Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

deanbeyer-68863 Some chose the mechanic based on a list of TOP assassin movies. Well it's safe to say that the British guy from Crank is more or less an 18 year old working at Jiffy lube who has a licence to carry. Now, he is no bigger than Jackie Chan, but we expect this actor to throw down. He doesn't even use a silencer. His gun is a nub gun. Something an elf would use. It looked like a down syndrome weapon. I was hoping for a sniper rifle. Or some swords. In the beginning He meets an old man who seems like a friend. They have breakfast. I think its pierce bronston. It doesn't matter. After about fifteen minutes he finds him at work at shoots him in the heart. Right in the heart. Idiot. Plus they had a really homo staring contest like in twilight saga. I forgot to tell you the guy was handicap in a wheelchair. Off to a good start. That character was POINTLESS. The assassin just shot an old man in a wheelchair. All the sudden we are in a dance bar. Some dank floozie wants action. A classy hoe with status. She looked like an affluent wine drinker. Maybe a grade school teacher. Well, she banged the crap out of him then drank some coffee. Sounds like first period was in session.Then she dissipated from the film completely. But I got to see some boobs and bare naked ass. Not an assassination but ok. Nothing wrong with a little porn. After this, Mr. Crank finds this POS house like from fight club and just decides to sleep there. Like WTF I realized the main character is white trash with no special abilities or plans. I wasn't listening to the audio but I'm certain he hooks up with his brother who is an alcoholic and a liability to everyone. So far there is not much action. No kung fu so far. The rest of the movie these two idiots go back and forth from the abandoned house to a muscle car workshop. You know because he is a "mechanic" OOOOooo scary. The title is so catchy yet the act is so oily. There is a few gun shots with some 1980's executives. Who cares. Nobody important. They barely know how to shoot. This movie is a Complete diarrhea storm.

brchthethird While no one would ever mistake THE MECHANIC for a great movie, for the most part it's a competently done hit-man/mentor film that makes good use of Jason Statham and never overstays its welcome. The scenario is something that's been done many times before: an experienced (sometimes aging, but not in this case) hit-man takes a younger person under their wing as a protégé, and eventually they have to confront each other in some way. Not only has this been done before, but this film is a remake of a 1970's one starring Charles Bronson. Not having seen that one, I can't compare the two, but I also won't debate the merits of this new version existing in the first place. It is what it is, and for what it's worth I thought it was enjoyable, if slightly mundane, way to pass 90 minutes.The character development is kept to a minimum, as is common for films of this type. Jason Statham's character is (obviously) the most fleshed-out person, but Ben Foster gets enough to do and plays off of Statham's character quite nicely. The one person I thought was underused was Donald Sutherland, as Statham's mentor and Ben Foster's father. He only got two scenes, but he still made the most of his limited screen time. Generally speaking, the acting was decent across the board. Even the main villain, despite being underwritten and a bit generic, was well-played.However, the area where this film possibly dips into some murky territory is the ridiculous levels of violence it chooses to show. With the exception of when Statham's character is introduced, there is no subtlety to his process, nor does it go about things in a methodical way to show the intricacies of his profession. Instead, the young upstart basically drags him down and the audience gets treated to explosions of blood and gore that would feel more at home in a "torture porn" movie. I suppose that it's another genre trope that the more experienced professional starts to lose his touch a little bit once he takes on a student, but there are some truly ridiculous scenes between the two as they mow their way through all of the bad guys that are coming their way.Still, this was enjoyable enough due to Jason Statham's charisma and the levity which Ben Foster brought to the proceedings. I wouldn't hate it if they teamed up again for another movie. And barring the, at times, excessive violence, this timeworn story was told with some efficiency, if a little light on originality. Recommended mostly if you're a Jason Statham fan.

sesht Almost everyone I know that has watched this, and the original, swears by the original. Might be true to the extent of how derivative most Simon West movies are. But, for me, someone who hasn't seen the original (my local library has a copy - I'll visit it soon), this one delivered. It's not just another serviceable thriller, though it is predictable the way most mainstream action movies are. However, since its Statham we're talking about, I have to say that this one's quite a few notches superior to his 'Transporter' series (of which I only have affection for the first one), or his 'Expendables' series (West directed the 2nd one, which many fans call the best in the series). The casting's pitch-perfect, and it was an inspired casting choice bringing Ben Foster in, who's walked away with every scene even in the high-profile mainstream flicks he's starred in, including 'Hostage', 'Lone Survivor' and '3:10 to Yuma' (where he upstaged both Bale and Crowe, even though they were were in fine form throughout that superior remake) and had a fantastic turn with Woody Harrelson and Samantha Morton in 'The Messenger'. His role in this is weaker, relatively speaking, and he doesn't have much opportunity to flex his acting chops, since this is Statham's vehicle all the way. But knowing him from all those other efforts, he tries gamely, and gives Statham quite a bit of company, and though I wish his arc was stronger/better-defined, this was better than if someone else was cast in the same role.Sutherland gets too little screen-time, and is wasted, but once again, it's better to have had him in the role than any other alternative.The R-rated action is of the take-no-prisoners variety, juggling that approach with the artistic license / suspension-of-disbelief factor that plagues almost all mainstream action-flicks (thankfully not to the lengths that most B/Tollywood flicks plumb the depths of), that doesn't quite reach the bottoms to which the 'Transporter' movies succumbed to, so that's definitely a relief.Pity it wasn't more substantial though, and hopefully the sequel that's been announced has something good and surprising in store. Worth a watch.

RobertBerg When I saw this DVD in the used DVD rack, I didn't realize that, even though it had the same name, it really is a poor remake of the Charles Bronson, Jan Michael Vincent classic. (Hollywood, could you possibly find an original thought in your collective heads?) Oh, the cinematography and shot designs are modern, and Statham delivers a solid performance, but Foster as Steve McKenna NEVER convinced me he harbored an inner psychotic or had any real desire to be a hit man. In fact, his performance is more sophomoric than it is moody.In the original (1972), Bronson's brooding loner and Vincent's devil-may-care swagger make the story believable, and, ultimately, much more disturbing.Don't watch remakes...for the most part, they get made because a studio "suit" dusted off the earnings spreadsheet for the original and decided that the well could be tapped again for more dough. And, most of the time, they suck.