The Mechanic

The Mechanic

Arthur Bishop is a 'mechanic' - an elite assassin with a strict code and unique talent for cleanly eliminating targets. It's a job that requires professional perfection and total detachment, and Bishop is the best in the business. But when he is ordered to take out his mentor and close friend Harry, Bishop is anything but detached.

Arthur Bishop (Jason Statham) is a 'mechanic' - an elite assassin with a strict code and unique talent for cleanly eliminating targets. It's a job that requires professional perfection and total detachment, and Bishop is the best in the business. But when his mentor and close friend Harry (Donald Sutherland) is murdered, Bishop is anything but detached. His next assignment is self-imposed - he wants those responsible dead. His mission grows complicated when Harry's son Steve (Ben Foster) approaches him with the same vengeful goal and a determination to learn Bishop's trade. Bishop has always acted alone but he can't turn his back on Harry's son. A methodical hit man takes an impulsive student deep into his world and a deadly partnership is born. But while in pursuit of their ultimate mark, deceptions threaten to surface and those hired to fix problems become problems themselves. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

The Mechanic torrent reviews

Dan P (us) wrote: When the movie started I was ready to turn it off but as it progressed I actually started to like this sucky film.

Cody W (gb) wrote: Was no where near as good as the first. That's what happens when you make movies backward. For me it was not worth watching. Wish I hadn't seen it.

Eduardo C (ca) wrote: Has Ozon lost his fucking mind?

Andrew I (au) wrote: I just want people to notice that the "official" reviews from this site fail to effectively refute even the claims that they poke fun at. For instance, a gentleman from Chicago references a quote from the movie that declares Islam to be the only religion that mandates violence against unbelievers. The reviewer reaches vaguely back in to the past to point out that other, awful things have been done by the adherents of other faiths and thusly, this documentary is rubbish. Is it true that people in the past have perpetrated great evil under the banner of other faiths besides Islam? Absolutely. Do those faiths, in their source texts - their most revered written traditions, mandate that violence? No. The reviewer has missed the mark out of ignorance, willful or otherwise. What impressed (and disturbed) me the most out of this documentary are these two things: 1) There's not a lot of dramatic, multi-sensory tricks played on the viewer. No over abundance of ominous or moody background music, no gloomy or washed out color palette when depicting a villain, etc. The material is trusted to do the job of a documentary - educating and persuading. 2) The source material says it all and it's not as one-sided as you might expect. The contributors readily acknowledge that there are "peaceful" verses in the Quran and these verses are read aloud with the same voice-over as the violent verses. The rub comes in the way that orthodox Islam sees the seeming contradiction between peace and violence. It is a "seeming contradiction" because it is not really a contradiction at all to a Muslim. Readers here will pardon my forgetfulness of the exact term in arabic, but there is a clear precedent in reading Islamic texts wherein the verse that comes later chronologically is the authority if there is a conflict between verses. The violent verses (so-called verse of the sword, etc.)? They were written in the later stages of Muhammad's life. Those verses have authority over any verse you may read or be shown that portrays Islam as a peaceful and tolerant religion. This by itself should be alarming enough for the entire "West" to take notice, but the rabbit hole goes deeper and instead of recapping the entire documentary, I'll just recommend that anyone interested in a serious look at Islam, it's roots, and it's relevance today, watch this. Don't accept the opinion of someone who's content to make fun of a single claim and utterly fail to deal with the rest of the information presented. Don't even take my word for it! Watch it and decide for yourself if it's just a bunch of biggoted hate-speech or if it has some real merit. Better yet, google this movie. Has it been effectively refuted? Are there a lot of articles out there taking on each claim of the documentarians and providing source material of their own to overturn or disprove them? OR, has this movie been swept under the rug, like any other movie that Hollywood doesn't like but can't find enough fault to publicly embarrass?

Michael T (gb) wrote: As is usually the case, the sequel is not as good as the original; in this case, the original was no masterpiece, either.

Adam F (nl) wrote: "Serving Sara" is a horrendous romantic comedy that has no romance whatsoever and very few laughs. Our main character "Joe Tyler" is thoroughly unlikeable and although Matthew Perry tries hard to make him funny by doing a sort of stand-up performance throughout with snappy remarks, imitations and off-handed jokes most of them fall completely flat. As the movie goes on you just hate his character more and more because he reminds you of that unfunny guy at the party that's desperately trying to hit on women by saying bad jokes and trying way too hard to make them laugh. As a process server he seems to be constantly barely holding on and screwing up all the time so when he gets into a tight situation with his latest job you don't feel any tension, you feel like it's just business as usual for this loser who can't get a handle on things. Elizabeth Hurley plays "Sara", a woman that has been served divorced papers and decides to outsmart her cheating husband with a bit of assistance from "Joe". You cheer for her (particularly after she lets the unlikeable "Joe" receive a vicious beating from two mobsters) but unfortunately her comedic scenes aren't funny at all and border on the ridiculous. There's a scene in the airport where her pants get caught in some machinery so she has to change her outfit by swiping some clothes from the luggage that's lying around. She only needs pants, but she changes her whole outfit and leaves all of the bags all open with clothes on the floor. This new sexy look is supposed to have us get excited about seeing more of her throughout the movie (As several scenes later tease the audience by showing glimpses of her naked body) but it just raises some questions like: Why did she change all of her clothes? If she's in such a hurry, why did she take the time to look for a new matching outfit? Did anyone think that scene was going to be funny? Several scenes in the movie seem to have had little thought put into them. After "Sara" takes a shower in the hotel room she is sharing with "Joe" she decides to go to bed while still wearing the towel she had in the bathroom. Wouldn't it make more sense for her to go to sleep in her underwear (she has no spare clothes with her despite having stolen a new outfit earlier) or just fully clothed? Even going to bed naked would be more believable than hopping into bed in a wet towel.There are absolutely no sparks between the two leads and it makes the romantic sub plot exhausting. The dialogue is very badly written and there is no physical chemistry either so you simply do not care as the obvious romantic sub plot plays out. To compensate for the poor writing, the movie throws some visual gags that can only be described as childish and amateur. There's a scene where Vincent Pastore is getting his back shaven by a nurse but the woman is using a small rotary saw to get rid of the hair on his body. Did the people working on the film think it was a funny joke to have her use the wrong tool, or was it just a big oversight? Did anyone really think that an extended scene where Matthew Perry has to shove his hand up a bull's anus to help it hump a robotic cow that makes funny faces and sounds would be hilarious? Are we really supposed to believe that when enraged Cedric the Entertainer's character would take the time to spell "You #@*! Up!" on his pager instead of just "You Fucked Up!"The movie is an absolute chore to sit through and as the movie plays out, the bad jokes, lousy dialogue, cheap physical humour and bad plotting just keep adding up in an absolute disaster of a film. There are a couple of laughs in the movie but that just proves that if you just keep throwing joke after joke at the audience, eventually something is going to stick. Even if you can fathom the idea of a scene where a cowboy has to apply ice to his arm because he's spent hours trying to masturbate a bull being funny, you should stay far away from "Serving Sara". (Dvd, April 28, 2013)

Adam M (ru) wrote: Sweet and tender with a seaside wishy washy feeling. Sexual and exciting. Paz vega is adorable.

Jeffrey M (kr) wrote: City of Industry is transformed from an average revenge crime thriller, to a very good one because of a commanding and brooding performance by the criminally under-appreciated Harvey Keitel, who seemingly channels the intensity from his role in Bad Lieutenant.

Luc L (es) wrote: A good subject but doesn't deliver its impact in this drama. Should rather done a documentary instead.

Lise K (mx) wrote: Tender and relevant. Unforgettable duet sung between two bottoms (being fucked or not, that is the question)

Jordan S (au) wrote: Loved when I was a kid. Now it's just silly.

Brian B (us) wrote: Really corny, but a good family movie. A really harmless alien invasion movie.

John B (jp) wrote: I agree with the most recent review put forward by Cynthia M...whoever the heck that is. I like Breillat films because I find them so disturbing on so many levels. There is nothing quite like a decent film that remains in your mind for years afterwards.

Ryan M (jp) wrote: *** out of **** If there was ever a film to truly frighten the acid-heads and the former acid-heads alike, it would be "Blue Sunshine". A sort of cult horror flick and classified "drug movie"; it will certainly tap into the greatest fears of just about anyone who has ever used LSD. I can't say much from experience, since I've never tried the drug (or fooled around with any drug, for the matter), but I do know that as a movie, it delivers on most of its promises. It's whacky and weird, although not as over-the-top as I was expecting. It's tame but at the same time wild. In that sense, it exists in its own world; which is where it gets its cult status. Some people succumb to the world and find themselves immersed in it; others see nothing but obvious weakness. That's where the flaws - which are undeniable - begin to shine through. Luckily, I'm in the former category of people in that I honestly enjoyed the thing for what it was. At a party of mostly young men and women, one male member goes berserk when his false hair is ripped off revealing his almost completely bald head. He then kills everyone but one young man, Jerry Zipkin (Zalman King), who is accused of the murders when the real killer is hit by a truck in the middle of the road. To prove his innocence, Jerry - with the help of his girlfriend - must find out the source of his former friend's randomly psychotic behavior. He traces it to a politician currently in office who distributed a new form of acid called Blue Sunshine to a group of college kids ten years prior. Meanwhile, everyone who took the stuff also starts losing their hair; eventually risking a similar violent reaction to that of Jerry's pal. Oh, and the stuff apparently reduces your tolerance for disco music of a loud variety. Cult films are often appealing because they are simple, a lot of the time based on senses like sight and sound alone, and can be viewed late at night without much trouble. You can doze off and you won't miss much. "Blue Sunshine" is like the rest of them; the good cult movies, that is. But it also has a little something extra; a mystery plot that is actually consistently engaging if not overly obvious. Honestly, I've seen worse from films that take themselves completely seriously. For some, that won't be enough to justify the lack of great character development and plotting, but I'd advise you not to expect finesse going in to begin with. It's a well-crafted film, just not a spotless one. Jeff Lieberman, the director, has gone on to direct a few more films after this one such as "Squirm" in 1976 and "Satan's Little Helper" in 2004. He seems to possess the same kind of macabre humor sensibility that most solid horror directors do; even though I don't view this film as a straight-up horror outing. Its audience is primarily made up of horror fanatics, although the only things "horror" about it is the slasher film aesthetic of the plot and the lingering ambiguity. There isn't too much blood although there are a few death scenes, most of them fairly discreet and non-graphic. I smell a low budget, but thank God it's not an artistic handicap. But here's why it works: it's respectively strange. The things that you expect from a proclaimed "cult film" are pretty much all here: a trippy soundtrack, a peculiar editing job, and a twisty plot. There are some great scenes such as when the characters are in a state of extreme psychological turmoil. They seldom over-act on their part, and we actually get a decent approximation of what it might like to be a former acid-head getting a taste of their own mind-fucking medicine. I like horror films that are also cautionary tales, and "Blue Sunshine" is part thoughtful genre picture and part escapist film. I do not mind it and I was very entertained throughout. I'm a sucker for the "old" feel of a 70's or 80's film (or any film before the current age, really), so you can imagine I ate this one right up. I'm glad I've never tried acid, or had bad acid; because I love me some good disco music.

Greg W (us) wrote: life in post WWII war Japan

Debbie P (de) wrote: "Invisible Ghost (Murder by the Stars)(The Phantom Killer" was releaed in 1941. It stars the ever so wonderful Bela Lugosi. A well-off doctor (played by Lugosi) lives alone with his daughter. His wife has left him and is presumed dead and every year since she has left, on their wedding anniversary he acts like she is still alive and haves a special dinner of celebration. However, she is still alive, insane and kept secret in a barn nearby by a kindly man (who is the gardener) who works for the doctor. At times, she escapes from her hiding place and looks in the window of her former home. Lugois' character knows when she is peeking through the window and he goes into a tance and kills people in the house (i.e. the maid, the gardener). I really liked this movie, and I always thought, no matter how bad the movie is, Bela Lugois makes a movie enjoyable. I recommend it to all his fans.

Jennifer A (kr) wrote: Points for originality, but in the end, a seriously boring zombie movie.