RobertBerg

It was a favorite as a lad, even though it was short-lived

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.

It's simply amazing this film has a 4.1 user rating since it WAS NEVER FINISHED!

There were a handful of shooting days left in Colorado Springs at the replica of the Trianon, and a few days to do at a park in Boulder when the production funding fell apart and the lawsuits started!

It was fun while it lasted, working with name talent in every role, shooting with TWO Panavision camera packages, and acting like a real crew! Little did we know that the producer had no money... Many people and companies lost a fortune on this little baby.

I think the footage ended up at the lab in San Francisco, and the camera and lighting companies ended up eating their losses. The famous hotel in Colorado Springs took a many thousand dollar loss (because that's where all the major talent was staying). Individual crew members lost apartments and defaulted on bills.

In short, a disaster...and completely unexpected with this sort of cast attached. Personally, I believe the producer was a certifiable cuckoo.