MCN Columnists
Mike Wilmington

By Mike Wilmington Wilmington@moviecitynews.com

Wilmington on Movies: Parker

 

 

PARKER (Two and a Half Stars)

U.S.: Taylor Hackford, 2013

There was this old college movie friend of mine who got sick a few years back. He discovered he had terminal cancer and not too much tine left. When he found it out, he told a few other friends that he intended to get started immediately re-reading all of Raymond Chandler’s Philip Marlowe detective novels. After that, he intended to re-read all of Richard Stark’s “Parker” books —  “Richard Stark” being the pseudonym for Donald E. Westlake on a series of crime novels about n hard-boiled. outlaw named Parker.

Have you seen the great film neo-noir Point Blank, with Lee Marvin as a  vengeful killer named Walker? That’s Parker. Have you seen — and there’s no reason you should — Mel Gibson in Payback, as  a bad-mouthed, vengeful hard guy named Porter? That’s Parker too. (Stark, or Westlake, didn’t like his character’s name being over-used.) Both movies, by the way, are adaptations of the Stark book The Hunter, in which Parker is double-crossed by a guy in the mob and takes them all on: one by bloody one.

Parker is also the ruthless anti-hero in a violent new neo-noir called, appropriately Parker — and this time the character is played by that tough Brit from Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Jason Statham. Like the Walker Lee Marvin played in Point Blank, this Parker is an ultra-hard-boiled gunman involved in a heist where his partners double-cross him and leave him for dead — and he goes after them all. In Point Blank Parker’s targets were mostly establishment-looking crooks, including the pre-Archie Bunker Carroll O’Connor as a baby fat real-estate type with a pool. Here, they’re mostly creeps and killers operating in West Palm Beach who look like thugs with money —  including Michael Chiklis, who once played John Belushi in the film of “Wired” and who here impersonates a bald mean murderous tubbo named Melander.

Like Marvin in Point Blank, Statham has a sexy femme sidekick. Marvin had leggy Angie Dickinson and Statham has more-than-leggy Jennifer Lopez as Leslie, a real-estate agent without any baby fat (as she proudly demonstrates). Leslie also has a blabbermouth Latina mama named Ascension played by Patti Lupone. (I have no objection to this kind of anti-Evita casting, but couldn’t they have given Patti a song? Or a hum? “Don’t Cry for Me, West Palm Beach?“

The movie’s one-against-a-bunch plot is very similar to Point Blank or to The Hunter or Payday, but since I haven’t read “Flashfire,” the Stark book on which it’s based, I have no idea how close it is to its alleged source. In any case, it’s a revenge fantasy and one of the more well-used and often-recycled ones — and it works fairly well here, though not perfectly. That’s largely because we don‘t want J-Lo to be playing second fiddle to Parker’s mentor Hurley’s (Nick Nolte) stand-up daughter Claire (Emma Booth), especially when Lopez has the bigger part. Instead of Parker, it’s Bobby Cannavale as a cop-on-the make named Jake who keeps hitting on her.

Also the last action scene, a heist with explosions,  is unimaginative and wildly, unfunnily implausible and doesn’t play very well, especially compared to the movie’s rousing, very good, Charley Varrick-style  opening scene — : a complex Killing-style robbery at the Ohio State Fair, complete with clown suits and pig races, where Parker is disguised as a  priest and where his fellow robbers  end up bashing him and taking his share, leaving him for dead, and expecting to get way with it. If they’d ever seen Point Blank. they would have known better.

Those two scenes didn’t ruin the movie for me though, and I’ve seen (and disliked) a lot of this kind of show. Taylor Hackford is a smooth director, and when he has good material, he makes a good film,. Here, he has half good material and the result, of course, is a half good film.

Statham is, of course. a believable tough guy who looks like he could take a punch or two, which is why they keep casting him. I liked him in The Bank Job and in his Guy Ritchie movies, and not much else, but that’s not necessarily his fault. Statham usually doesn’t make the kind of shows that encourage quality or innovation.  This movie is fairy well-directed , by Hackford — who has made some very good movies, like Ray, and also a pretty good remake of Tourneur and Mainwaring’s Out of the Past, Against All Odds, starring Jeff Bridges, Rachel Ward and James Woods in the Mitchum, Jane Greer and Kirk Douglas roles — and Greer as, essentially, an old Jane Greer.

It’s better written than some of these shows, by John J. McLaughlin (Hitchcock and Black Swan ). It’s also very violent, which means that we get a lot of shooting and, at one point, Parker banging some hood‘s head in with a cracked toilet seat.

Does the movie encourage violence? Given the extreme and borderline ridiculous nature of what we see here — people hanging from high-rise balconies and kicking each other, and bombs going off  at the start of a jewelry auction — I’d say you’d have to be  a little nuts to want to emulate the behavior in this movie, especially since Parker doesn’t win J-Lo in the end. Not that J-Lo gives all that good a performance here. Then again, she doesn’t really have to.

And in any case, I think people are less likely to run out and shoot someone (or even dangle from a high-rise) after they see Parker than they might if a loaded gun were lying around the house, and they got mad about something. The problem with the violence in today’s movies, is how pervasive it is, how unrelenting, how the moviemakers over-depend on it and don’t vary their game. I don’t really think people kill other people because of movies — but  I don’t want to get into a knock-down drag-out on this subject, especially if there’s a loaded gun sitting around the house.

Some of you may be wondering if my friend Mark died happy after reading all that Raymond Chandler and all that Richard Stark (a.k.a. Donald E. Westlake). I honestly don’t know. I hope so. But then I don’t really think anybody dies happy, and I‘ve watched a few people die. The major thing you can do when it happens is to be there — and to hope when you’re dying (and you will)  that there’s somebody to talk to you and get you a copy of “The Hunter”  or “Farewell, My Lovely” or even “War and Peace” if you want one. It’d help if she looked like J-Lo. But in the end it really doesn’t matter.

Leave a Reply

Wilmington

tamzap on: Wilmington on DVDs: The Magnificent Seven, Date Night, Little Women, Chicago and more …

rdecker5 on: Wilmington on DVDs: Ivan's Childhood

Ray Pride on: Wilmington on Movies: The Purge: Election Year

Movieman on: Wilmington on Movies: The Purge: Election Year

Johanna Lynch on: Wilmington on DVDs: The File on Thelma Jordon; Adua and her Friends; Bullet to the Head

【14時までのご注文は即日発送】04-0017 03 48サイズ JILL STUART NEW YORK (ジルスチュアート ニュ on: Wilmington on DVDs: House of Wax (1953); After Earth; The Purge

【最安値に挑戦!】 ダイキン SSRN112BD4馬力相当 天井埋込カセット形 マルチフロ on: Wilmington on DVDs: House of Wax (1953); After Earth; The Purge

alain mikli アランミクリ メガネSTARCK EYES (スタルクアイズ) SH0001D カラー0053(正規品)【楽 on: Wilmington on DVDs: House of Wax (1953); After Earth; The Purge

【最安値に挑戦!】 ダイキンSZRN63BT2.5馬力相当 天井埋込カセット形 マルチフロ on: Wilmington on DVDs: House of Wax (1953); After Earth; The Purge

【着後レビューで送料無料】 エアージェイ 充電スタンド ホワイト SJS-2PWH 【RC on: Wilmington on DVDs: House of Wax (1953); After Earth; The Purge

Quote Unquotesee all »

“To be a critic is to be a workaholic. Workaholism is socially conditioned: viewed favourably by exploiters, it’s generally ruinous to a worker’s mental health. When T.S. Eliot said criticism was as inevitable as breathing, he failed to mention that, respiratory problems notwithstanding, breathing is easy. Criticism is reflexive before reflective: to formalise/industrialise an involuntary instinct requires time, effort and discipline. The reason we seek remuneration, as opposed to the self-hatred of being a scab, is because all labour should be waged…

“Criticism, so the cliché by now goes, is dying. None of the panel discussions on its death agony, however—including those in which I’ve formally participated—come at it from the wider perspective that the problem surely needs. They defend the ways in which criticism functions in relation to the industry and to the public, but they fail to contextualise these relationships as defined by ultimately rotten and self-harming imperatives.

“Criticism was a noble profession so long as only a few could practice it for money; when the field expands, as it has with a so-called ‘democratisation’ of our practice, those few lose their political power. Competition grows and markets are undercut: publications are naturally going to start paying less. Precarity is both cause and effect of a surplus workforce: the reason you’re only as good as your last article is because there are plenty of other folks who can write the next one in your place. The daily grind is: pitch, or perish.

B”ut criticism, so a counter-cliché goes, is not dying. An irony: this is an elite sport that is no longer elite in terms of who is able to practice it, but in economic terms it’s clutching to a perverse and outmoded hierarchical structure. It’s more meritocratic than ever, now: which is to say it isn’t meritocratic at all. That’s a paradox in bad need of a resolution…”

~ Michael Pattison Manifestoes Film Criticism

“It’s easy to forget when you’re reading a critic every single week or multiple times a week, that most of us who do this job, and have been doing it for a long time, understand that this is basically a parasitic profession. I don’t mean in the sense that we’re evil bloodsucking creatures, but we couldn’t exist if we didn’t have something to analyze. And I’m always conscious of that. So whether I like or don’t like a particular thing you do, my point of view is always that of an appreciator. I just like to be in the world that you create.”
~ Matt Zoller Seitz To Sam Esmail

Z Weekend Report