93 of 101 people found the following review helpful
Not Quite As Good As the Original, But Pretty Good Nonetheless,
This review is from: The Mechanic (DVD)
Although this is a remake of the 1970's film by the same name The Mechanic which starred Charles Bronson and Jan Michael Vincent, there are only a few similarities between the two and a lot more differences. This movie has a lot more special effects and action sequences, but seems to lack considerably in the character development of Arthur Bishop (Jason Statham) and Steve McKenna (Ben Foster) and the relationship between the two men. I was also a bit disappointed in the instructional and training period that should have taken place between the master hitman and his protege. I felt that this should have been developed more than it was, and what was shown seemed to be lacking in substance.
The plot runs pretty much the same as the original, but there are some notable difference, which I won't go into here so as not to ruin the movie for those of you who still haven't seen it yet. However, for those of you who have watched the original pay particular attention to the end of the film, where things aren't always what they seem.
Statham did a pretty good job reprising Charles Bronson's role of Arthur Bishop. However, I really couldn't believe Foster's portrayal of his character as much. I am not quite sure why, as I think Foster is a fine actor, but his performance just didn't seem to have the same ring to it as Jan Michael Vincent had in the original version. And although Donald Sutherland has a small part in this film, he played his role just fine.
One thing that I did really like in this film was the way the portrayed the various gunfight scenes with empty handed combat skills. Very believable and some of it would actually be very effective. This made the movie much more enjoyable for those of us that are tired of all the Hollywood fight scenes that have no basis in reality.
One particular plot point that I found very disturbing in the movie, which I won't detail here for fear of having a spoiler, but I will generalize in the fact that for Bishop to be a master hitman, he ends up making a very crucial error in judgment concerning evidence of a previous hit that ends up causing him difficulties in the end. In a nutshell, why would you go through all the trouble to commit a perfect murder and then take a picture of you with the dead body and then leave it lying around for someone to find. Not very smart!
Overall I think this is a movie that is worth seeing, but for all of us Charles Bronson fans out there, you just can't beat the original!
Creator of numerous books and DVD's.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-3 of 3 posts in this discussion
Initial post: May 23, 2011 1:35:33 AM PDT
Doesn't the fact that he allowed the evidence of his previous hit to be found allow him to complete the paradox? All preparation was dependant upon it. Could also just be a Hollywood twist. Easy to do when there is a script in place. I'd tend to agree with you if it wasn't a movie and the human dynamic of unpredictability was involved. Cheers!
In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2011 2:13:09 AM PDT
Shawn Kovacich says:
Yes, for a movie it was actually vital to the story, but in reality it was really a bonehead move. Quite similar in fact to serial murderers taking trophies from their victims. Often times this is what ends up getting them caught and/or being charged with multiple murderers because of one thing connecting to others. I think the movie would have benefited greatly if they would have followed the script from the original movie and had Foster being given a contract on Bishop without him knowing about his father at that time. Then when he thought he had completed the hit and went back to the house, have Bishop's voice come over the phonograph stating that if he (Foster) was listening to this, then he was obviously dead and that he truly regretted having killed his father. However, since you have killed me, then it is only fair that I should now kill you. That is when the house explodes. Much cooler ending and then it could still end with Bishop being alive. Just a thought!
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 12, 2015 12:35:53 AM PDT
Mr. Kovacich I just saw the movie on yesterday on DVD. Since it's been more than five years since it was released what specific scene are you referring to? To me the mistake made was when Foster murdured the big guy and left all of his DNA (Blood, Skin & Fingerprints @ The Scene). Too, when they strangled the arms dealer they did not wipe their fingerprints as they left the room. Note how he opens the door with his hands and touches the door itself. Common sense from 40 or 5o years ago would have had a hitman wearing gloves or at the least wiping up every area they touched. Read the book Hitman: A Technical Manual For Independent Contractors for specifics. See also my Three Star review of this interesting movie.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›