Parker

I wanted to like this movie so much, because I really think Jason Statham has some serious acting skills and he deserves some good scripts. Also the story is based on a book, so it should have been good.

Alas, it was not to be. And it has almost nothing to do with J-Lo being in the movie. The characters are bland, illogical in almost everything they do, even Parker, the Statham's character. Worst than that: they are unsympathetic. You have a lot of greedy people, some of them evil, some of them stupid, and apart from them is Parker, who is not greedy, just stupid. He puts everybody at risk for his own principles, he gets beat up and shot a few times and somehow he still walks. It's like Crank, but without anything fun in it.

I have to say I am a fan of Michael Chiklis, from Vegas, but his role was small and two dimensional. One dimensional, really, but I was going with the cardboard metaphor. You wanna know who was the most clear cut character, the one that did the job and was consistent? Daniel Bernhardt in the role of the Mafia killing machine.

So, bottom line: a waste of time and of good actors.

As a fan of Donald Westlake's writing -- he did the Parker books under the pseudonym of Richard Stark -- I have long been bemused by the inability of film makers to adapt his work for the screen. Westlake wrote for the screen himself, and the Parker books are nothing but action and plot. Yes, there's character, but you figure it out from what Parker and his associates do.

With this, the fourth attempt to film a Parker novel, the film makers have found a practical if surprising choice for the title role. Jason Statham is not an actor of great oratorical powers, but he is a great physical actor, and he moves constantly like an angry tiger in a cage. The choice of a caper which is set largely in Palm Beach, with its artificial, pointless display of wealth and no other reason for existence is the perfect backdrop for the ferocity of Parker in his battle with Michael Chiklis' Melander; Jennifer Lopez' clueless Leslie, who gets caught up without understanding what is going on, gives the audience a good point of view.

Director Taylor Hackford is not a great director, but he is a highly competent one. Sixty years ago he would have been a major director for a studio, setting and working in the house style. Give him a story he can work with and he will hit all the notes, efficiently and effectively, and he has done so here. If the Parker of this movie is different from the Parker of the books, a bit more philosophical (although it comes down, in the end, to the tigerish "Do what I tell you and I will devour you last") we need to remember that a movie is not a book. This is not Donald Westlake's Parker, nor even the Parker I see when I read the books. However, it's still a very good one and worth your attention.

Of course, similar events - revenge after double-crossing - have been depicted several times and will definitely be depicted in the future as well - but it is the direction and choice of actors that counts. As for Parker, everything is at least okay with those: the director Taylor Hackford is an accredited creator and names like Jason Statham, Nick Nolte, Jennifer Lopez are certain signs of quality and non-boredom. They are pleasant to follow even in less interesting and less veracious scenes.

Well, the script is probably the weakest part of the movie: too much predictability, excessive sections (e.g. Parker-Claire, prolonging the duration to almost 2 hour 15 minutes) and trivial ending (unlike in movies by Guy Ritchie, for example).

Nevertheless, Parker is still an above-average A-movie, qualifying well for a sociable entertainment.

Parker has existed as a movie character for quite some time now, just never as his proper name. Donald E. Westlake's famous anti-hero has been in many movies ranging from Point Blank (Walker) to Payback (Porter), with a few others in between. And, honestly, you're better off with any one of those as this is a very lazily-produced potboiler.

Jason Statham is the now English Parker who has been betrayed by his latest criminal cohorts and left for dead, so far so familiar. Quickly regaining his strength he sets about exacting his payback (!) by usurping them on their next jewel heist down in Florida, recruiting desperate real estate agent Leslie (Jennifer Lopez) along the way. The action is exciting and well done, and the movie is fun, but...wow...does it look terrible.

Adapted from Westlake's novel Flashfire and directed by Mr. Helen Mirren (Taylor Hackford, a veteran filmmaker who should know better) you'd be forgiven for refusing to believe that this cost $35,000,000. Where did that money go? It's not up on screen. Shot in 5K resolution but then edited in 2K, thus losing 60% of the detail in the process (why???) this movie is filled with harsh color boosting and hard contrast. The aerial shots of sunny Florida look like they were shot in 144p. It really is the ugliest mainstream movie I have seen in the past decade.

It seems that since the advent of digital cinematography that production standards have suffered. Shooting digitally tightens the schedule as less time is needed between takes. There's no more loading, cutting, and printing, and this removes vital down-time that would otherwise be used to enhance the production value. For example, there is a scene where Jennifer Lopez is checking out Jason Statham's ass and is hungry for him. All I saw was an actor wearing a crushed suit that he appeared to have slept in. They didn't even bother ironing it! Imagine if they got that lazy with James Bond.

Parker looks like they just chucked the camera down, shot the scene with absolutely zero thought given to atmosphere or composition, and then quickly moved on to the next one. Look at Payback from 1998. The original cut of that movie looked very noir, while the 2006 "Straight Up" cut with different filters and lighting looked like a gritty 70s thriller. Any random episode of Neighbours or Home and Away looks better than Parker. An extremely poor effort that spoils the whole movie. It's simply not pleasant to look at.

It's so strange that Jennifer Lopez is the best thing in this, easily outshining the actress/character who is playing Parker's boring, flat wife. Having previously been a drag with no charisma (Money Train, The Cell, Ben Affleck) she's definitely become more entertaining and interesting since becoming a MILF.

You'll never come back to this movie, which is a shame as I often enjoy either cut of Payback and Lee Marvin's Point Blank is a classic of 1960s cinema. This movie will never achieve such status and it's poor production value is to blame.

A Taylor Hackford film, starring Jason Statham and Jennifer Lopez. The story revolves around Statham's character, the eponymous Parker, who's a high level thief, much sought after in the criminal underworld for his cool demeanour and ability to think on his feet. But then a job goes sideways and he's betrayed by his supposed partners in crime. He survives and vows revenge.

It's not the most complicated plot ever, but it has its basic building blocks in a neat row and knows what it's doing. A film like this is pretty much destined to the B movie pin, but there's something to be said about the charisma of Jason Statham. And J.Lo, for that matter.

What's most enjoyable about this film is its heist hijinks. Whenever Parker is smooth talking his way through red tape or conning people into doing whatever he wants, the film soars. Whenever it's doing anything else, it's pretty banal. J.Lo's character is admiringly grounded and you get her blight. But at the same time, she's perhaps too grounded for the film's style. If you catch my drift. I'd much rather see this type of character in a psychological crime drama or something like that.

Nevertheless, I enjoyed watching the film. A good film to check out if you're a fan of Statham or lighthearted heist films. And if you're not, it's still a pretty slick experience.