Parker

Many people say the same things about Jason Statham, He's a typecast or he doesn't do anything different. Which is partly true, but he is good as an action star and in my opinion hes a better actor than what some say. I don't think he does get enough credit seeing how he got into movies almost by accident.

Anyways Parker has a good revenge/crime story its about a professional thief who lives by a simple code, don't steal from people who can't afford it and don't hurt people who don't deserve it. After a successful heist our man is left for dead by his partners. The movie has good action throughout. lots of hand to hand combat, and violent ones at that. It also has a better than usual cast and director for a statham action movie (Good villains + hot leading lady).

Overall, I got what I was expecting for $10 as a fan of Jason Statham and would recommend it for a good popcorn flick.

7/10

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.

While I wasn't aware there was already a "Parker" character (in books that is), I was more drawn to the movie because of the director. Taylor Hackford has done some extraordinary work. Be it "Officer and Gentleman", "Devil's Advocate" or my personal favorite "Blood in Blood out". But you can't compare this to any of those movies of course. I was however surprised seeing him working with Jason Statham. A man more known for his action filled roles.

And while this might not be one of the better works of Hackford, it still is good action cinema. Michael Chiklis has been better though, although he doesn't get much to play with here. Jennifer Lopez gets to play in a good movie too for once (after U-Turn and Out of Sight), but don't expect to see too much of her here. This is the Statham show and that is pretty obvious.

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.

Well, SURE, there are places where you must suspend disbelief (it's not THAT easy to steal a car, is it?), and SURE there are plot holes, and SURE there are times when you say to yourself "How did he know to go there?" BUT...this is one enjoyable movie!

The acting, the action scenes, and the eye candy (Statham for you XXs, and J-Lo for us XYs) are all great. Oh...and a word about J-Lo. While I've never been a great fan, the poor reviews she received made me curious. Well, she was excellent...and hot as a pistol. That woman has more sex appeal than 5 centerfolds. Patti Lupone plays her mom...very well, I might add.

Statham plays Parker and Parker-like characters in an intrinsically believable manner; that is, marginal characters who live on the edge of the law or beyond it (think "The Transporter" series) with an honorable streak. He slips into this part easily, and like his "Transporter" character, Parker seems little interested in sex. No...he has a singular purpose here as he has had in previous movies: get the job done, and no time for recreation. And once again, his singularity of purpose rings true.

There is, of course, violence, but we all have seen worse; my wife only had to look away twice, and she does not enjoy these types of movies, but goes to humor me (I agreed to see that dreadful "Moonrise Kingdom" after all). But she liked "Parker"--her direct quote was "It kept my interest"--and that was high praise for this kind of flick.

And as Tosh might say: "And for that, we thank you."