Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

Parker

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> Parker Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Parker - 10/3/2013 12:39:33 AM   
Empire Admin

 

Posts: 28903
Joined: 29/6/2005
Post your comments on this article
Post #: 1
guff - 10/3/2013 12:39:33 AM   
tysmuse

 

Posts: 347
Joined: 24/9/2007
Stupid nonsense, but the opening robbery is enjoyable and it has a couple of violent & bloody fights.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 2
RE: guff - 11/3/2013 8:31:01 AM   
joysingh

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 8/2/2013
From: ludhiana
parker is nice movie... i like it.

(in reply to tysmuse)
Post #: 3
RE: guff - 13/3/2013 9:39:46 PM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3819
Joined: 19/10/2005
Parker is a professional thief, who doesnít steal from the poor or hurt innocent people. His mentor Hurley asks him to do a five-man job with a crew he doesnít know. The job is successful, but Parker refuses to go further with another plan that will earn them millions. The others shoot him and leave him to die in a lake, where he is found half-dead by a family who take him to the hospital, where he chokes out a male nurse, steals his uniform, and escapes. He robs a check cashing store to get funds, steals a car parked outside, and heads for Palm Beach, Florida to get the people who double-crossed himÖ..



You may not have read any of the twenty-four novels by Donald Westlake, writing under the name Richard Stark, featuring his cold, methodical career criminal, but youíve probably seen a film about Parker, even if you didnít know it. Until this latest effort, there have been seven adaptations of Westlakeís Parker books, but the character was usually called something else. The two best-known films are Point Blank from 1967 starring Lee Marvin and its 1999 remake Payback with Mel Gibson, both of which were based on the novel The Hunter. Parker is based on Flashfire and seems like an attempt at a new franchise for Jason Statham, a franchise that could go on for ages considering the number of books, but, like the attempt to put Lee Childís Jack Reacher on screen not long ago, it hasnít done too well at the box office and the potential series probably wonít happen.

Iíve never really understood why some Statham films are hits, some do okay and others flop badly. Yes, his movies vary a bit in quality but at the end of the day you have a pretty good idea of what youíre going to get, especially from the man himself, who seems to play basically the same role over and over again. How many times has he been the criminal with a moral code who is quick with his fists? Yet heís good at it, and donít forget stars as big as Clint Eastwood and Arnold Schwarzenegger used to do variations on the same thing, though there are signs that audiences are tiring of this a bit. Watching this new film, you could be mistaken for thinking the role of Parker was written especially for Statham, as once again heís pretty much the same person again. Heís even got a girlfriend waiting for him at home and we have flashbacks to earlier happy times, much like in the recent Killer Elite.

Now Killer Elite was a pleasant surprise and Stathamís best movie in quite a while, but Parker is nowhere near on the same level. Itís an enjoyable time-waster that, much like Oz The Great And Powerful, you probably wonít regret going to see but you wonít be in a hurry to see again. I havenít read any of the Parker books, but this particular story comes across as a fairly mundane revenge tale which has been rather stretched out to two hours, though I wonder if more of the blame can be laid at the feet of scriptwriter John J. McLoughlin, whose previous effort was his travesty screenplay for Hitchcock, while even his work on Black Swan was easily the weakest aspect of that film. At least Parker is solidly directed by Taylor Hackford, who may never again reach the quality of The Devilís Advocate and Dolores Claiborne but can always be relied on to turn out a very technically proficient piece even if he doesnít seem to have a particular style or personal imprint on his work.

The first third of Parker is decent stuff, opening with a very well-edited and suspenseful robbery sequence, though the screenplay feels it has to tell us that Parker is not all that Ďbadí right from the offset by showing him win some cuddly toys for a kid in a fairground shooting game. Rather clumsy writing here[ as in elsewhere], and apparently different from the nastier character of the books. We then seem to go into Point Blank/Payback territory as Parker is double-crossed and left for dead. He sets about planning his revenge, and the film really does feel itís going to get very good here, but once we reach Palm Beach things seem to grind to a halt as soon as Jennifer Lopez in introduced. She seems to be acting in one of her rom-coms, her scatty character quickly tiring, but she has a couple of nice acting moments later on in the film and Iíve always found her a little underrated as an actress [with Enough, not Out Of Sight, being her best performance in my opinion]. In any case Hackford and his cinematographer prefer to focus on her butt, which remains a very nice butt, and itís good to see a couple in a film of a similar age for a change, though they donít have much chemistry to be honest.

After a while you may be wondering why Parker is taking so long to unleash his vengeance and just wish him to get on with it, though the film just about keeps the attention, and when it comes, the action is very brutal and bloody, with the red stuff flowing in abundance as bullets smash into various parts of the body. Thereís a really good fight about two-thirds of the way through which is convincingly brutal, even if Hackford feels it necessary to dabble a little in that shakycam/fast-editing crap that most of the young directors feel is the way to do action. Overall there isnít much action in Parker, but itís only moderately suspenseful as well. It breezes along in a not unpleasant way, with solid performances from most, a few minor laughs and just enough going on so it wonít bore, but in the 70ís this film would have probably been done far better, with better dialogue and characterisation of the minor characters for a start, and humour that felt an organic part of the preceedings rather than seeming tacked on. Parker feels like some of the time like it would really benefit from being cut down to about an hour and a half.

As for Statham, as I said earlier heís the same as usual and how many times have we seen him escape from a hospital, or suffer horrendous wounds only to walk around fine a few days later? Does he know what a razor is? He partly attempts a Ďgeneralí American accent for the first half of the film, with his cockney floating in and out of it, then does quite well with a more specific Texan accent afterwards as he pretends to be someone else. Heís still comes across as being very tough, which is the main thing I suppose. Despite being nothing special whatsoever, I quite enjoyed Parker, but I doubt Iíll remember much about it in a few days time.

Rating: 6/10

_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to joysingh)
Post #: 4
so what? - 18/3/2013 11:43:59 PM   
bretty

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 6/10/2005
Yep, violence and action but also a bit lazy and unmemorable. Jason Statham does this stuff in his sleep now and seems overly indestructible in this one but there is nothing interesting or memorable about this whatsoever. Much as I am happy to admire a lady's arse, the scene where he asks Lopez to strip to check if she had a wire on was awful in a cringing "let's put something in the script so we can give the boys a look at The Bottom".
Is it me or have most of the action films this year been utter crap?

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 5
RE: so what? - 8/5/2013 1:11:16 AM   
Phubbs


Posts: 658
Joined: 3/4/2012
Parker (2013)

Wholly crap another novel adaptation! I was surprised to discover this character was actually the guy Mel Gibson portrayed in 'Payback', that did then ring a bell seeing as the characters in both films are the same, anti heroes. Back then the rights to the character name 'Parker' weren't there apparently.

So the plots to this adaptation and 'Payback/The Hunter' are virtually the same! 'Parker' is betrayed by a gang, shot and left for dead. He then proceeds to spend the entire film going after those who betrayed him. The problem here is the whole film is spread out with absolutely nothing of interest merely to see 'Parker' get revenge at the end. The film only had to be about 30min long and that would sufficed.

The cast is a terrible mistake, every one. Statham is not the guy you want for a supposedly dark noir crime thriller (according to the original source), his presence merely lowers this films intelligence levels and gives everyone the wrong impression before seeing it. You know most people will be expecting a martial arts filled 'Expendables' type flick.

The bad guys don't seem very bad at all, I mean they are not nice but they're hardly hardened criminals. Chiklis as the leader isn't threatening ever, I dunno why but he just looks like he's gonna burst out into slapstick. Another guy looks like a young Jon Cryer which isn't too good and Clifton Collins Jr. who is normally good for a violent nutter is very quiet.

Then we have the car crash that is Lopez, dear lord how does this woman find work in Hollywood?!. She can't act, she's no good in a thriller like this and constantly ruins scenes, she looks like your typical wrinkled, bony, middle aged rich LA residing female with heaps of makeup and hairspray plastered on and all she does in this film is whine. It amuses me when these mega rich stars portray working class characters that are down on their luck, because they have no idea what its like to be in that situation.

Its all very slick and glitzy with the glamorous Florida locations, fancy cars and huge mansions set against a sunkissed sky, you'd think it was a Bond flick. But none of this really seems to fit together well, it all feels bog standard and tired, amazingly generic, even the films poster is drab and uninspiring.

A very mundane below par action film bottom line, no different from many other Statham efforts that have gone directly to DVD, did not pass go and did not collect $200. The whole thing is so utterly pointless, unoriginal and unexciting because apart from the very start and the very end there is nothing happening. 'Parker' simply wonders around breaking in here and there and stealing cars whilst all the while looking highly obvious while he does it.

4.5/10

(in reply to bretty)
Post #: 6
RE: so what? - 8/5/2013 4:01:14 PM   
CRUNT

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 5/2/2013
Yep not good, he's done better

(in reply to Phubbs)
Post #: 7
- 17/5/2013 9:57:04 PM   
TheGodfather


Posts: 5271
Joined: 21/10/2005
From: Sin City
New Jason Statham film in wich he does what he always does. Extremely over the top and actually about 20 minutes too lang. A running time of almost two hours is just too long for this kinda film...

5,0/10

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 8
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> Parker Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Movie News††|††Empire Blog††|††Movie Reviews††|††Future Films††|††Features††|††Video Interviews††|††Image Gallery††|††Competitions††|††Forum††|††Magazine††|††Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.059