wet floor, hits his head on the sidewalk and dies immediately, its absolutely realistic... but come on, it's not believable that Superman could die in such way.
So even if Frank is God almighty in disguise, it's effin' ridiculous those scenes (the crane, the fly and the plane crash, for example).
This movie doesn't even bother to consider that kind of things.

Anamorphic Wide Post (2.35:1)

reply

[–] tovair 19 years ago

Well said!

I can agree that action movies don't necessarily have to make sense or follow all laws of physics and so on, but there is a limit on how much crap you can swallow...

reply

[–] sapiens110 19 years ago

I can agree that action movies don't necessarily have to make sense or follow all laws of physics and so on, but there is a limit on how much crap you can swallow...

now watch this:

but there is a limit on how much crap you can swallow...

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
don't you think it's so funny?

reply

[–] pfalkyk 16 years ago

to all who give out on how this film is "too unbelievable" it is a work of fiction. is bond or indiana jones any more believable? star wars? star trek? lord of the rings (arguably the best movie of all time)? i mean, elves/dwarves/orcs/trolls & walking talking trees (sorry, ents)? when you go to see such a movie, there is a thing called "suspension of belief" if you want realistic, go see documentaries. transporter has little or no plot, it uses the same tried & tested formula of any bond-esque type movie, it is a shameless advertisement for (enter brand name here). but it is a piece of lightweight fun. that's all it was ever meant to be. pure escapism. relax. kick back & enjoy a bit of gratuitous stunt-fest. or stick to saving private ryan & schindler's list.

reply

[–] osamasgoat5467 19 years ago

Idk whats wrong with you peoplee, movies are suppost to be fake. The only things that meant to be reality are documentaries. Wtf do you think is so bad about fake movies? A movie thats realistic is really boring. Why would you pay 10 bucks to go into a dark room with overpriced candy and the annoying previews to watch life happen when you could go outside and do something useful? If it weren't for fake movies we'd be watching s*** like michael moore. This movie was awesome, who cares what a plots like and long as the movie entertains you. If you can watch a movie in full, it means you did like it. Because if you didn't you would have stopped watching it. You wanted to see the ending. and even though it didn't make sense it was cool! Think about it. Why am I still watching this movie even though I hate it? Oh wait... Thats because its a good movie. A good movie isn't a movie that is rated higher on the intrenet because of its plot and s***, its a movie that kept your attentinon enough to make you watch it all and to encite emotion into you whether it be love or hate. AND if you hate it so much why are you complaining about it on the internet? This is something you should think about before you b**** about a movie on imdb.

reply

[–] stormen87 19 years ago

Osamasgoat5467, I completely disagree. If you go a cinema to see a movie, you cant be sure its a good movie. Lets say you have paid $15 plus candy, soda etc, and thinks the movie sucks, you still dont leave the theater because of that, so your argument about watching the full lenth of a movie is completely bullsh*t. I had a similar experience when I saw, Scary Movie 4. When te movie was over I had this empty feeling, BUT I saw the whole movie.

And for the record, its a action movie, its dosnt have to have a higher and more sofisticated plot. The main ingredients for a decent action flick is explosions, violence, carchases and nice ladies...thats all.

reply

[–] baiselonghorn 19 years ago

Personally i dont care.

Is it realistic? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

Do I care? no

Its a movie. Not a Physics classroom lesson!!! It is designed to entertain me, make me enjoy it. If I enjoy it, thats all that really matters I think. Not whether you can later debate whether it abides by the laws of physics or not.

imo

reply

[–] sharane_alvarez 16 years ago

Damn, damn straight. Who the hell wants to go see something that you could go look out your window and see? Oo, he's watering his plants! How realistic! I'm sure glad I paid 10 bucks for this bit of masterpiece...

Look, this movie has it's share of cliches and over-the-top scenes, but they sure as hell look cool. 'Sides, anything with Statham is literally kick-ass...which I love! He's an amazing actor, and his ability to do his own stunts is brilliant. So get over it, it's a *beep*-in movie for Christ's sake.

Forever Mine:
http://www.freewebs.com/sharanealvarez/index.htm

reply

[–] NojAirk748 19 years ago

Frankly I will agree with this scene being way too over the top, as were one or two others. However, I thought a large amount of it believable - the fight scenes were more like Jackie Chan than Matrix Reloaded, and the action was at least creative.
Not saying that they did everything perfect, that's obvious, but at least minus a few moments here and there, where I sorta roll my eyes and try to imagine it to myself differently, it is an entertaining enough movie for what it is: 'A fun, throw-away action flick'

"Hey, that's not a hamburger. That's a grenade!"

reply

[–] NHeer-Design 19 years ago

Quoting tylerdow190: "you guys are complete Comic Book Guys. Cmon, ITS A MOVIE, IT DOESNT HAVE TO MAKE SENSE"

I agree. It's one of those movies that was entertaining but rediculous all at the same time.

reply

[–] virtualmetal 19 years ago

But moaning about stuff is part of the fun!

-VM-

reply

[–] S-Reisner 19 years ago

How about the Jet Ski scene?

When he jumps the jet ski onto te bridge and it keeps driving? what on earth was that?

And he flipped that girl over his shoulders and she landed perfectly? i think that woulda hurt your ass if that happened.

And where are the cops when he does this *beep*

reply

[–] bing-57 16 years ago

> When he jumps the jet ski onto te bridge and it keeps driving? what on earth was that?

Ah, I can field this question. This is simple physics.

It kept sliding on the pavement due to what we scientists call "momentum."

It is the same reason that an ice puck slides across the ice after it is hit with a hockey stick.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bing-57 16 years ago

> They said "driving", not "moving".

Then they were in error. He wasn't "driving" the jet ski, in the sense that he was accelerating and making turns and such. He was just hanging on as the jet ski slid across the pavement.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

reply

[–] koffeenkreame41-1 10 years ago

Then they were in error. He wasn't "driving" the jet ski, in the sense that he was accelerating and making turns and such. He was just hanging on as the jet ski slid across the pavement.

^^This. I don't know why most don't see that.

"I'm the ultimate badass,you do NOT wanna f-ck wit me!"Hudson,Aliens😬

reply

[–] tribey 19 years ago

What about at the end when he is in a plane doing twists and what not and then it crashes into the ocean from like 30,000 feet and he survives! I think I actually saw him jump over a shark at that precise moment.

Very good.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] soccerplayerno20 19 years ago

How 'bout you all just chill out - no movie is entirely believable from beginning to end. The point of entertainment is to ENTERTAIN - and this movie does just that. Forget evaluating how likely or how possible something is, just enjoy the fight scenes and watch the movie. Seriously, now.

reply

[–] TimBoHannon 18 years ago

no movie is entirely believable from beginning to end

I can think of plenty. The Aviator, Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Apollo 13. They're out there.

Assume I know what I'm saying.

reply

[–] r_glazzard 19 years ago

but it looks good thats all that matters i dont think most of the stuff he does in this movie is possible but it looks real nice so i hope theres a another tranporter movie

reply

[–] kyasper 19 years ago

What's worse than that scene, is Jason Staham's new found slight American accent.

reply

[–] Druttercup 19 years ago

Sorry, but the 360 spin has been done for real in Live and Let Die. No wires, no CG, just a bloody good stunt driver, a fast car and a ramp setup worked out to the last inch (hey, it's an old film). Admittedly the use of the crane was novel but the spin CAN be done.

reply

[–] tetrispro_2006 19 years ago

actually youre referring to the man with the golden gun, not live and let die.

reply

[–] TimBoHannon 18 years ago

posted by The Dreaded Drutt on Sat, April 15, 2006

Sorry, but the 360 spin has been done for real in Live and Let Die

True, but that was The Man With the Golden Gun, not Live and Let Die.

Assume I know what I'm saying.

reply

[–] meneliks 17 years ago

also less to do with the stunt man (great as he obviously was) and more to do with the computers they used to get the calculations to prove it was possible. As i recall the 'stunt community' said it couldn't be done...

reply

[–] TimBoHannon 17 years ago

Are you referring to "Golden Gun" or "Transporter 2"? I don't think they had computers that could do that in 1974. I wasn't alive then, so I'm not sure.

reply

[–] meneliks 17 years ago

oh they had computers alright. yes they used one of only a handful of computers in the world to calculate the spiral bridge jump in Golden Gun. By the way i wasn't born back then either... just saw it in a bond documentary.
Which reminds me, the best 'worst' stunt is the walking on the crocodile bit from Live and Let die...

reply

[–] TimBoHannon 17 years ago

Interesting...I saw the documentary when I rented the DVD last Summer, so it's no surprise that I forgot. I only saw it again to I could post a review here, and since I hate the film, I'm not going to rent it again to hear it myself!

Assume I know what I'm saying.

reply

[–] meneliks 17 years ago

yeah it wasn't the best... although i get a lot of hassle for defending Moore's version of Bond from the connery mob.

reply

[–] TimBoHannon 17 years ago

Yeah, the Connery mob is pretty closed minded. They think that anybody disagreeing with them is stupid and feel the need to insult Moore's and Brosnan's films, performances, and popularity. Just because they were both warmly embraced by the general fans (and they greatly outnumber the die-hards like us) does not take anything away from Connery or what he accomplished.

For the record, I like all six of the actors who have played the part, and I do think that Connery was the best for his first four films. Connery also showed in his last two how bad he can be, so I rank him third. Yes, I often give Moore's films bad reviews, but the problem was not him; it was the scripts. "For Your Eyes Only" showed just how great he can be!

Assume I know what I'm saying.

reply

[–] meneliks 17 years ago

yeah spot on... going on a set visit soon for Quantum of Solace, and have heard that Daniel Craig would like to make this bond more like Moore's version...
they were all good for their time i guess: 70's Bond had to be cheeky with a ruthless streak i.e. Roger Moore.

reply

[–] tom-1674 12 years ago

they used one of only a handful of computers in the world to calculate the spiral bridge jump in Golden Gun

By the early 1970s there were tens of thousands of computers.

reply

[–] philandceny 19 years ago

At least Transporter 1 was slightly believable but this ...?? Some of the scenes like the car jumping between buildings and removing the bomb from underneath the car by doing a loopy loop and getting it off by that crane ... ridiculous!! I like the character of jason statham and the bad guy in this film and also the idea of the film but it is totally let down by it's unreality. half the stunts are just too unbelievable. This should be called "Knight Rider Outakes"

reply

[–] bruceatk 19 years ago

While I liked the movie the amount of ridiculous scenes is right up there.

Some that I don't think have been posted are the fact that he was able to climb up the nose gear into the plane. While that may be possible in a really large jet, I don't think it is in a Gulfstream. Since they had a problem with the gear, how come it was up when the plane was rolling? Not to mention how did they get soo much altitude when they were supposedly climbing with the gear down and were ready to turn around and land.

I would like to have seen the transition scenes from the building they almost slid out of to the straddle job over the alley and then back down to street level. I feel cheated.

reply

[–] manicmaximum 19 years ago

hey you ever seen xXx with vin diesel?

I nearly walked out after he out-snowboarded the avalanche.
and then held on to some metal post while half his body was being pounded by the avalanche.

gah

reply

[–] FortKnocks 19 years ago

The plane Frank was fighting in was flipping round and round and it was a learjet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It should have blown in the air.

<o>

reply

[–] uh60supersix1 19 years ago

Ace-

You are such a putz. 1st off, it was not a LearJet, it was a Gulfstream. There is a pricetag difference between the two of about $20m or so.....so not a big difference at all!!! 2nd, why would it have "blown"?? You make fun of these movies, then use them as references to your information. Planes do not blow up for "flipping round and round", which by the way is called rolling. I fly commercially, so it was be advantageous for you to use someone like me as your source for you information when you post your opinion on the internet about how planes should "blow" while "flipping round and round"!!! So, don't make fun of movies that know nothing about flying where you, yourself, quite assuredly know nothing about flying.

reply

[–] SleepTime 19 years ago

When I watch a film, yes it is partly about escapism but I still like the film to keep some sort of resemblance to the laws of nature. If the film is about a superhero then yes its a given he can run through walls without being hurt but if its about a driver/ex SAS dude I dont want to see him defying gravity etc.

I wouldnt have expected it if the plane had just disintegrated on impact killing both of them and the film ending there but maybe it would have been for the best.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rothenburg74 19 years ago

At first I thought the bomb on the bottom of the car was completely ridiculous but the final scene with the plane was absolutely absurd. It was actually comical. No seatbelt, just knocked off balance a little and then the whole water rushing in and he jumps out the way.

reply

[–] cutiegirlhope 19 years ago

The whole movie was ridiculous...but I thought it was amazing! I mean..."Your flight has been cancelled! No, You ben cancelled" How much better than that can it get. I like acutal qualitity movies...but sometimes you just have to take a movie at face value for what it is. This is a mindless action movie and it did that well...It was...It's great.

reply

[–] dream_of_mirrors2005 19 years ago

I agree. Just because a movie's stunts are ridiculous, doesn't mean that it's bad. This movie is my kind of movie. Cars, Explosions, and a chick that always wears nothing but lingerie, except for certain parts, where she wears something over it, such as a trench coat, or that nurses outfit. This had some of the greatest stunts I've ever seen, and there should be another one made.

reply

[–] Nolie 19 years ago

I could not agree with you more. Sure, it wasn't a thought provoking movie or anything but it sure kept me entertaining. And I just think the transporter is the coolest guy EVER!

I freakin love that cancelled line.

reply

[–] kapilg_79 19 years ago

Well said.

reply

[–] chezzer1989 19 years ago

SO WHAT, it's a film, who cares if its ridiculous, it still takes your mind away from reality for a couple of hours, so who cares, its still a mint film.

Especially Statham he's perfect for the role

"Your Ego's Writing Cheque's Your Body can't Cash"

reply

[–] teamgs3se 19 years ago

Hold on, the thread starter didn't say *beep* about the movie being bad or not entertaining. I knew it was gonna be mindless action, so I just sat back and watched, paying no attention to the *beep* dialogue or "acting".

Anyway, this has THE MOST RIDICULOUS SCENES MOVIE EVER, I really enjoyed it (LMAO). The fight scence where he took out like 50 guys (who had weapons and guns) with a fire extinguisher. That scence is untouched as far as I'm concerned. I can only think of a few movies that a character get that many hand-to-hand "knockout" or whatever you want to call it really.

_______________________________________
I love when hollywood's big movies bomb.

reply

[–] Captain_Solo 19 years ago

I thought it was made clear that the movie was actually supposed to be not believable. You know, some of the scenes were supposed to seem too far fetched and unrealistic.

reply

[–] jakramer 19 years ago

In the "making of" special feature on the DVD they show them actually doing that stunt. . . driving a car up a ramp and have it do a 360 in mid-air, scraping the chasis of the car on a crane and landing perfectly on all four tires. Granted there was no bomb attached to the car and no huge explosion as the car hits the crane, and instead of landing and driving off the car landed on a huge cushion but still. I think it was pretty darn cool that that scene was for the most part not CGI. I'll admit that I was sitting there saying no way during that scene but when I saw the special feature my jaw dropped.

reply

[–] mikeb6944 19 years ago

I call BS, anyone else see this feature??

reply

[–] gta8843 19 years ago

Just watched it a few minutes ago--he's right, that jump, with the crane, is entirely real. The car, however, did *not* land on it's wheels--it still almost completely upside down and landed on a large series of cushions.

reply

[–] bloodshotFanatical 19 years ago

You havn't seen Charlies Angels II then. There is NOTHING that Transporter 2 could show that was capable of topping the ridiculousness CAII went to.

"We must have waffles. We must all have waffles forthwith."

reply

[–] misfitting 19 years ago

the biggest bluff is by far the airplane scene, i mean come on! but it was an entertaining film non the less

reply