Director: Simon West
Cast: Jason Statham, Ben Foster, Donald Sutherland, Tony Goldwyn
Country: United States
Rating: R
Run Time: 93 minutes
Just like Bronson, it has been a long time since I revisited Jason Statham (The Transporter Trilogy) on my blog. I guess it's hard to give every single action icon attention all year round. Maybe I should cut back on the Bruce Willis and Chow Yun Fat reviews since I tend to give them plenty of exposure.
While I think that it was unnecessary to remake a film as good as The Mechanic, I think that it works fine as a Statham vehicle. If you're going to have the balls to recast a Charles Bronson role in a film, than I think an action devotee like Statham is a suitable replacement. Unfortunately, this remake is essentially the same film but with different action set pieces and far less subtlety. Director Simon West makes almost everything in the film as obvious, loud, and simplistic as possible for dumb contemporary audiences. This simplifying of the material hurts the film and takes away what made Winner's subtle and nuanced original so special. Warts and all, The Mechanic remake still shows Statham in prime ass kicking form and has a couple cool action scenes to boot.
I also have to say, just look at that awful tagline on the film's teaser poster. It might as well say, "someone has to write these taglines, so here you go." It's so bland that anyone could have thought it up. And while you're at it, check out that awesome collage of guns on the poster that won't appear in the film. I wished that old Western revolvers, mini-guns, sawed off shotguns, and RPG's showed up within the film. At least it would have been a little crazier and fun. Fortunately, F2000's and P90's do pop up, so the poster isn't a total lie.
 |
| The Transporter becomes The Mechanic. |
The Mechanic remake has essentially the same plot as Winner's original but with a slight difference or two. Arthur Bishop (Statham) is an assassin who kills people for a mob-like company. When Bishop's boss Dean Anderson (Tony Goldwyn) asks for him to kill his mentor Harry McKenna (Donald Sutherland), he calls a meeting for proof of McKenna's deservedness to die. Anderson shows Bishop evidence of McKenna betraying and murdering five of his agents in order to make off with loads of money. Even though he regrets it, Bishop does the dirty work and guns down McKenna.
Bishop eventually meets Steve (Ben Foster), McKenna's son, who takes his dad's death pretty hard. After much pressing from Steve, Bishop reveals that he is an assassin and decides to take him under his wing feeling bad for him (this is what I think happens, the film doesn't explicitly state Bishop's reasoning in the remake). As the two start to assassinate targets together, they attract the attention of Anderson and eventually find their lives in danger. However the two eventually learn that their greatest threat is not Anderson, but one another.
In this remake, West and screenwriters Lewis John Carlino and Richard Wenk give a reason for every targets' death. One target is a ruthless warlord, another is a perverted cult leader with a drug addiction, and another is a big guy who likes young men. One of my biggest problems with this remake is that West and the screenwriters try to justify each targets' death. You see in the original, Winner never gave a single reason as to why a target needed to be eliminated and never tried to justify Bronson's Bishop as a good guy. It was simply a film about a guy who kills people because he is told too, plain and simple. This seems to be the big difference between the original and the remake. Back in the day, filmmakers didn't go out of their way to explain things. Their films flowed and audiences went along with it. But now, filmmakers are concerned with making sure audiences understand everything. In doing so, contemporary filmmakers over explain their film's motives and thereby ruin the experience. If West let his film play out and breathe like Winner's original, than it would have been a far better film.
Beginning of spoilers for original and remake!
West also ruins The Mechanic's great twist ending by taking all of the surprise out of it and making each character's awareness of one another's eventual betrayal extremely obvious. However, West doesn't just take the surprise out of the twist ending. He ruins it entirely by setting up Steve to enact vengeance on Bishop for killing his father. We also learn that McKenna was innocent! Anderson set up McKenna to be killed by Bishop all along. Therefore, Bishop feels horrible for killing McKenna when he realizes that he was innocent. So when Steve tries to kill Bishop in this film, he is doing it because Steve was wrongfully set up to kill an innocent man.
But it doesn't stop there! Bishop survives! Even though Bishop dies in the original, he was on to Steve's plans and set up a trap to kill him back at his home. In this film however, Bishop does the same thing but gets away to live on in an unnecessary sequel. But now it's horrible that Bishop kills Steve because he never took the time to explain to him what happened with his dad! In the original, Steve never cared about his father's death because he was a heartless bastard. His betrayal of Bishop was great because it showed a young man trying to take his mentor's place. This film on the other hand completely removes that character dynamic and opts for basic revenge instead. Riveting.
End of spoilers for original and remake!
I could go on for a while about why I dislike this revised ending so I'll keep it short and sweet: the original ending is subtle, rewarding, and great while the remake's ending is contrived, a cop out, and disappointing.
Another issue I have with this remake is that it gives a face to the villain. In the original, the head of the organization is seen in one scene. He is never heard from again and mostly kept in the shadows off screen. In the remake however, the villain, Anderson, is given a face and repeatedly appears throughout the film. Instead of focusing on the relationship between Steven and Bishop, West crafts a sub-plot where Steve and Bishop eventually go after Anderson in order to stop him and destroy the organization once and for all. This giving the villain a face is totally unnecessary. The original was great because there was no set villain and the original organization's figure head was mysterious and elusive. Now the villain is simply a rich bumbling businessman with an earpiece and a nice suit. As I stated before, this remake is all about making everything loud and obvious. It lacks Winner's nuanced subtlety that allowed the audience to think for themselves.
After all my complaining and moaning, you would probably think that I hate this movie. Well, I don't. Even though I was disappointed in it as if it were a child of mine, I still found it to be entertaining in parts and worthy of a rental at least. If there is one improvement to the original, it is that West's remake has bloodier action, crazier stunts, and a higher body count. I yelled, "Oh!" numerous times throughout the film, so that is always a good sign that the film entertained me somewhat. Statham and Foster show off their skills in numerous action scenes that incorporate cars, boats, fist fighting, and shootouts. It is unfortunate though that most of the blood is painfully digital a-la The Expendables.
There is a fantastic stunt worthing singling out during the final action sequence where Foster drives a bus towards a convoy of cars. After Foster collides with Anderson's convoy, he runs towards the back of the bus as a fireball travels down the middle of it. Foster leaps towards the back and window and rolls out just as the fire explodes out of the bus' window. For all of my complaints about the film, at least I can say that Winner knows how to direct an exciting action sequence.
The film also has a great set piece around the hour mark where Statham and Foster have to take on numerous guards inside of a hotel. This scene also features a great stunt where Foster and Statham free fall down the side of the building while attached to a rope. The scene is shot with cameras attached to the actors in order to immerse the audience in the free fall experience. It is a great little touch that went a long way for me.
Both Statham and Foster's performances can't stack up to Bronson and Vincent's from the original. However, I don't blame this entirely on the actors. I blame it purely on the material they were given to work with. Regardless of the material, Statham and Foster make for a really cool team. They both do a great job during their action scenes and fit well into the world of the film. I usually love Ben Foster in every performance of his. He has the ability to completely steal a film from whomever else is in the picture. Just look towards his appearances in 3:10 to Yuma, The Punisher, Lone Survivor, and The Messenger if you want to see what I mean. Unfortunately, he isn't given much to work with here. Instead of stealing the film as he could have, Foster matches Statham every step of the way.
And how about Statham? Statham is sort of our contemporary Bronson nowadays, so it is ironic that he is in a remake of a Bronson classic. In all honesty, Statham does what he always does; talk in a menacing voice and kill bad guys with style. His performance lacks the silence and subtlety that made Bronson better though. Honestly, Statham's performances rarely ever differ. All of his characters tend to blur and feel like the same guy after awhile. It is usually the plots and action scenes that separate one Statham film from the next. You know exactly what you are getting into with each Statham performance and that is just fine with me. I like the guy and think he is relatively bad ass in all of his films no matter how boring or bad they are (Parker anyone? All I remember is lots of real estate talk in that one).
Bishop eventually meets Steve (Ben Foster), McKenna's son, who takes his dad's death pretty hard. After much pressing from Steve, Bishop reveals that he is an assassin and decides to take him under his wing feeling bad for him (this is what I think happens, the film doesn't explicitly state Bishop's reasoning in the remake). As the two start to assassinate targets together, they attract the attention of Anderson and eventually find their lives in danger. However the two eventually learn that their greatest threat is not Anderson, but one another.
In this remake, West and screenwriters Lewis John Carlino and Richard Wenk give a reason for every targets' death. One target is a ruthless warlord, another is a perverted cult leader with a drug addiction, and another is a big guy who likes young men. One of my biggest problems with this remake is that West and the screenwriters try to justify each targets' death. You see in the original, Winner never gave a single reason as to why a target needed to be eliminated and never tried to justify Bronson's Bishop as a good guy. It was simply a film about a guy who kills people because he is told too, plain and simple. This seems to be the big difference between the original and the remake. Back in the day, filmmakers didn't go out of their way to explain things. Their films flowed and audiences went along with it. But now, filmmakers are concerned with making sure audiences understand everything. In doing so, contemporary filmmakers over explain their film's motives and thereby ruin the experience. If West let his film play out and breathe like Winner's original, than it would have been a far better film.
 |
| Foster gives 100% to a role that could've been so much more. |
Beginning of spoilers for original and remake!
West also ruins The Mechanic's great twist ending by taking all of the surprise out of it and making each character's awareness of one another's eventual betrayal extremely obvious. However, West doesn't just take the surprise out of the twist ending. He ruins it entirely by setting up Steve to enact vengeance on Bishop for killing his father. We also learn that McKenna was innocent! Anderson set up McKenna to be killed by Bishop all along. Therefore, Bishop feels horrible for killing McKenna when he realizes that he was innocent. So when Steve tries to kill Bishop in this film, he is doing it because Steve was wrongfully set up to kill an innocent man.
But it doesn't stop there! Bishop survives! Even though Bishop dies in the original, he was on to Steve's plans and set up a trap to kill him back at his home. In this film however, Bishop does the same thing but gets away to live on in an unnecessary sequel. But now it's horrible that Bishop kills Steve because he never took the time to explain to him what happened with his dad! In the original, Steve never cared about his father's death because he was a heartless bastard. His betrayal of Bishop was great because it showed a young man trying to take his mentor's place. This film on the other hand completely removes that character dynamic and opts for basic revenge instead. Riveting.
End of spoilers for original and remake!
I could go on for a while about why I dislike this revised ending so I'll keep it short and sweet: the original ending is subtle, rewarding, and great while the remake's ending is contrived, a cop out, and disappointing.
 |
| That guy in the middle is going to have trouble aiming since his gun is above his eye line. |
Another issue I have with this remake is that it gives a face to the villain. In the original, the head of the organization is seen in one scene. He is never heard from again and mostly kept in the shadows off screen. In the remake however, the villain, Anderson, is given a face and repeatedly appears throughout the film. Instead of focusing on the relationship between Steven and Bishop, West crafts a sub-plot where Steve and Bishop eventually go after Anderson in order to stop him and destroy the organization once and for all. This giving the villain a face is totally unnecessary. The original was great because there was no set villain and the original organization's figure head was mysterious and elusive. Now the villain is simply a rich bumbling businessman with an earpiece and a nice suit. As I stated before, this remake is all about making everything loud and obvious. It lacks Winner's nuanced subtlety that allowed the audience to think for themselves.
After all my complaining and moaning, you would probably think that I hate this movie. Well, I don't. Even though I was disappointed in it as if it were a child of mine, I still found it to be entertaining in parts and worthy of a rental at least. If there is one improvement to the original, it is that West's remake has bloodier action, crazier stunts, and a higher body count. I yelled, "Oh!" numerous times throughout the film, so that is always a good sign that the film entertained me somewhat. Statham and Foster show off their skills in numerous action scenes that incorporate cars, boats, fist fighting, and shootouts. It is unfortunate though that most of the blood is painfully digital a-la The Expendables.
There is a fantastic stunt worthing singling out during the final action sequence where Foster drives a bus towards a convoy of cars. After Foster collides with Anderson's convoy, he runs towards the back of the bus as a fireball travels down the middle of it. Foster leaps towards the back and window and rolls out just as the fire explodes out of the bus' window. For all of my complaints about the film, at least I can say that Winner knows how to direct an exciting action sequence.
 |
| "May the odds be ever in your favor Bishop." |
The film also has a great set piece around the hour mark where Statham and Foster have to take on numerous guards inside of a hotel. This scene also features a great stunt where Foster and Statham free fall down the side of the building while attached to a rope. The scene is shot with cameras attached to the actors in order to immerse the audience in the free fall experience. It is a great little touch that went a long way for me.
Both Statham and Foster's performances can't stack up to Bronson and Vincent's from the original. However, I don't blame this entirely on the actors. I blame it purely on the material they were given to work with. Regardless of the material, Statham and Foster make for a really cool team. They both do a great job during their action scenes and fit well into the world of the film. I usually love Ben Foster in every performance of his. He has the ability to completely steal a film from whomever else is in the picture. Just look towards his appearances in 3:10 to Yuma, The Punisher, Lone Survivor, and The Messenger if you want to see what I mean. Unfortunately, he isn't given much to work with here. Instead of stealing the film as he could have, Foster matches Statham every step of the way.
And how about Statham? Statham is sort of our contemporary Bronson nowadays, so it is ironic that he is in a remake of a Bronson classic. In all honesty, Statham does what he always does; talk in a menacing voice and kill bad guys with style. His performance lacks the silence and subtlety that made Bronson better though. Honestly, Statham's performances rarely ever differ. All of his characters tend to blur and feel like the same guy after awhile. It is usually the plots and action scenes that separate one Statham film from the next. You know exactly what you are getting into with each Statham performance and that is just fine with me. I like the guy and think he is relatively bad ass in all of his films no matter how boring or bad they are (Parker anyone? All I remember is lots of real estate talk in that one).
 |
| The mentor and the apprentice wasting round after round on one guy. |
I am surprised I wrote an abnormally high amount of words for a remake few people even saw or care about. I guess that is what happens when the action genre is your passion. Anyways, West and Statham do a good job at kicking ass and delivering good action scenes. However, they fail in almost every other area. The Mechanic remake is as by the numbers as they come. It takes a unique and silent film from the 70's and turns it into a dumb headed and loud film from the 2010's. This one is definitely a rental and not worth a second watch.
Rating: 5/10 - An unnecessary remake that offers up nothing new but cool action scenes. Otherwise, this is a by the numbers action film that will displease fans of the original but possibly thrill newcomers.
Franchise:
The Mechanic (dir. Michael Winner, 1972)
The Mechanic (dir. Simon West, 2011)
Mechanic: Resurrection (dir. Dennis Gansel, 2016)
No comments:
Post a Comment