Update: My opinion isn’t the only one. I’m adding links to thoughts from fellow Parker fans (often quite different from mine) at the bottom of the post.
Parker is terrible.
Almost everything about it is awful. It opens well enough, with a heist set at the Ohio State Fair, which is exciting and well-filmed, until the stupid kicks in. And it kicks in awfully quickly. The designated idiot member of the crew almost ruins everything by making a mistake that makes no sense–it’s not an honest error, it’s “Golly gee! I don’t know my head from my ass! Because I’m so stupid!” There’s an excuse in the script as to why someone so stupid is in this line of business in the first place, but that excuse is as stupid as the character.
And there is problem numero uno. The script is appallingly bad. It shows its awfulness in the “Well, it’s an action movie! Let it go!” moment mentioned in the above paragraph, and it gets worse with the ridiculous “Code of Conduct” garbage that I was worried was going to be the downfall of this movie.
I was wrong about that. The “Code of Conduct” nonsense was not the downfall of this movie. It’s only a downfall of this movie.
Nobody involved seems to have had any idea whatsoever of what makes a heist movie, much less a Parker movie, work. Exhibit A, and it’s early enough along that I don’t think it counts as a spoiler: The exposition on why Melander (Michael Chiklis) and the gang are screwing over Parker is so abbreviated you couldn’t blame the audience for having no idea what’s going on. Rather than build suspense, it’s all about “Let’s get this over with so Statham can kick his way out of the vehicle in the scene that everyone’s seen in the TV commercial!”
The script doesn’t care about the story.
Except for when, suddenly, it does. It cares in the moments where the writer (John J. McLaughlin) decides he’s better than Donald Westlake and puts his own stamp on Flashfire, basis of this abortion. We get humanizing moments of Claire and Claire’s dad. We get Claire living in a house easier to break into than my old shitty one that was robbed three times, when I owned little of value and wasn’t common-law married to a master thief who would not have ever let me be in a weak situation like that. We get utter preposterousness with Leslie and Leslie’s mom and Parker. We get flashbacks, for the love of Mike. We get a whole lot of what the fuck? And I got to listen to a whole lot of laughter from the audience at the screening I saw, none of it intended by the makers.
Every possible decision involved in the storytelling of this movie (with an exception or two that I’ll get to) was the wrong decision. “Comic” relief? Big time. Unnecessary subplots? Oh, yeah, and they forgot to resolve at least one, or maybe my eyes were so glazed over by that point I didn’t notice the resolution. Plot holes? There will be one hundred fewer cliches in this blog post than there are in the movie if I write, “So big you can drive a Mack truck through them.”
Let me give an example of the appalling writing. (I suppose I should mention spoiler alert, not that anyone should care.) In the novel, when Parker makes Leslie strip down so he can check if she has a wire, Leslie is scared. She’s in over her head and wasn’t expecting this. It’s suspenseful, even for those of us who had read every prior book. “What is this guy going to do to me?” she’s thinking, and even though we know Parker isn’t going to rape her or kill her, Westlake is so good you see the scene through her eyes and feel what she’s going through in this moment.
In the movie? Well, she wants to fuck him from the second she sets eyes on him, so who the hell cares if he makes her take her clothes off?
A clue to screenwriters everywhere: A character a little let down because she didn’t get laid (and not even a good job is done at conveying that) is a lot less suspenseful than a character afraid for her life. But so long as you put your own stamp on it, it’s all good, right?
There is no suspense. Everyone knows the scene is going to lead to nothing, and it does exactly that. But at least you put your own stamp on the material! You won’t be a slave to that old hack, Donald Westlake.
Which brings us to the direction.
Taylor Hackford made a point in interviews of saying he wasn’t an action director, so this was somewhat new territory for him.
And that’s a problem, because it looks to me like he was so worried about not delivering on the action scenes that he concentrated on those and not everything else that should be part of a good movie. The action scenes are about the only things that work here, whereas the things a good director is supposed to do (directing actors, creating drama, filling in all of those spaces that are supposed to make the damn action scenes have some resonance to the viewer) he didn’t do. He forgot about the stuff in between. If we’re talking Statham movies, The Transporter, with all its cliches and clumsiness, is far better at the things Taylor Hackford is supposed to be good at!
To elaborate: Hackford gets piss-poor performances out of talented actors, some of whom show traits of what might have been when the direction isn’t so self-conscious that it has to remind us thirty-five times that Jennifer Lopez has a reputation for having a healthy posterior. (If most of the action wasn’t in Palm Beach, it wouldn’t have surprised me if “Honkey Tonk Badonkadonk” had fired up on the soundtrack with all the men in the diner or bar spilling their drinks and walking into posts or something because they are staring at her ass. It’s this obvious.)
Graces, if not quite saving ones:
There are a handful of nods to other Parker novels and Point Blank so when you get bored, you can play “Spot the Reference.” The downside is, they absorbed all that and thought they could do a better job with just a few tweaks. Bad calls on the tweaks, fellas.
The third act is decent, relative to the rest of the movie. It would have been hard to go downhill after the first two, and thank goodness it doesn’t. Don’t get me wrong–there are still awful things in the third act. It’s just better than the other two.
Jason Statham is good enough, and I can see that he might have worked as Parker in a competently-mounted motion picture production.
The cinematography is excellent. Whoever did that and his crew deserve better gigs than this one. Good luck, crew!
The scene in the fake ID shop is excellent, but also heartbreaking because it gives us a glimpse of what might have been.
So those are the good parts.
There will be no sequel. There will be no franchise. In fifteen years, this will be as forgotten as The Split. Maybe that’s the good news. Someone may give Parker another chance on screen someday, and give the material the opportunity it deserves.
For those keeping score, directors John Boorman, John Flynn, and Brian Helgeland had a clue. Point Blank and The Outfit are the best adaptations, Payback (director’s cut) is the most faithful.
If you’re looking for a recent adaptation worth a damn, it’s Darwyn Cooke. I don’t think I ever appreciated him more than I did tonight.
I saw this movie at midnight and am hitting the Publish button at about 4:30 AM. All in the line of duty, I suppose, but you’ll excuse me if this wasn’t the most coherent thing I’ve ever written.
Goodnight, folks. Maybe I’ll wake up in the morning and this will turn out to have been a bad dream.
Update: VWOP regular David liked it a good bit more than I did. His review is here.
Update 2: Max Allan Collins likes it more than David did. He shares his thoughts.
Update 3: Patrick of At the Scene of the Crime likes it a lot.
Update 4: Vern has a not-kind review that could be an expansion of my thoughts.
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
Thanks for going to see this so I won’t have to. You’ve confirmed all my worst fears about this movie, and THEN some.
Wow. Well, I’ll try not to let that review influence my own opinion. Going to see this in a few hours.
There’s been a lot of pretty crappy reviews, but also a handful of positive ones. I’m hoping to like it, but I always call ’em like I see ’em.
The reviews seem pretty evenly split. Even some of the negative reviews are saying it’s “okay”. Mostly, reviewers seem to agree that the film is fun or enjoyable, but that you’re not missing anything special.
I wonder if the director/writer/producer should have chosen a different novel?
Well, dollar theater it is!
Damn and blast. I perked up when I saw a trailer with Statham playing Parker (I’d no idea this was even in production). I sagged again when I read some of the reviews it’s getting, many of them worse even than yours. If there’s anyone whose opinions on this film I would trust, it’s you, so I’ll just say thanks (like Craig did) for going to see this movie and warning me away from it. Disappointing…..
cheers,
Phil
Dave and everybody:
If you do go see it, please come back and report what you think.
The Beatles said it best – “I should have known better” than to believe there was any hope for this. Despite seeing the previews, and suspecting what was in store for me, I forged ahead, paid my money, and got what I deserved.
As purely an action film, it had some redeeming moments but as a “Parker” film, forget it. At least “Point Blank” and “The Outfit”, despite the changes, for the most part held true to the spirit of the character. Same for “Payback”, or at least until Gibson got cold feet about his “image” and “audience”.
I suppose that a major aspect of the problem is that those of us here have much more invested in this character, both mentally and emotionally, than most of the target audience, but damn! we might at least expect that the filmmakers would at least TRY and throw a bone our way. I think that next time, I’ll just follow my own “Code of conduct” and spare myself the agony of another disappointment.
James:
It is hard to separate oneself from expectations of the characters, but I like to think I’m reasonably good at it. I knew about a lot of the changes beforehand and thought I had made my peace with them. But (and this is directed to anyone reading this who isn’t a regular so may think I’m just a fanboy hater) I think it’s just a stinker of a movie.
Was I harder on it than I would have been because it’s a Parker movie? Probably.
But the other reason is because I thought they were going for more than just another Statham vehicle here. It has a name cast, director, and writer. I assumed that meant they were setting their sites higher.
I also feel cheated. I was a big defender of casting J-Lo in this film. She was often awful. Now I feel like a chump.
What a fucking shame. The heist/espionage movie is one of the few genres that can work even if you just paint by the numbers.
There was once a time you could just hire Elisha Cook jr. as the weak link and he would make it believable.
The Parker books ar practically lectures on how to plot a novel, when to start it, when to end it, when you don’t need too much characterization. Most of the novels are just sitting there, waiting to be dramatized. Short, uncomplicated, heavy-on-action, heavy-on-dialogue. What a waste.
Fucking Hollywood.
When are they going to learn? You translate the book to film. You take one format and turn it into another. You do to Parker what Rodriguez did to Sin City. Hell, he used the graphic novels as both a script and storyboards, and it was magnificent.
There’s a reason why nobody would bother to read 24 of John J. McLaughlin’s shitty books, if he was indeed talented enough to write a series like Parker. That’s precisely why he should’ve just stuck to the source material.
People’s egos ruin everything.
JGA
OK. I had read some pretty horrid reviews before seeing Parker, along with a few tepid to positive ones. I honestly tried to wipe my mind free of all expectation, prejudices, and fears when I sat down in the theater, which was 75% full, on a Friday matinee.
As a Parker fan, first off: This is not Donald Westlake’s Parker. This is a combination of Westlake’s Parker and Statham, McLaughlin and Hackford’s Parker. There are some Parker-like moments here. Scenes where Parker improvises, methodically takes care of business, and genuinely refuses to stop settling the score just like “our” Parker would.
Unfortunately, there are also some very non-Parker like moments, that “our” Parker would NEVER attampt. Such as: stopping to win a little girl a stuffed animal at a fair, giving some of his heist money to an elderly couple who saved his life, telling a sick old man “be well”.
The film is basically a dumbed down version of Flashfire, albeit with many changes/alterations. Claire is played as someone a little more involved in Parker’s business then the literary character’s was, plus she seems to be somewhat of a mobile nurse for him. Hurley, who is only in the novel briefly, is morphed into Claire’s father. There’s a bizarre scene where Parker and Claire go to a backyard BBQ at Hurley’s, and I was like WTF! Parker at a BBQ?!
OK. I have to admit I did enjoy many aspects of this film. I liked the violence, the aspects that Statham got right (although he is not a perfect Parker–he’s sort of a kindler, gentler Parker who can still erupt violently when need be), the cinematography is very good, as is the score. The acting by and large is decent-to good. The script is not very faithful to the book or character, but works in a weird, quirky way on it’s own. It really reminded me more of a funky Elmore Leonard film mixed with the best of what Statham can do (and he does have moments here that I was quite pleased with him).
Nolte is in this only briefly, but he brings an authenticity and rawness in just saying “hello” that other actors can only dream of. I liked Lopez. Her character in different from the Leslie of the novel, but she comes across like many women I have met in real life: down and out, living with their mom at 40, and pissed about it. There’s a bitchy relationship with her mom, played by Patti Lupone, that rings true from women I have known.
If you go into this wanting the perfect Parker adaptation, you will be disappointed. But this film does have many good points. I got caught up in it, and Statham’s version of Parker, while not very faithful, is intriguing enough to where I would actually like to see him reprise the role, with a better screenwriter. The script was not horrific, in fact it had many decent points, but it was dumbed down and some stupid changes/alterations were made that didn’t need to be made.
So I can recommend this film on the basis you go into it with an open mind and are expecting a sort of alternate universe Parker where he’s a fair bit more humane, but still violent, as well as being bald and shorter.
Btw, Trent, as to your comment about why Melander and crew would need a million for a heist–it was to buy the house in Palm Beach, so they could lay low after the robbery.
And I only really spotted one reference to a previous Parker novel, and even that wasn’t really much of one. Lopez asks Parker if he’s married, and he replies: “I used to be. She passed away.” Can you point out any others that you remember? There were a couple of times Statham spoke so low I couldn’t hear exactly what he said.
I may be an easy lay, but I kinda hope Parker does well. There was some basic ingredients that could have been made to work much better. They need a better screenwriter and a director who understands Parker for the sequel, if it happens. I know that isn’t likely…
It’s weird being the only dude here to have a “somewhat” positive review. Maybe I’m just easy to impress. ;-) lol
I liked it a lot. I thought it was quite faithful to Parker — things like calling heist victims by their first name, his single-minded code, his loyalty to Claire, his scolding the fuck-up before killing him for not doing his job on the initial heist — and despite what critics have said, attention is paid to plot and character and it’s not at all wall-to-wall action. A couple of false notes (Parker not expecting to be jumped in his hotel room, Lopez’s mom bonding off-camera with the bloody wounded Parker) but generally this was probably the best Parker film since THE OUTFIT, which it somewhat resembles.
One other thing — to show you how odd things are from my point of view…the non-Parker thing about him setting up the farm couple for helping his wounded self. That’s clearly out of the movie ROAD TO PERDITION, which is obviously from my graphic novel, about a character I would never have created had I not been so heavily influenced by Richard Stark, a graphic novel Don Westlake endorsed with a cover blub. Yes indeed, it is at times weird being me.
David:
Thanks! I’ve updated the post with a link to your review. Even though I didn’t like it, I want to give the movie as fair a shake as possible.
Heck, I might even go see it again in a couple of weeks to see if my opinion changes. With diminished expectations, maybe I’ll enjoy it more.
I understood why they needed the money, I just thought it was a lousy scene.
My problem was with how they rushed through it. Especially as there was no need. Even a mere extra minute of exposition would have helped. Draw it out a little bit. Explain things a little more and nurse more suspense out of it. The scene just felt rushed.
In the book, the take is lower than expected. Have some of the money burn in the preceding scene! Show the counting of the money! Have someone say, “Dammit! We’re short.” Then the non-Parker characters start looking at each other in that, “What do we do now?” way. Get a little more drama out of it.
One of the things that I enjoy most about this site is the diversity of opinion represented, done in an intelligent yet respectful manner. Unlike, for instance, much of what goes on at IMDB, where people seem more interested in bashing each other than actually exchanging ideas.
I’m doubtful that I will ever completely embrace the filmmaker’s take on Parker; it’s seems to be a little too much “Parker-lite” for my taste. Westlake’s concept was original and unique, and that concept is what sustained the series, albeit with some softening here and there. I don’t feel that “The Hunter” would have ever merited a sequel had the character been presented as in the film.
However, Dave makes a very good case for judging the film on its own merits, and for not letting the “purist” streak in us get in the way of being objective. So, I’m going to give the film a second go, try and free my head, and just enjoy the ride.
Trent, I thank you. You have done the Parker community and myself a big service. I appreciate that you tried hard to separate your Parker fan-dom from your critique of the movie and I think you mostly succeeded.
Now I am going to curl up in a foetal position and weep for a while.
MAC:
Thanks for dropping by and for sharing your thoughts. I’m way more interested in what crime fiction fans and writers think about the film than what regular old critics think.
On your “One more thing”: Trippy!
Well, it’s nice to know MAC likes the film. Makes me feel less the “odd man out”.;-)
Unfortunately, Parker bombed. So even the chance of a much better scripted sequel is an impossibility.
OK: for what it’s worth, here’s my advice for the Westlake estate (as if they care what I think) and it’s something many Parker fans have talked about:
Have an agent pitch Parker as a cable TV series. FX or HBO, A and E, whatever. Bring in a quality TV writer(s) who know the books and character, or are is at least willing to take the time and read the books.
I can easily see a Parker series, each season based on one of the books and broke down into a 5 or 6 episode season (this would probably work better on a channel like HBO, where they can do 5 or 6 episode seasons). It’d be great to have the series set in the time period the books were published, but I can still see it working in our time, with some subtle changes.
Parker could grow a cult following like Breaking Bad or Madmen.
Mid-big budget Hollywood films–I mean, c’mon, I hate to say it but most of what’s being released under that banner is really stupid stuff made for kids or adults with the minds of kids. Most high quality stuff goes under the radar.
I can’t believe more people went to see freakin’ Hansel and Gretel than Parker.
All BS aside, Parker and Westlake are really too good for Hollywood.
A smaller Independant writer/director with some talent and knowledge of the books could really do a fine Parker film. I’ve often thought it’d be great to see a black and white Parker film. And then it wouldn’t have to make 20 mil on the opening weekend to turn a profit. It really wouldn’t even have to play coast to coast, but could just do festival runs and then DVD/Netflix/Cable.
Maybe that or the above mentioned cable TV approach should be what they try next.
Or just leave things be. Parker might only be destined to be a superb book series, and that’s more than enough for me.
I’m with Dave on this one. I knew I would not be able to see the film on opening day and I swore to myself I would stay away from reviews so I could go in with a completely open mind when I finally had the chance. Alas, I could not do it. The first review I read was Trent’s and that shook me up so much I felt like having a drink. I couldn’t follow through on that reaction since I don’t work in a bar so I hit the internet to read any other reviews I could feast my eyes on. Those were mixed at best. My hopes for a Parker adaptation accepted by all Parker fans dashed, my wife and I finally found the chance to slink into a theater for a noon show today (Saturday). In the end…I actually kinda liked it!
I think my lowered expectations helped, but to me, this wasn’t any further off the mark than any of the other fairly decent Parker adaptations like Payback (directors cut) or The Outfit. It was actually closer to the book than I expected it to be and Statham was better than I expected HIM to be, English accent and all.
I liked the supporting cast as well and I thought Lopez was just fine as Leslie. I didn’t care for the film version of Claire. I didn’t have a problem with the actress, I just didn’t like how involved they made her and there was no point to making Hurley her Dad. Still, those are minor problem points I could live with. If they want to take another crack at it with Statham in the role, I would be fine with it.
That said, I strongly agree a pay cable series would be the best way to get a book faithful version of Parker produced. Justified has been a big hit on FX and they are also looking at a TV series version of Dave Robicheaux. Maybe someone will be willing to take a chance on a series about “the bad guy”.
Hope springs eternal for me. I will always root for them to keep trying until they get it right.
Clue
I believe Don was working with producers on a Parker cable series at the time of his death — it would have had an ongoing Sopranos-like story arc. Maybe somebody with a better memory recalls more about his project.
Well, I guess this comment worked best for me — I actually liked Parker, despite several disagreements with the adaptation and “voicing” — and I would very much like to see Parker done as an FX series, like Justified.
Well, I feel like the weirdo now, because I actually really, really liked this movie. (I reviewed it fully on my blog) Ideally, there’d have been no Jennifer Lopez — and that would have shaved a nice half hour off the running time — but apart from that I actually had very few complaints. The action was gritty and violent, Parker kicked some serious ass, and Jason Statham didn’t do too bad a job. It’s about as good as we could have seriously expected. After all, they didn’t give Parker a sob story background, they didn’t explain the British accent, and they didn’t reveal much about his background at all. Seriously, Parker fared much better than poor Sherlock Holmes or Poirot or Miss Marple– who was apparently due to be “reimagined” as a sexy young American Jennifer Garner a year or two ago.
I don’t understand the hate for J Lo, who was very good in the film. One of the tricky things about adapting a Parker novel into a film is Don’s method of shifting to non-Parker POV at mid-point to follow various people with whom Parker is about to intersect…the lives (good bad and ugly) that Parker will move unheedingly through. For me, the Stark mastery of POV is one of the delights of the novels, particularly a reader pierceiving things several times from those differing POV’s, creating a time-shift effect (something Don confirmed came from Kubrick’s THE KILLING). But this very novelistic approach means a film version is hampered by a strategy wonderful in a book but jarring and off-putting in a film. Yet it’s the juxtaposition of people both in and out of Parker’s world who are very different from him that creates not just conflict and tension but fun and games. For me, though somewhat different from the character in the novel, the J Lo real estate agent (and those in her life, like her mom and the cop) represent that part of the Stark approach. Their very inclusion in the narrative by the screenwriter and the director indicates a familiarity with and respect for the source author that usually hasn’t been seen in Parker film adaptations (certainly not in POINT BLANK, masterpiece though it is). The screenwriter and director risk alienation of an audience by removing the protagonist from centerstage…as Stark does.
Books aren’t movies; movies aren’t books. Don wrote Parker with very little physical description of his protagonist, so everybody who reads and loves those books has a different take on the character. This was the Mike Hammer problem, too — no actor could satisfy the Hammer of the reader’s imagination. This was a very, very good Parker movie. The worst thing about it was the title, which attracted nobody (the same kind of stupidity of those who called a movie JACK REACHER). All of the hardcore Stark fans would fill a handful of theaters, so why call it PARKER? With any thriller title, including FLASHFIRE, it would done better box office.
Max, I didn’t like Lopez very much in this film. I thought her character was rather unnecessary in the film, and her role just could have been condensed. I liked her mother and the stalker-cop just fine, but Lopez herself didn’t sell me on the character. I know it sounds like I’m hating on Lopez just for being Jennifer Lopez, but it’s her acting in this specific movie that turned me off her character. She had one or two good moments, but the first thing I can remember off the top of my head is that really bad bit near the end where she gets herself needlessly kidnapped. If you lost Lopez, you’d have lost a half hour, and that might have made the film more tight. You’d also have lost some of the worst scenes. What I think happened is the studio said “We got J Lo, so use her as much as possible”. She was terribly miscast, but I guess someone at the studio thought it would bring in more people. (But, like you said, with a title like PARKER?) I guess we’ll just have to disagree about the quality of her performance.
Um, wasn’t she needlessly kidnapped in the novel?
Very much agree with this — funny thing is, Statham, if he had a real Brooklyn accent and a crew cut, would, by far, make the best possible Mike Hammer!
Also liked J Lo in this, although I’ve never seen her in anything else, so I don’t know much about her.
Thanks, Patrick! I’ve added yours to the “other opinions” section at the end of the post.
And if anyone finds other interesting opinions about the movie from fellow Parker fans, link in the comments or shoot me an e-mail. I’ll keep updating the post.
Man The Split is way better than this, still don’t see why that one is thought so little of.
The Split was interesting in it’s own way, but I think this film was much, much better. I really think this could have been the beginning of an interesting series of films.
What’s weird is that, to the best of my knowledge, NO Parker film has ever been successful, at least not initially. Even the much-lauded Point Blank, which I like, is hardly an authentic Parker adaptation. (I mean c’mon, Vernon forcibly smooching Marvin always seems bizarre when I see it).
PB was a financial failure when it opened, I believe, and wasn’t even hailed as one of the better Crime films of the 60’s until years afterward.
The way I see it is in all likliehood Hollywood is never going to make a truly authentic Parker adaptation. But is it sometimes capable of making an interesting hybrid by mixing some of what Westlake put on paper with other diverse elements? (In this case a British action star, a fairly talented director in the latter period of his career, and a screenwriter in the beginning period of his career).
In this case, I say yes.
You have to be philosophical about these Hollywood adaptations.
Man, I guess I’m one of the few who actually liked this movie.
As an adaption of a “Parker” novel, I’d give it a “C”.
As a heist movie, I’d give it a “B”.
As a Jason Statham film, I’d give it an “A”. This is a step above what we usually get from him – and this is coming from a guy who enjoys the guilty pleasurs that Jason has provided filmgoers with.
I think the biggest problem with this film is going with an action star instead of a good character actor. Because they got Statham in it, they had to up the fights and action scenes, and the plot and character development suffered.
The changes they did make from the novel (Claire’s dad?!?) did not add to the quality.
On the one hand it’s too bad that the movie did so poorly on the opening weekend (fifth I think). As bad of a “Parker” adaptation it is, I’d love to see a sequel to this and give them another crack at it – but going by the numbers, I don’t see that happening.
Having said that, perhaps some time will pass and someone will try again and learn from the mistakes of this one.
As a longtime Westlake fan, I’ll go see any films that spring from his novels – good or bad – I just hold out hope that future ones (sequel to this or starting from scratch) will capture the true magic that made the novels so damn re-readable.
The german crime film Im Schatten is a dead on accurate not-adaptation of a Stark novel. It get’s the tone and mood and everything right, and especially Parker (called “Trojan” in the movie). Every scene is practically lifted from a Parker novel. Everyone should check it out, it’s the best adaptation we’re ever likely to get. They really should of just done a shot for shot American remake of that and called it Parker.
This didn’t even seem like a good movie let alone an accurate adaptation. What was with the cornball flashbacks with the digital vaseline-smeared-on-the-lens effect? Like it was some CSI spin-off made-for-tv movie thing, except there’s plenty direct-to-video movies that aren’t as awkwardly directed, edited and scored as this. The fact that they went out of their way to call it Parker only to show such a lack of give-a-shit in making the thing, plus the dedication at the end as a final insult just makes this irredeemable garbage on any scale.
I am checking In Schatten out as soon as I am sone here, Parker. Many thanks!
Im Schatten (In The Shadows) is a great movie. I just watched it a couple of days ago. There are some clear nods to the Parker novels, including a scene where the main character is sat in the dark on his own, waiting.
Thanks for the tip on Im Schatten! watched it last night and really liked it. Parker meets Le Samourai is how it seemed to me. Hope there’s a sequel because I smelled some unfinished business!
Now my mouth is really watering; Le Samourai is terrific.
Trent, your love for Parker is a joy to behold! I love that you had so much to say about the movie and in such detail, despite the fact that you hated it with the same passion! Lots of ground to cover here and we’ll have some disagreements but it’s a testament to Don’s genius that we can have so much to say.
Don’t be so sure there won’t be at least one more movie. The options are paid for and the box office isn’t done. Statham’s last few movies haven’t done much better on opening weekend but still ended up making some money. I agree with MAC that the title was a big mistake. It might have been owed to Les Alexander’s thrill with being allowed to use the name but it does nothing to sell the uninitiated on the movie.
As to the specifics, since I’ve spent so much of my life on film sets, I know how difficult it is to translate prose to images. And I also know that a lot of the flaws Trent detected in the script are not actually McLaughlin’s fault, since the film company and their marketing teams tend to have a lot of influence on those things.
Winning the stuffed animal for the little girl at the fair is hardly a Parker-like activity, to be sure. And yet, doesn’t Parker frequently find himself doing things that he would never do just to make the people around him more at ease? Doesn’t he say “hi” when all he wants to do is stay quiet and hear about the job? And that with fellow heavies! Wouldn’t Parker go through the motions of maintaining the entirety of the disguise, right down to smiling and winning a toy for a kid, if that meant keeping the job on schedule? The thing we’re missing is Parker’s internal monologue wherein he reveals his disgust with the motions, even as he goes through the motions. How do you translate that on camera without a voiceover or a sneering aside? I don’t think Don would have put him in that specific situation (obviously) but once there, he wouldn’t have let him off easy, either.
I agree that this film misfires on some of the essential attributes of Don’s creation but I think we can take the purity a little too far at times. Why didn’t Parker kill Eddie Wheeler in “The Score?” Why does Parker make sure Grofield lives and gets his take in “The Handle?” Why did Parker ever get married? What’s the backstory there? Did they have a church wedding? Go to Vegas? We’ll never know.
But now let me bring in another angle. Don tended to write about characters only as long as they were interesting to him. After Butcher’s Moon, Parker ceased to be interesting to him for more than two decades. In another, much shorter, series under the pseudonym Tucker Coe, Don wrote about the disgraced cop Mitch Tobin in the aftermath of his moment of disgrace as he goes through the process of putting a new life together. After five books, Tobin is somewhat back to “normal” and that renders him uninteresting to Don and so he stopped writing about him. Forever.
So I have to ask, what made Parker interesting to Don at the moment that we meet him in “The Hunter?” Was he just a garden variety crook until he was betrayed by his wife and partner? Is that what makes him “angry – not hot angry, cold angry,” as Don put it? Is that the fuel for his preternatural instincts and talents? And don’t we see some softening in his character as the books progress, even before Butcher’s Moon? Parker in a house? A house!? And yet, Don wrote that. In fact, Don was constantly writing about the things that Parker found illogical, or inane, or a waste of time, but nonetheless necessary to satisfy another person’s desires or expectations or, at the very least, keep the job on track. That dynamic is very difficult to translate to a visual medium.
There are changes that I find unnecessary and somewhat weird, like the contrived familial connection with Claire, the house magically transported from New Jersey to Florida and leaving Claire unattended when he knew death was on the way. But Parker also left Georg Uhl alive and knew it was mistake when he did it. And it really was a mistake because it came back to bite him in “Plunder Squad.” And yet, Don wrote that.
Parker is a master planner and improviser but he’s not a demi-god. He really is left for dead in “Flashfire.” He really does go to jail in “Breakout.” He really does try to go help Joe Sheer. And Don may actually have completely agreed with Trent about all this because he thought “The Jugger” was the worst of the Parker books for the simple reason that Parker “wouldn’t do that.” And yet, Don felt that Parker would do that for long enough to write the book.
Even Don was occasionally conflicted about Parker’s true nature. And, after all, isn’t that what makes the best characters most interesting? We know what we think Parker would do, but he never quite did those things did he? There was always some angle we, as readers, hadn’t considered. But Don did. And that’s what made the books worth reading.
There is a lot of Hollywood shorthand in this movie that is intended for audiences with certain expectations (despite not actually knowing what those expectations are half the time). It takes a truly brave studio to make Parker as unsympathetic as Don did. But even Don’s version is more sympathetic than we think because we tend to agree with his sporadic commentary about assholes. So, hey, if Parker thinks that guy is an asshole, and he is, then Parker must not be all that bad. Dangerous yes. But not an asshole. There’s a difference.
Would I like to see Parker done bare bones, just like the books? You bet! But I don’t kid myself that it can happen with the kind of filmmaking-by-committee that goes on in today’s demographically-driven entertainment complex. There are so many studios that would turn Parker into a strongman for a beleaguered church or some such crap to “humanize” him that we should be cheering that we got this much!
I could get into the specific changes I would make, or would like to see made in the next film. And I do believe we’ll have at least one more. But I’ll reserve those comments for Les and the production team to see if we can’t make some improvements down the line. The one thing I can say for sure is that I would not have chosen “Flashfire” as the first in this series. But that water was long under the bridge by the time I caught wind of this project. I hope to remedy that situation in future.
Thanks for the keeping the fires burning, Trent. You light the way for so many fans and care so deeply about the integrity of the work that you’d probably freak Don out a little — in a good way! Mostly. ;-)
I thought he went to kill Joe Sheer in The Jugger, Paul. Not help him. I’ll have to dig out my copy. My memory is still suffering from all the booze imbibed over the holidays.;-) lol
And for that matter, Melander and crew didn’t leave Parker for dead in the book, did they?
Pretty sure Parker just didn’t like having his take swiped. But they didn’t try to ice him.
No, no. You’re correct. I was thinking of the backstory to The Hunter and my sleepy brain got crossed up. No, they don’t try to ice him. But that reminds me of another angle. Shouldn’t Melander know better than to leave Parker in his rear view? With the understanding that not all heavies are Parker, this still seems like a pretty stupid mistake for someone with knowledge of Parker’s reputation.
Kill him or help him, depending on the situation. Of course, that’s solved for him. Then it’s a matter of covering his tracks. But the quote from the Austin Chronicle interview (that I’m sure you’re familiar with) is instructive:
“I mean, he wouldn’t do that, and in fact, the guy wouldn’t even think to call him!”
I think the last point is most salient but also ignores the fact that Sheer was getting senile, or at least Parker thought he might be. Still, there is a strain to the journey that includes the possibility of helping Joe, if only as an alternative to killing him if it turned out to be unnecessary. That’s my take, anyway.
Don was really a stream-of-consciousness writer. He put his characters in situations and, based on their personalities, figured out how they would respond and move on. He often didn’t know the outcome before he got to it or close to it. That’s why he could look back and think he made a mistake — took a wrong turn in Albuquerque sorta thing.
I see strains of Parker in Rolf Malone, the protagonist in the one-off Curt Clark title “Anarchaos.” And, of course, Dortmunder is Parker too funny and converted to comic crime caper. So, all I’m saying is that even Don wasn’t sure what Parker would be or do all the time.
Yeah, I definitely get where you’re coming from, Paul. I’ve long been of the opinion, which I’ve expressed here, that Parker is a more complex character than most think. As you pointed out, he often doesn’t react in the way you’d expect him to. I was just rereading The Man with the Getaway Face, and at the end, when his cover has been blown by the plastic surgeon’s nitwit staff, you’d expect him to just ice all three of them. But he didn’t. He realized they’d already done the deed, and killing them wouldn’t change that.
And before he learned they’d blew the whistle, he REALLY went out of his way to prove he didn’t kill their beloved doctor when all he really had to do was point and shoot to elminate his problem.
So yeah, it does kind of make sense that if Parker is in character as the kindly old Priest, and a little girl is asking him to win her a stuffed animal, and a cop is standing there watching you, you just plaster a fake smile on your face and win her the doll and go about your business. What do people expect Parker to do? Take out his pistol and start shooting everyone? He’s a heister, not a deranged thrill-killer.
As for Melander and crew in the book, I’m assuming they probably didn’t know of his past, and the fact he has an almost obsessive compulsive thing about people crossing him. They probably just thought he was a sad sack heister past his prime, and would sulk home and cry in his cornflakes. Boy, were they wrong.;-) lol
“This was a very, very good Parker movie. The worst thing about it was the title, which attracted nobody (the same kind of stupidity of those who called a movie JACK REACHER). All of the hardcore Stark fans would fill a handful of theaters, so why call it PARKER? With any thriller title, including FLASHFIRE, it would done better box office”.
Well, as Lawrence Block noted in an early essay in The Fine Art of Murder (which you contributed an article for, Mr. Collins), normal crime/mystery thrillers generally have less of a committed fandom than fantastic adventure novels, so yes, Richard Stark fans would less probably see this film in theaters multiple times or try to promote it amongst their friends.
That said, I have to wonder that the title caused that much confusion in this case. Did people somehow think this tied in with Andrew Garfield playing Richard Wentworth’s bastard grand-nephew? (Do a Goodsearch or envirosearch to get the reference)
This does point to a problem; though, regarding recognition for adult thriller properties; people say that the much feared mainstream audience despises comic books as childish, but the truth of the matter points to properties derived from juvenile and adolescent literature generally producing the more lucrative franchises. They generally produce more tie-in merchandise. How many homages to Bob Lee Swagger does one see in the media? How about Spenser? This even applies to classic adventure fiction. How much merchandise does the Last of the Mohicans (and its sequels) generate compared to the Oz, Peter Pan and Wonderland books?
http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/topic/46049/Adaptations-Thriller-Series-Dump-Title-Novel-Adapted
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1205537/board/nest/205731058?d=205731058&p=1#205731058
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?394170-Attempts-to-turn-adult-adventure-or-thriller-literature-into-film-franchises-have-not
http://www.soundonsight.org/all-hail-the-king-the-work-of-stephen-king/#comment-166627
Sad to sad, this Parker will join the list, I suppose, of attempts to turn adult thriller literature into franchises, along with V.I. Warshawski, Eight Million Ways to Die, and so forth. Follow the Sound on Sight link above. This may not portend well for the upcoming Jack Ryan, Matthew Scudder, Spillane and Travis McGee adaptations.
I also regret that this Parker adaptation may not receive a sequel, since, other than the forthcoming Travis McGee, few thriller properties from the 1960’s other than those derived from comic books receive adaptations these days.
Well, as I’m a long-time Travis McGee fan, allow me to break it to you gently, PB210–there isn’t likely to be a McGee film soon. It’s been in development hell for years. When DiCaprio signed on it looked like the damned thing was actually going to get made, but for some reason or another, it’s looking like it won’t happen for years, if at all.
One thing I can say about the Parker film: They announced it, they filmed it, they showed it. No huge postponements.
Well, then there you go, that shows that even fewer adult thriller or prose properties from the 1960’s will receive adaptations these days. (I had also heard of a Matt Helm adaptation that would more closely follow the books in the works, but that too has receded.)
Well, permit me to join the shoot-out with my review of PARKER at my webpage (Nope, I didn’t think much of it): http://tbdeluxe.blogspot.com/2013/02/burchfield-at-bijou-parker-versus-parker.html
And, a tribute to Parker’s creator i wrote some years back here: http://tbdeluxe.blogspot.com/2013/01/whatever-mask-he-wore-donald-westlake.html
It says something about Westlake’s influence that one of his pseudonyms gets his *own* webpage. . . .
Thanks for this site!
Cheers,
Thomas
Not as bad as you say, but not great in many respects either. Fairly faithful to the original story and to most aspects of the character, Parker. Jennifer Lopez’s part is almost totally wasted but most of the other characters ring pretty true, in my estimation. Jason Statham is ok except for the accent. Anyone who hangs around this site should go and see to make up their own minds. Making any Hollywood movie based on an original novel is all about compromises.
You mentioned a lot of disaster points, except the main one: Cair. There is no way Parker would ever call Clair to come and help him in the middle of the job. At the end maybe, but in the middle??????????????
Disaster all around
I agree that scene raised my eyebrow, too. But Parker has asked Claire for help on jobs. The Sour Lemon Score, Firebreak, Breakout, spring to mind.
I thought we (Parker and DEW fans) came out pretty good with this movie. Consider that it’s amazing any good movies come out of Hollywood. If the studios had their way, the Godfather would have been filmed on a shoestring budget, set in present time, Brando would never have been hired, and Coppola & Pacino would both have been fired.
I enjoyed “Parker” thoroughly. It stayed reasonably true to the Parker character. Some have taken exception to the quote, “I don’t steal from anyone who can’t afford it, and I don’t hurt anyone who doesn’t deserve it.” Yeah, Parker never said it, but that’s how he operates. It’s not a matter of honor or decency, but simple expediency. Of course he’s going to steal from the big guys, and he eschews killing because it brings unwanted attention. But if you get in his way, he’ll do what he has to do – without compunction. Someone probably figured a completely amoral antagonist would be a hard sell, so some of Parker’s hard edges were smoothed.
Patrick doesn’t seem to like J-Lo at all, and says her character was unnecessary, yet she was a major character in the book. And in the book, she’s sexually curious about Parker, but ultimately more scared. I’m with MAC – I thought she was fine, and I was glad they didn’t make it a love story between her & Statham. Burchfeld doesn’t like that Parker held a “therapy session” with a victim. In another movie, Statham would have shot him. In “Parker”, he contains the situation. To me, they stayed true to the Parker character.
I’m halfway through re-reading Flashfire, and am pleasantly surprised that far from screwing it up, they did a decent job of adapting the book. There’s lot of dialogue straight from the novel. The main plot points are the same. They Hollywood-ed the opening sequence by trying to kill Parker, rather than underpay him, but they did it by transplanting the more preposterous shoot-out with the end-of-the-worlders. Again, a good move from a movie point of view. Another movie adaptation of a crime novel which worked for me was LA Confidential – it kept all the main plot points, conflated a few situations & characters, but was not a slavish re-telling of James Ellroy’s novel. Just by the by, I would love to have seen George Clooney as Dave Klein in Ellroy’s White Jazz – but that’s not going to happen. As much as I love Westlake, Ellroy is probably my favorite crime novelist.
A movie is different enough from a book that to film a novel literally just wouldn’t work on screen. As a big Parker fan, I thought most of the choices (based on my halfway re-reading of Flashfire and one viewing of Parker) worked. It defintely worked as a heist/revenge movie. Statham was sufficiently laconic, and did a fine job. I was glad they didn’t explain the accent, as it didn’t affect the storytelling. Count me among those hoping for more Parker/Statham movies.
Awesome post, Giz. While it was not a “great” Parker film, it certainly was better than I was expecting. Without question, it’s the best thing I’ve seen Statham in.
I too am hoping for a miracle, and they make another.
Whether you liked the Parker film or you hated it, the DVD & Blue Ray release is set for May 21st.
i wrote a thing about this movie, in an attempt to start a new blog, in which i will try to write about crime & mystery novels i read and related stuff.
http://www.tumblr.com/blog/murderjones