At 49 out of 100, it has a mixed Metacritic score.
Synopsis
Arthur Bishop is a mechanic. He fixes things for a syndicate. Sometimes the assignment has to be loud, to get a point across, and sometimes it has to look like an accident.
Harry McKenna (Donald Sutherland) recruited Arthur, and acted as his mentor. Harry has a son, Steve (Ben Foster), who he doesn’t understand and doesn’t really like.
Dean (Tony Goldwyn) is also in the syndicate. One day he calls Arthur and tells him that Harry ratted out a syndicate team on a job. Harry is Arthur’s next fix.
Afterward, Arthur meets Steve, who clearly carries a lot of pent-up rage. Steve doesn’t really care about his father being murdered, he just sees it as an excuse to let his rage out.
Arthur takes Steve on as a protégé, and things get complicated…
Verdict
My wife says this was a way of introducing a classic to a new generation.
Which would be fine, if the 1972 Charles Bronson movie was “a classic.”
The Mechanic is a re-make of The Mechanic, a 1972 cult classic directed by Michael Winner (Chato’s Land, The Death Wish trilogy, The Sentinel, The Big Sleep).
How much of a re-make is it?
Lewis John Carlino gets screenplay and story credit on both movies.
The three-act story structure is pretty sound.
The first act runs up until Harry’s death and the introduction of Steve.
The second act runs until Arthur figures out that Dean was the real traitor, and that he lied in order to set up Harry.
The third act finishes out the movie.
How much of a re-make is it?
Three of the main characters have the same name.
As far as characters go, there’s some effort to actually develop Arthur, Harry, and Steve through action and dialogue. We never know why Steve is such a ball of rage. We never learn how Arthur got into the business. Arthur’s fears and desires are at the heart of his conflict – he desperately wants someone else in his life, but he’s terrified that anyone he lets in will betray him somehow.
How much of a re-make is it?
If you saw the first one, you know how this one ends.
Steve’s character is actually more clear in the original film, which is one of Jan Michael Vincent’s greatest roles. He’s an extremely intelligent young man who’s searching for a way to make his mark in the world. When he stumbles into Arthur, he sees something that intrigues him and he pursues it. His competitive streak is clear from early in the film.
How much of a re-make is it? 66% of the audience report liking the original, over 52% for this re-make.
There’s no Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes score for the 1972 film.
Actually…
They cut out Arthur Bishop’s drug use.
In the 1972 movie, it’s underplayed, but it’s there from early in the movie. It gives the audience a clue that Arthur is slipping. There are cracks in his professional façade. He’s on the slippery slope to his own doom (you couldn’t do drugs on screen in 1972 and be a big winner at the end of the movie).
The performances are their own. Statham is not trying to imitate Charles Bronson, Ben Foster creates his own Steve McKenna, and Donald Sutherland makes you forget Keenan Wynn’s version of the character.
The setting is brand new, and all the assignments are re-imagined.
Plus, the ending is slightly different.
Not a lot, but the original is a very nihilistic film and this one veers way from the truly dark ending. How Steve discovers Arthur’s role in Harry’s death is new, and much clearer in this film.
Overall
It’s not that it’s a bad film.
It’s just a re-make of a film that wasn’t that popular in the first place. As such, it's another piece of evidence that they surgically remove your imagination when you go to work for a big movie studio.
No comments:
Post a Comment