(Via Wallace Stroby.)
Does this mean I have to watch it again?
Here’s the announcement from the Warner Archive:
THE SPLIT (1968) Richard Stark’s The Seventh (part of his iconic series of ‘Parker’ novels) gets the Jim Brown treatment in this neo-noir tale of a crew of daring thieves targeting the LA Coliseum. Jim Brown heads an all-star cast, including Gene Hackman, Ernest Borgnine, Donald Sutherland, Julie Harris, Diahann Carroll, Jack Klugman, James Whitmore and Warren Oates. Strikingly shot by Burnett Guffey (Bonnie and Clyde), The Split ups the ante with its iconic locations, splendid Sixties fashions and full-on funky score by Quincy Jones with contributions from Sheb Wooley, Arthur Prysock and Billy Preston. A footnote for the faint of heart: The Split was the first film to earn an “R” rating from the MPAA! Newly Remastered—16×9 WIDESCREEN
Here’s a link to my review. I’m pleased to say that I don’t remember the movie that well, other than the amazing Jim Brown versus Ernest Borgnine fight scene.
But, given that I’m pretty sure I watched a taped-off-TV VHS and now I’ll have a remastered uncut widescreen DVD (rated “R”!), I guess I do have to watch it again.
*Sigh*
The release of The Split means that every movie based on a Parker novel is available on DVD except for the Holy Grail, Mise à Sac (The Score), which to my knowledge isn’t even available as a bootleg. I’m still working on it.
Here’s the page at the WB Store. It features the trailer and a clip from the movie, unfortunately not embeddable. (Dear Warner Archive: The purpose of a trailer is to promote the film. How about making that a little easier?)
Here’s a different trailer from the Turner Classic Movies site.
Here’s some dude who has a cat reviewing the film.
Warning: Declaration of Social_Walker_Comment::start_lvl(&$output, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Comment::start_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /home/violentw/www/www/wp-content/plugins/social/lib/social/walker/comment.php on line 18
Warning: Declaration of Social_Walker_Comment::end_lvl(&$output, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Comment::end_lvl(&$output, $depth = 0, $args = Array) in /home/violentw/www/www/wp-content/plugins/social/lib/social/walker/comment.php on line 42
Saw it on TCM, some time back–before I’d ever read a Parker novel, so I wasn’t making comparisons. I just like Jim Brown movies. Not so crazy about this one, though–doesn’t seem natural for him to–well, no spoilers. Honestly, if they’d just done a straight-up adaptation of The Seventh, they might have had something there. Brown couldn’t put the kind of undercurrents in his acting that Lee Marvin did, but in his 60’s-70’s films he moves like a dangerous man, because he is one.
I’m debating seeing this one. Of all the Parker adaptations, this one, for some reason, is the hardest for me to swallow. I cringe when they take a character like Parker who has well defined physical characteristics, one obviously being he is caucasian, and just casually cast someone of a different race.
It would be equally abhorant if they cast Ben Affleck as Shaft or Benicio Del Toro as Charlie Chan. Just seems dumb. Why not just stick closer to the source material? It even irks me that Statham is supposedly using a cockney accent in the new film. As an actor, couldn’t he well, you know… act? I generally loathe Hollywood and this is yet another reason why.
It’s really a tough call which is the worst Parker adaptation, Made in USA, Slayground, or The Split. I’m going to very hesitantly call this one the best of the three because it at least bears some resemblance to its source material.
But I’ll have to watch it again to be certain.
I forgot about Made in USA. That definitely has to be the worst. I caught ten minutes of it on TCM a few months ago then gave up on it. I can’t imagine The Split being worse than that. If they cast Kermit the Frog as Parker, I can’t imagine it being worse than that.
Slayground: I actually kind of like it, even though I’m apparently the only Stark fan who does. But obviously it’s nowhere near a faithful adaptation of the novel. Like Made in USA, they could have gotten away with just calling it an original script. It’s flawed in other areas as well. The villian is almost laughable. I think Peter Coyote would have been an interesting choice for Parker if they’d stuck closer to the book.
I would very much like to one day see The Score–I googled images of Michel Constantin, and I think he is the actor who physically resembles Parker the most of all actors who’ve played him. He has that brutal, menacing vibe about him. I wonder why that has never been issued on DVD. With it being a Stark adaptation, the producers have to figure it’s got some selling power.
Trent, what was your opinion of De Niro in Heat and Harvey Keitel in City of Industry. Both characters had heavy Parker overtones. And I can’t imagine the writer of City of Industry wasn’t influenced by a Parker book, most probably The Sour Lemon Score.
David, I honestly don’t think race matters at all to Parker. Like seriously, he does not care what color anybody is. He’s mainly in the company of other white guys because that’s who he knows, and because it’s the 60’s, and the races still aren’t mingling much. Later, in Breakout, he invites a black guy into his string, and whatever racial tension is there, it isn’t coming from him. You’re either on the bend or you’re not, competent or not, trustworthy or not. People who worry about ethnicity are another thing he just does not understand.
There are a lot of things wrong with The Split, but I really don’t think Brown is the problem there. He’s certainly a whole lot more believable in the role than Peter Coyote (who had absolutely no idea what character he was playing, and given the script, I don’t blame him). He just isn’t very good at playing dangerous people. Brown was.
If they ever cast Will Smith as Parker, I’ll certainly object vehemently (Denzel Washington could have done it), but there are very few actors out there who could exude power, cunning, and the capacity for violence the way Brown could, because of his athletic background.
And Westlake obviously was appreciative to some extent, since he stuck a complimentary reference to Jim Brown into “The Hot Rock”.
Chris, I agree wholeheartedly that race is a non-issue to Parker. The only things he values in an accomplice is competence and loyalty.
Even though I’m not a fan of Hollywood producers playing fast and loose with race/ethnicity (and I should state clearly here it’s only because I believe the source material should be treated with reverence–again, I’d be equally irritated if a white actor played a black character, such as Virgil Tibbs or Derek Strange) I will certainly approach the Split DVD with an open mind. Even if Brown doesn’t fit my notion of Parker it doesn’t mean I won’t like other aspects of the movie.
Yeah, but David–the whole point of those roles you mention is that the characters are black. Virgil Tibbs as a white guy makes no sense–neither does Virgil Tibbs in the 21st Century, because the barriers that existed back then have largely (not entirely) been broken down. Parker as a black guy working with white heisters in the 60’s takes a bit of swallowing, but nobody had a problem with Sammy Davis Jr. in “Ocean’s 11” (admittedly a rather less gritty take on the subgenre).
I honestly don’t think they cast Jim Brown in a Parkeresque role out of some kind of affirmative action push. I think they just figured there really weren’t a lot of actors out there they could afford that could convey that level of toughness, and had near-universal name recognition with the filmgoers they were trying to reach–Brown brought a lot to the table.
He wasn’t really playing Parker, anyway–he was playing a heistman based on Parker, and the script was only loosely based on “The Seventh”, which is the only real problem with the film. If they did a version of “In the Heat of the Night” only it was about a Mexican detective in a racist Texas bordertown, that might actually work. Actually, it did work. It’s called “Touch of Evil”, and the Mexican detective was played by Charlton Heston. White people have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to bitch about when it comes to Hollywood movies. The ethnic makeup of the country is changing a lot faster than the ethnic makeup of our entertainment.
And it’s not surprising to me that the Parker movie they cast Brown in had a weak script and a so-so director. If he’d had Alexander Jacobs and John Boorman, we might remember “The Split” much more fondly. Just not quite as fondly as the one with Lee Marvin, because there was only one of him–in any color.
Peter Coyote was a far worse casting pick (in a far worse film), and if the Jim Brown of the 1968 was available today, I’d sure take him over the Jason Statham of 2012.
We should perhaps distinguish between adapting a Parker novel and making a Parker movie. Nearly every attempt other than the director’s cut of Payback has been the former rather than the latter. They wanted the plot, not the character. Portions of the character may remain (The Outfit, Point Blank), but the character from the books isn’t the point.
I’ve never read the book Die Hard is based on, but I’m told the main character is a grandfather. Same deal.
I have no problem with a black Parker, or a woman Parker, in a one-off. Hell, I love Old Man Parker in The Limey, which, while not a direct adaptation, is an acknowledged homage.
But if they’re going to make a series, I’d like it as close as possible to the real thing. My only problem with casting Jason Statham is the accent. Parker is an American, and I think of that as being an essential part of who he is.
I’m pretty sure The Split was never intended as a series launch, and I like Jim Brown, so I’ve got no problem with the casting. The entire cast is incredible, actually–in other movies. How did they make such a stinky film with all that talent?
Exactly–it could have been a classic. They didn’t have nearly as much talent on the other side of the camera, was the problem.
Some British actors can play Americans more convincingly than most Americans, but Statham is not one of those actors. He knows how to move, and he knows how to look suitably surly. But it’s all beside the point whether he’s right or not, because I don’t think they’ve got the right talent behind the camera. Taylor Hackford, if you will recall, is the guy who remade “Out of the Past”–and gave it a soppy romantic ending with treacly Phil Collins song in the background. Great cast. Lousy film. And here we don’t even have the great cast. It bodes not well.
Good points, Chris and Trent. I saw Touch of Evil–excellent film, although, to be honest, it was a stretch buying Heston as a Mexican. And see, that irks me. There HAD to have been a Mexican actor that was capable of playing that part–so why Heston? Probably the same reason Jim Brown got cast in The Split, drawing power at the box office. We had this same debate over at a Travis McGee Yahoo group a few years back, when someone suggested Denzel Washington as Trav. Having read all 21 books and having been a fan since I was 14–I’m 38 now, I just couldn’t picture it. Trav is a tall, gangly, sun-browned caucasian man. So just find an actor who fits that description. That doesn’t mean Denzel wouldn’t do a good job, he’s an excellent actor, but it just wouldn’t work for me.
We’ve gone back and forth about Statham and the new Parker film. I very probably may wind up hating it. But I’m already going into it with lowered expectations because Statham is not my visual image of Parker. Parker is tall, wide, big hands and dry brown hair. Statham is none of those things. The one thing he has going for him is he DOES look formidable, meaning he looks like he could kick some ass if he was so inclined.
I’ve mentioned this in other posts, but there are not that many current actors late 20s-mid 30s, that have a believably tough demeanor. They cast Leonardo DiCaprio as Travis McGee! My 11 year old nephew looks more rugged and tough. Great actor, just wrong role.
By the way Trent, if you liked The Limey, you should check out Heat and City of Industry.
I’ll add a little more. It needs to be kept in mind that when the first few Parker adaptations were filmed, Parker was not the iconic character he is today. The filmmakers behind The Split had no reason to think anyone would be upset by changes to the character, and I’m sure they were right. The series was only up to the Green Eagle or Black Ice Scores at that point. The Hunter was only six years old.
It’s a different deal now that time has passed and more novels have been published. People expect a Parker movie now, not just a Parker plot. Like with Jack Reacher–if someone had adapted Die Trying shortly after it came out, where Jack Reacher became a Mossad agent named “Burke” Berkowitz, no one would have complained. Many books later and Tom Cruise gets cast, and people are upset because Jack Reacher is established at this point and he’s not that much like Tom Cruise.
And that’s why people are bothered by Cruise, DiCaprio, and Statham. These are established characters. It isn’t just a book by John D. MacDonald anymore, it’s Travis freakin’ McGee!!!!. The fans want it done right. But those fans didn’t exist in 1968 for Parker.
(BTW, this is what in my mind makes Slayground inexcusable. Parker was established by that point. That, and every single change they made to the character and the story was stupid.)
This long but fascinating story on the original filmed version of The Hobbit (read the comments, too), does a great job of describing what it’s like for a filmmaker who works with an obscure property that later becomes famous. The dragon is named Slag? Bilbo wins the heart of the princess? http://genedeitchcredits.com/roll-the-credits-01/40-william-l-snyder/
David:
I’ve got a post on City of Industry in the Not Quite Parker section. I hated that movie, and Westlake should have sued for the blatant ripoff of The Sour Lemon Score. Heat was much better.
Also, there’s a great piece about Travis McGee on film in Impossibly Funky.
Amen brother!
Well, except for the City of Industry snub;-) lol I actually like it. And after checking out your Not Quite Parker Film page I realize I read that before–I’ve actually visited that page numerous times looking for recommendations (must be getting senile).
Wow. I must REALLY be the ONLY person here that sees any redeeming qualities re Slayground. All of what you said is true, but I still kind of like it. Chris Lyons, no need to rub it in, I know how you feel;-) LOL
And as I told you already, nobody has to feel embarrassed about liking a bad movie, because the only people who have never enjoyed bad movies are the people who don’t watch movies. I have a good friend who falls into that category (we mainly talk about books), and it’s so damned irritating at times, the way he fails to comprehend the most basic pop cultural references. I mean, if I were to say “This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship”, he’d say “We’ve been friends for 20 years now!” Like that. ;)
Chris, you seem a lot more amiable and friendly. I’m glad. As I’ve told you before, we agree on quite a bit.
I find it amusing in your bio you’re mentioned as having been a lifelong Science Fiction fan who recently came to noir as I am the exact opposite. I was recently introduced to that genre by a friend and have since started reading Philip K. Dick, Roger Zelazny, Robert Heinlein. Stimulating, engaging stuff. I feel kind of embarrassed I overlooked some really fine work for so long.
There’s no reason at all Parker can’t be black. Whiteness is not some critical character trait of Parker’s. Any descriptions of him exist to only to get across the idea that he’s tough. Beyond that he’s a blank slate.
I don’t know why this movie isn’t more appreciated, it’s not bad at all. Even the ending that’s changed still seems like something might have come from a Parker novel. It’s not as good as The Outfit (which I’d say strays from the source material as much as if not more than this one) but it’s a more than decent heist movie.
Maybe I’ll like it better when I watch it again. I thought it was deadly boring my first and only time. I’m hoping having it uncut in widescreen will bring out whatever merits you see.
This time I’ll intentionally not reread the book beforehand, so that the film can stand or fall on its own.
I’m delighted to have it available, though. One to go…
When I watched it for the first time, I was ONLY watching it for Jim Brown (I love his movies, good, bad, and indifferent), and my feeling was that it wasn’t an awful film, but didn’t come close to achieving its full potential.
Btw, how many heist films have there been where they got clean away with the loot, and the main heisters didn’t die or end up in jail? That didn’t star George Clooney?
There are reasons why Hollywood has never really gotten Parker–and why the two most successful Parker films to date were loose adaptations of “The Hunter” and “The Outfit”–because he’s stealing from other criminals.
If they ever do a Parker adaptation where he robs a bank or a military base or a coin collector’s convention–and gets away with it–I’ll be very surprised. Yeah, they’re adapting “Flashfire”, but given the way that plays out, doesn’t really count. Even assuming they stick to the story, which is assuming a lot.
Hollywood doesn’t show us successful heists because they’re afraid of what people will say.
And French existentialist filmmakers don’t show us successful heists because they’re French existentialists. Okay “Bob Le Flambeur”, but that doesn’t count either. ;)
“Chris, you seem a lot more amiable and friendly.”
`That’s not a compliment on THIS blog, David. :-|
Movies where the main Heisters got away with the loot:
Heist, with Gene Hackman. One of the crew does get killed, but the two main leads–Hackman and Lindo–walk away with the gold.
There are probably others, but I see your point. I’ve just started getting into the French scene with a lot of Jean Gabin, Alain Delon, Belmondo, etc. I have a plie of DVDs to go through on the next rainy day.
I sincerely hope Jean Luc Goddard’s Made in USA is NOT indicative of the French existentialist Crime film or else I’m gonna cry in my Wheaties.
If you want to see a French director get the heist film or just hardboiled crime genre in general dead solid right, forget about Godard (he’s a poser), and make your way over to Jean-Pierre Melville. “Bob le Flambeur”, “La Cercle Rouge”, “Le Samourai”, “Le Doulos”, “Un Flic”–the list goes on. And while you’re checking him out, be sure to watch “Army of Shadows”, which is about the French Resistance in WWII, but when you get right down to it, it’s about idealists forced to live like criminals, and after a while almost forgetting there’s any other way to live. It’s a chilling inversion, where the cops really are the bad guys, and they don’t have to read you any Miranda rights, and if they catch you, you better forget about seeing a lawyer, or anyone else, ever again. Even Parker might find the odds they’re up against a bit harrowing.
Rififi is also a great french crime film.
Which was made by an American expatriate named Jules Dassin. I’m just saying. He also did a very funny heist movie set in Turkey, called Topkapi.
Probably the only director who could have been equally good at interpreting Parker and Dortmunder.
Thanks Chris, I will definitely check those titles out. The only French crime film I’ve gotten around to watching is “The Sicilian Clan” which I liked quite a bit. Gabin and Delon were great in it. I’ve seen Neil Jordan’s remake of “Bob Le Flambeur” but not the original. “Army of Shadows” sounds right up my alley.
John: Thanks for the heads up on Rififi. From what I’ve read about it, it seems to be one of the all time classics in the heist genre.
Bman, in addition to urllatights and light sport aircraft, sailplanes are a nice way to go in some areas. Down here in AZ, you can join a club with reasonable annual dues and sign out an aircraft to fly pretty much whenever you want. Sailplanes have a faster learning curve than powered aircraft, and experience flying sailplanes translates well into powered aircraft. You can also fly those things all day here in AZ not a drop of fuel required after release from tow.For me, flying has always been more about being in the air and less about going from point to point. In my Air Force days, I soloed in a sailplane. I was about to solo in a plane before I stopped the powered lessons (medical red tape at the time). I switched to hang gliding (referred to as free flight or foot-launched flight) for quite a few years, and that was really more my style. I liked carrying my aircraft on my back (~60 lbs) and storing it on a ladder rack in my garage. I liked understanding every single bolt on my aircraft, and I liked being able to do a truly complete pre-flight check. I liked being able to buy a brand new aircraft for less than the cost of a used car. I especially liked the feeling of complete and utter freedom while in the air. I was not in the aircraft, I WAS the aircraft. No claustrophobic cockpit. What a feeling to thermal up over 13000 feet and fly over the back of a majestic mountain range.I gave up the hang gliding when I nearly killed myself on a steep mountain launch. For those of you that don’t believe in God a near death experience followed by a miraculous save all the while KNOWING that God was in the glider with me that day would have cured me from a lifetime of atheism. I would like to emphasize that the incident was completely due to pilot stupidity, and I believe hang gliding is inherently safe as long as you are properly instructed, current, and flying within your capabilities.I still think about free flight often and long to be back in the air. I have a little powered harness that converts a hang glider into a foot-launched ultralight, and I might one day take to the skies again.
Steve McQueen in The Getaway manages to survive to the end of the movie with the cash and his freedom. Probably Alec Baldwin in the remake but I haven’t seen that. Also Walter Matthau as the title character in Charley Varrick.
McQueen’s character only agrees to the robbery to get paroled from prison–and I’ve heard that the original ending would have had some pretty horrible stuff happening to him and the Ali McGraw character.
Charley Varrick is one of my favorite films of all time, but that’s a mob bank he robs–he doesn’t know it at the time, but obviously that makes it ‘okay’ for him to get away with it, since he’s stealing from other crooks.
Oh, and there’s “The Town”–quite possibly the lamest heist movie title of all time, but it was fairly well-received. Affleck’s character pulls off a big robbery, gets away clean, and retires–after giving away most or all of the money he stole.
And I can just hear Grofield quipping “Does anybody here know how to play this game?”
I agree with you on The Town. I had to go see it because it was a heist flick, and tried to put aside my opinion of Affleck, but it was pretty bad.
Charley Varrick is great. I have the novel it was based on, The Looters, on my to-read list.
The two filmed adaptations of The Getaway leave out Doc and Carol’s adventures in El Rey.
So we’re looking for a heist movie where the heisters aren’t being blackmailed or forced into doing the job, aren’t stealing from other crooks, and don’t give the money away at the end? I can’t think of any like that- even Mamet’s Heist has Gene Hackman’s character being forced into doing the job by Danny Devito’s sleazy gangster type.
Maybe the original Thomas Crown Affair? It’s been a while since I saw it so I don’t remember the endind that clearly.
Yeah, but Hackman’s character Joe Moore was a master criminal. The only reason he probably didn’t want to do the gold job was because Bergman (DeVito) held back his share of the loot from the jewelry heist from the opening sequence of the film. In other words, Hackman was hardly a do-gooder forced into the gold job by DeVito; he probably wuld have done the gold job at some point anyway–I think he didn’t initially want to do it because he was planning a South American trip with his girlfriend/wife at the time.
I think that’s nearly the only one, but Crown himself doesn’t do the jobs–he plans them, and pays other guys to carry them out (he isn’t worried about anyone getting killed in the process–just peons, after all). He’s a millionaire, and doesn’t really want the money, though he does keep it, as kind of a trophy. He just wants to prove he can pull the perfect crime and get away with it. It’s about proving he’s better than anyone else. It’s a very amoral film, no question–but it’s mainly about his battle of wits with Faye Dunaway’s character–it’s a romance film with a crime angle, not vice versa.
If they paid too much attention to the bank robbery angle, people would be asking themselves “Hey, why are these guys okay with doing the heavy lifting for a tiny fraction of the money, when they could take it all, and Crown couldn’t do anything about it?” There is no way that would ever happen in reality. I mean, seriously. Not even in a Dortmunder film could that ever be taken seriously.
It was also a rather mediocre box office performer, though it’s become iconic since then, thanks to the Cult of McQueen.
What I’m looking for is some indication that Hollywood would be willing to do a series of films (or a tv series) about a guy who does his own robberies, doesn’t care what he steals or who he steals from as long as the job seems doable and reasonably lucrative, is not at all suave or sophisticated, knows nothing about art or culture, doesn’t feel like he has anything to prove to anybody, doesn’t make huge scores most of the time (he’s just making his living year by year), doesn’t kill a whole lot of people but isn’t bothered much if he does have to knock somebody off, and basically likes his work. A series of films (or a tv series) about a no-holds-barred professional armed robber who has no intention of ever retiring, is highly intelligent but non-intellectual, and usually gets away with the money–which is never enough to retire on anyway.
The Parker stories don’t work unless you start with the premise that Parker is 100% okay with who he is–much more than most people, in fact. He accepts the risks and the consequences of making money the way he does, and isn’t looking for one big final score.
I just don’t see that ever working on the big screen. Maybe cable. I mean, Breaking Bad is about a meth dealer. It gets awful ratings, but it’s stayed on the air quite a while now, and everybody raves about it. Personally, I just can’t get into it.
“I just don’t see that ever working on the big screen.”
I think you may be right. I wouldn’t be surprised if they add a scene in the movie where Claire tries to talk Parker into quitting his life of crime.
And Breaking Bad, despite the fact that the main character is unpunished as of the last series, often shows a clear moral stance about his actions.
And he only got into meth dealing because he thought he was dying, and he wanted to get some money for his family. They always have to find some way to show us crime doesn’t pay, but when my significant other was reading the books, she said “What’s great about Parker is that he makes crime pay.” This is a painfully honest person who said this–she would never take a dime that wasn’t hers. But she enjoys the freedom of the character–and I guess his total lack of hypocrisy.
As to the Flashfire movie, that was dead to me the moment I saw Statham in a cowboy hat.
Also, and this doesn’t really say anything about what the new film will be like, but ever since I heard that Statham was cast as Parker, I’ve found that whenever a Statham movie comes on TV I find myself wondering “What would Parker do in this situation?” and usually it’s the opposite of what Statham’s character does.
It’s the opposite of what almost any mainstream movie character would do. That’s precisely why Lee Marvin was so interested in playing him after he read The Hunter. And of course he didn’t, quite. But he got closer than anyone else is ever likely to–in a movie.
I still hold out a faint hope for the real Parker someday surfacing on cable, though.
I wonder what kind of job Bronson would have done as Parker if Brian Garfield’s adaptation of Butcher’s Moon had been actually made.
Garfied would have an accurate take on Parker due to his friendship with Westlake. I read he even gave Westlake a copy of the script for suggestions.
Bronson, although not a 100 percent physical match for Parker, was quite menacing when he wanted to be.
As I stated before, there’s more to playing Parker than being well over six feet, wide shouldered, in good shape and brown hair. I’m all those things yet I probably couldn’t play the role. An actor has to really “get” Parker. Ben Affleck is probably closer to the psysical description of Parker than Statham, yet Statham is infinitely more appropriate than Affleck.
By the way, and this is totally an off the subject question, but I figured the group here would be best to answer it:
Has any body here read the comic/graphic novel 100 Bullets by Brian Azzerello? I read a brief synopsis of the plot and it sounds interesting. Thinking of buying the first one but was wondering if anyone here could tell me if it’s as good as it is written up to be.
At his best, Chuck Bronson could certainly be menacing, and then some.
But no, he wouldn’t have worked as Parker.
It’s an incredibly hard role to cast.
Chris, the more I think about your suggestion of William Smith the more I like it. I saw him the other day in that Clint Eastwood dud, the one where he and Smith have an all-out brawl at the end. His hair was brown and, except for the mustache, I kept saying to myself–he could really pull off Parker. Back then of course. He’d be about eighty now.
The way Hollywood works, the would have cast Fresh Prince’s Will Smith as Parker instead.
It just occurred to me–Bronson playing Parker? Who would you get to play Bronson–Fess Parker?
;)
David, the first few 100 Bullets books are excellent. I lost interest towards the end of the series when it became a different kind of story (wide ranging conspiracy rather than small time crimes), but I’d definitely recommend getting the first volume.
Btw, this just in–we’ve got a LONG wait before we see Jason Statham’s Parker. Release date got moved to January 25th of next year.
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=parker.htm
I’m with Dan on 100 Bullets: it starts strongly, but loses its way in Azzarello’s push to get the series to 100 issues. It does kind of come right in the end though.
Here’s one slightly out of left field on crime comics, while we’re off-topic: Garth Ennis’s Punisher Max. Not the regular Punisher series he wrote – that’s played for laughs a lot of the time – the Max series, and the related Born miniseries etc. Those comics are about the darkest, most brutal, most brilliant crime comics I’ve ever read, Brubaker and Phillips’s Criminal included. I wrote an overview of the series ages ago, which I resurrected on my blog in 2010. You can read it here.
Thanks Dan and Nick for the heads up on 100 Bullets; I’ve decided to give it a shot. One of my two main passions in life is crime fiction and conspiracy theories (I’m an avid reader/watcher of guys like David Icke, Jordan Maxwell, Jim Marrs), so 100 Bullets’ premise is right up my alley. As is Dave Zeltserman’s Dan Willis e-books, which I’ve purchased but haven’t gotten around to reading yet.
Nick, I’m sure you’ve heard of Icke since he’s more well-known in the UK. Not saying I agree with everything he’s stated–hard to believe the Queen is really a reptile;-) lol
Also, thanks for the informative article on the Punisher comics, Nick. As a pre-teen Frank Castle was one of my favorite comic book characters. Lost interest in comics about the same time I discovered crime fiction (13 or so) but it looks like there’s some really interesting comics I missed out on and I need to play catch-up.
Oh yes, I remember David Icke, David. He has espoused some… outlandish theories. Thing is, what made it all more bizarre was previously he’d been a BBC TV sports presenter, which was kind of an incongruous leap. Don’t know if you’ve ever seen the infamous Terry Wogan interview with him (it’s probably on YouTube somewhere), which was what really sealed his fate in the public eye. Still, each to their own.
I guarantee those Ennis Punisher Max comics will blow you away. The first arc is probably the weakest, and the artwork is an acquired taste in that first story (not the Born miniseries – that’s Darick Robertson I think – the first story in the main Max series), but once Goran Parlov takes over the art duties, it really comes into its own.
I think Punisher Max: The Slavers is one of the darkest comics I’ve ever read.
I liked The Punisher better when he was Mack Bolan The Executioner, and I never much cared for him then either. ;)
Very observant. I believe Marvel tried to buy the rights to Bolan but was unsuccessful, so they just ripped it off and Bolan became The Punisher.
I never liked the Punisher much until I read Garth Ennis work on the character: the Max books and his hilarious Welcome Back Frank.
I agree with Matthew. I never had any previous interest in the character, but picked up Ennis’ run as I’m a fan of his work. His Punisher Max stuff is amazing, especially the Barrauda storyline.
*Barracuda
that what really troblues me is when my partner browsing on the net for dirty internet sites similar to: Thats a thing i can NOT deal with, so if any of you is on the market, which has a good sense of humor, can truthfully discuss their inner thoughts and supply a stable atmosphere, and is NOT addicted to online p0rrn then please prepare me a quick introduction email, a photo would certainly be appreciated as well. I ll swear you, that it will be the best thing what taken place in your existence, as long you are sincere with me. 18b