Review: The Mechanic

Jason Statham is a professional hit man for a shadowy organisation headed by Tony Goldwyn. The targets are always scum, but when Statham’s mentor (Donald Sutherland) is set to be Statham’s next kill due to apparently giving away vital info for cash, Statham finally has a crisis of conscience, or at the very least a huge conflict of interest. Reluctantly, he accepts the job, as if he didn’t do it, someone else would be called in to do the job anyway. Guilt-ridden, Statham looks out for Sutherland’s wayward son Ben Foster, who is full of pent-up rage looking for an outlet. Unaware of what Statham has done, Foster is taken under his wing as his protégé, albeit without the consent of Statham’s employer.

 
Although based on a 1972 film with Charles Bronson (the creepy gay henchman gives away this story’s vintage. There was almost always a creepy gay henchman in 70s action films presumably to please homophobic males), this 2011 remake from director Simon West (the seriously underrated “Con Air”) and writer Richard Wenk (“16 Blocks”, a bit less underrated) is a typical Jason Statham movie for the most part. On that level, it’s certainly one of Statham’s better ones, even if it doesn’t have as much action as you’d expect.


It works as a perfectly fine B-movie right up until the end, where we get two twist endings. The first one is cool, if not entirely shocking, but it is then ruined by the second one that I simply didn’t believe in. Based on the characters and everything that had preceded it, the first ending is plausible. The second, not so much. It involves one person doing something to another that I didn’t believe in due to what they had been through previously. Oh, hell, I can’t really go on without a ****SPOILER WARNING**** The entire point of Statham taking on Foster as his young apprentice was so that he could somehow atone for having killed his dad. So why then would he kill the kid for trying to kill him when he learns the truth? He’s feeling guilty, but oh no, you can’t kill me for it! And it just destroys the entire point of the relationship that had previously been built throughout the rest of the film. So what’s the fucking point? At least if they had left things at the first ending, some sense of justice was served, and it left one to ponder whether Foster would now take over from Statham. But that second ending? That shit ain’t right. It leaves a really bad taste in the mouth, to be honest. I’ve heard the original (I haven’t seen it) ended much the same, but with one small yet crucial difference that actually might have made it work. **** END SPOILER ****


I must admit, when I saw that this film was from Millennium Films, I had myself prepared for a mediocre film. Statham I can handle, but Millennium rarely deliver the goods. So I was glad that my expectations ended up exceeded at the end of the day, despite the conclusion of the film. Then there’s the gratuitous sex scene early in the film, which was really, really gratuitous...and not nearly long enough, damn it. I loathed Jason Statham in early efforts like “The Italian Job” and “Mean Machine”, where I always felt like he was an American trying too hard to sound British. Turns out he really is British, and I’ve warmed to him in recent years, especially in the “Crank” films and “Killer Elite”. Statham is unbendingly Statham in every role, but I’m used to that by now. Just once, I’d like for him to stretch himself, step out of his comfort zone for a change and see if he can do something else. But at the end of the day, this is what he’s good at, and let’s face it, Cary Grant was always Cary Grant, Gregory Peck rarely stretched himself (and sometimes failed when he did), so that’s fine. He’s definitely the right guy for this taciturn, ‘tough guy with half a conscience’ role. Even better is Ben Foster as the wayward son of his target, stealing the entire film. When he’s on, Foster is one of the better actors of his generation, and having a ‘real’ actor like him to play off Statham is a welcome thing in my eyes. They complement each other really well without Foster having to turn into Mos Def in “16 Blocks” to get the point across (Not that I minded Mos Def, he was deliberately annoying in that film). Foster scares me, though, because he has a bit of a Charles Manson look about him. He’s probably a nice guy, but I’d hate to meet him in a dark alley just the same. Statham might be a tough bastard, Foster is unstable and unpredictable. He does seem a bit young to be playing Donald Sutherland’s son, though, don’t you think? I mean, Sutherland is 76, whilst Foster isn’t even half that.


Donald Sutherland, as he is often capable of doing, proves the old adage that there are no small parts, only small actors. He’s always understood it (remember his scene-stealing work in “The Dirty Dozen” or “Backdraft”?), and does a terrific job of stealing his every scene. This isn’t a criticism of Statham, who holds his own, but Foster and Sutherland are real actors who bring their A-game, even though this is B material.


Less committed is Tony Goldwyn, who has long since checked out, happy to pick up a paycheck to play yet another a-hole. He might’ve been a lot more fun, if the role were larger, but he’s still clearly sleepwalking through the part (Maybe he’s jaded due to all his roles in bigger films going to Danny Huston or Liev Schreiber).

 
This is a predominantly crisp, fairly well-lit and slick looking film, but cinematographer Eric Schmidt does earn my ire for spilling his dodgy piss sample all over the lens. Help me out here, Americans. Do the streets really light up like a urine infection at night? The entire street, the houses, roads, and people all look like a bad piss test here. There’s no room for any natural colour. I’ve never experienced that in my own personal life here in the land of Oz, so if this is really how it is, please drop me a line ‘coz I’m getting sick of the ugliness of it.

 
There isn’t wall-to-wall action like most Statham films, there’s some nice, judiciously used blood splatter in what is otherwise more of an assassin/conspiracy flick. I did like the brief, Seagal-esque train fight, which is quick and impactful. It won’t make you forget “From Russia With Love”, however. There’s also a terrific fake-out involving a young girl and a garbage disposal unit that bloody well got me.

 
Not a great film, but it’s not looking to be. Aside from a totally disheartening ending, this is enjoyable stuff on its chosen level. Definitely a must-see for Statham fans, though Ben Foster ultimately upstages him.


Rating: B-

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Review: Hellraiser (2022)

Review: Cinderella (1950)

Review: Eugenie de Sade