Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Friday, January 25, 2013

Parker: A Dumb Movie About a Smart Character

Posted by on Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Mah suthuhn ay-ksent eeyus sew bayud thayut they hayuv tew tern it intuh a runnin joke.
  • "Mah suthuhn ay-ksent eeyus sew bayud thayut they hayuv tew tern it intuh a runnin' joke."
It turns out, Jason Statham makes a pretty good Parker. If you’ve read any (or all) of the books in Richard Stark’s brilliant crime series, you know that a good Parker needs to be a man of few words. He has to be violent and honorable. He’s got to be physically capable of taking on anybody in a fight, but he still loses more than a few of those confrontations, too. And he has to be fastidious about his planning. Statham has already been playing variations on these themes for the last decade. He’s got the best reflexes in the action-movie business but he takes a beating, too; it’s best when he talks less; and his characters are usually OCD in one way or another.

So Statham’s a pretty good choice for Stark’s always-planning heister, and all through Parker, you can see subtle little touches that demonstrate the best parts of the character. When Parker’s stealing a car to get away from the carnival heist-gone-bad that starts the movie, you see Statham momentarily consider a limousine before running the scenario through his head—too risky—and then moving on. Parker plants a few contingency weapons before the final shootout that he never gets around to using, which is a surprisingly naughty thrill in the leave-no-dot-unconnected world of Hollywood.

Unfortunately, just about everything else about Parker sucks.

The direction, by the unfortunately named Taylor Hackford, is workmanlike at its strongest points. For some reason, Hackford inserts unnecessary flashbacks into the film at odd intervals, at one point “flashing back” to an event we saw five minutes before in the film, with no additional information provided in the flashback. It’s just wasted space. A decent cast (Michael Chiklis as a villain is always a good thing, Nick Nolte as a semi-retired heister is even better, Patti LuPone as a soap-opera-addicted Palm Beach retiree is the best idea ever) is wasted with dull dialogue. And Jennifer Lopez, as a character who might as well be named “Stupid Girl,” is just terrible. We’ve come a long way from Lopez’s crime debut in Soderbergh’s Out of Sight—now that she’s been through the celebrity wringer, she seems less interested in acting and more interested in being a personality.

There are a few entertaining bits in Parker—it never gets better than the opening heist, which ably demonstrates everything likable about Parker, and Parker’s escape after the heist goes wrong, which demonstrates his callous ability to do whatever it takes to survive—and the fight scenes are delightfully gory. But too much of it is just plain boring, with info dump after info dump and tons of momentum-killing scenes designed to “feature” Lopez. When you get right down to it, this is a dumb movie about a very smart character, and the pleasures don’t outweigh the bores. The Parker books deserve be adapted into a series of prestige movies, each headlined by a different high-profile director, Mission: Impossible-style. Statham could even star in that series. But Parker isn’t good enough to demand that series, and so fans will have to wait a while longer for Hollywood to do it right.

 

Comments (6) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Why, oh why, didn't they base this on Darwyn Cooke's fabulous graphic novels???????
Posted by maeveh on January 25, 2013 at 2:30 PM
Pope Peabrain 2
Jason Statham gives me a boner.
Posted by Pope Peabrain on January 25, 2013 at 2:56 PM
blip 3
I see a lot of words here but none of them tell me how often he takes his shirt/pants off.
Posted by blip on January 25, 2013 at 3:20 PM
4
Ah crap, yet another Donald Westlake book/series the movies screwed up.

Elmore Leonard isn't the better writer, but he's had better luck with films faithful to his style and plots (often best when they're line for line in the script.)

Posted by judybrowni on January 25, 2013 at 3:29 PM
5
The missus and I saw trailers for Gangster Squad and Parker in close proximity and were immediately angry that Josh Brolin hadn't been tapped for it. I don't know if I can handle Statham as Parker. His face isn't "a chipped chunk of concrete" and he doesn't have hands that look like they were sculpted by someone "who thought big and liked veins."

And fight scenes, to me, seem woefully out of place in a Parker movie. Parker doesn't get into a fight with someone, he sucker punches them real hard and they drop like a sack of potatoes.

We haven't seen this movie, but Darwyn Cooke got us hooked on the character and we've read up through Sour Lemon Score, and I don't know, I think I just might be too attached to the character to risk seeing it get fucked up.
Posted by Ben on January 25, 2013 at 3:39 PM
Rev. Adam McKinney 6
Flashbacks to scenes that we saw five minutes ago with no added information is, as I've learned from my own experiences as well as podcasts like "How Did This Get Made," have become notorious signifiers of awful movies. Glad you took the bullet for us.

As for Elmore Leonard, judybrowni, I feel like his film adaptations have had a roughly 50/50 success rate, unfortunately. Always a shame to see his words mangled.
Posted by Rev. Adam McKinney http://weeklyvolcano.com on January 26, 2013 at 7:50 AM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy