"KEEP BUSTIN'."

PARKER trailer

WHAT IS THIS BULLSHIT?! I mean, it looks like it could be a pretty accurate adaptation of Flashfire, and an enjoyable Jason Statham vehicle. But why would you call it “Parker” and then hang the trailer on this “these are my rules” hook that is the opposite of the character and the reason he has lasted and the reason you bought the rights to make a movie out of him? What kind of man is willing to do that, knowing he has to look himself in the mirror again at some point before he dies? Wouldn’t it be easier, and better for all involved, and for society,  to just not do that? Obviously you don’t have rules or you wouldn’t have fucking made Parker say some shit like that!

Maybe you guys were thinking of the Transporter?

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 3rd, 2012 at 11:38 am and is filed under Blog Post (short for weblog). You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

59 Responses to “PARKER trailer”

  1. Jason Statham starring as Jason Statham in STATHAM.

    Yeah… looks like every other mid-tier Jason Statham actioner out there.

    I haven’t read the books, but I understand Parker is supposed to be one ruthless motherfucker. Don’t know about PAYBACK’s merits as a book adaptation, but at least that movie – in both cuts, more so in Straight Up – had a mean streak in it that made it memorable.

    This just looks so painfully glossied up and generic. It’s like a trailer for an episode of BURN NOTICE.

  2. Parker has one rule: Don’t fuck with Parker.

  3. This was inevitable.

  4. I posted this in the other thread about this movie, but here’s the weakass poster for it too:
    http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/10/01/exclusive-poster-debut-parker

    It seems too that they’ve blended the story of Flashfire with elements from The Hunter, by having Chiklis’ character have “connections” that Parker has to deal with(he even visits a guy in an office building, like when Parker goes to see Carter to demand the Outfit give him his money). I’m worried too that if they’re beginning the movie with the guys who doublecrossed him leaving him for dead(which comes from an unrelated subplot later in the book), then we’re not going to get that cool first act which was him basically pulling lots of little jobs to build up the cash he needed to fund his payback scheme. Also, the whole motif of Parker being a bald guy who keeps putting on unnecessary disguises to further his aims just reminds me that Statham turned down HITMAN.
    Worst of all is they actually use the Parker name for it. Apparently the reason other movies haven’t done it before is because Westlake didn’t allow it. Only the graphic novel adaptations have that distinction. So I’m guessing that the only reason THESE assholes are getting to use it is because he passed away and can’t forbid it.

  5. Well, he does have rules, but they’re things like he doesn’t have sex until after a job, he doesn’t take a job he has hesitations about, things like that. Not “I only rob from people who deserve it.” That’s just not Parker at all.

  6. But are those really rules? He doesn’t have sex before a job because he’s just not interested in it, not because he made a rule about it. And it seems like he’s always taking jobs he has hesitations about (such as THE SCORE) if he really needs the money or if he just thinks it will be an interesting challenge. It seems like he has certain methods and practices he employs because they work for him, not because of a code of honor or anything like that. Above all, he’s practical. He adapts to the circumstances. The only thing he ever does on principle is make sure he gets exactly what’s owed him, even when it would be way easier to just cut his losses and walk away.

  7. I knew you would hate this as soon as it became evident (IMMEDIATELY) that this was another Statham “vehicle” where the main character has a set of rules he abides by. Jason Statham and his rules.

  8. If Statham likes rules so much, maybe he should remake THE PRINCIPAL or something.

  9. They’re not so much rules as guidelines to keep him from getting caught. Like the “Code” from DEXTER.

  10. Hakeem "the Dream" Olajuwan

    October 3rd, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    I get why you’d hate this as a Parker movie, but I do think it looks pretty cool as just a Statham vehicle.

  11. Yeah, he has no code of honor, that’s the point. He does end up helping out his partners sometimes, but always with some kind of practical strategy behind it.

  12. I told you guys! I’m too lazy to dig up my old review of an advanced screening, but it is definitely not a PARKER movie.

  13. Looks like a big wasted moment sadly. It’s surprising since I thought Taylor Hackford would bring a nasty, bad ass film. Looks very underwhelming but I’ve been been wrong before.

  14. Funny to see how they’ve Hollywoodized some of the moments from Flashfire: instead of just ripping him off and promising to pay him back, the guys try to kill him. He’s got a shower scene with the J-Lo character, who in the book lets him know in no uncertain terms that she’s not interested (and, as pointed out, he keeps his mind on the job at hand anyway.) And I know he sets up a cover in the book, but it’s funny seeing Statham with the hat and the Texas businessman accent…can’t imagine Parker taking the role-playing quite that far.

    They should have just stuck with re-naming the character: it’s kind of an honorable tradition to come up with the “movie version” of Parker as previously portrayed in Point Blank, Outfit, etc. To not only call Statham “Parker” but name the actual movie “Parker” is a pretty ballsy statement about how correctly they nailed him. And sadly I have to agree: this preview is not promising as far as that goes.

  15. I was impressed with the cast, if nothing else. Bunk and Vic Mackey in the same movie, as criminals? I’m (sorta) in.

  16. I’m with Vern on this one… I’m terrified this might turn into a series and they’ll end up having one of those Lost guys playing that awesome punchy character in Getaway Face. This was bound to happen at some point, Vern, this raping of Richard Stark was always on the cards, you must have seen it coming.

    I am in no way a fan of the Bourne films, but it’s a huge shame they didn’t hit that route. Base the film around the character, not the actor.

  17. Oh and J-Vo getting second credit to The Stath… man, Jason is moving up in the world, or she is moving down.

  18. Statham comes across way more Parker-esque introducing the trailer than he does anywhere in the actual trailer. Should of got whoever was holding the camera there to direct the movie.

    Have you guys seen a german crime film that came out in 2010 called Im Schatten? It’s the best Parker movie we’re ever going to get. Pretty much every scene is lifted from the novels (except the first one, which is right out of Le Cercle Rouge) and the humorless just-a-professional-at-work tone of the whole thing is perfect.

  19. Statham’s at that stage in his career now that he, like a few action stars before him, get movies tailor made for his own unique style. We can mourn the lost opportunities, but we’ll at least get some decent movies out of it.

  20. You know, when it comes to adaptations I’m usually very forgiving. I always remind myself that it is, indeed, an “adaptation”. It’s someone else’s interpretation of the story or character, not just a direct transfer from one medium to another.

    And normally I agree with many of the changes made, because let’s face it, what works on paper doesn’t necessarily work on screen. In fact, I’m fascinated by the changes and the reasons behind them, and tend not to take it personally because the source material is still there and unchanged.

    But goddammit, the least you can do is try to represent the character in some truthful manner. That trailer has as little to do with Parker as it has with Superman. Just call it something else.

    This is such a gross misinterpretation that it almost seems intentionally offensive. I don’t get it.

  21. When this is Richard Starck’s/Donald E. Westlake’s PARKER why does it quote Burt Reynold’s adaptation of Elmore Leonard’s STICK in every second scene?

  22. I’m only familiar with the Parker character as played by Mel Gibson in Payback, so I didn’t care about how faithful an adaptation this was going to be. Even so, that trailer looks horrible. Utterly generic and uninteresting, which says a lot coming from a huge Statham fan like myself who even enjoyed The Mechanic enough to rewatch it a couple of times.

    Pegsman, regarding Statham’s unique style, doesn’t that usually involve kicking lots of people? I didn’t see him kick a lot of people in the Parker trailer. Also, I am pretty sure his style never included wacky disguises and comedy accents.

    I’ve got a strong feeling this isn’t going to be a fun experience for anyone, not fans of the book nor fans of Statham kicking ass…

  23. Mike, if you’ve followed Statham all the way you’ll know that he was a verbally strong and humorous tough guy before he became a kicker. And from his latest movies I gather that he wants to distance himself a little bit from the martial arts roles. And why not? Even Bronson tried to lighten things up once in a while.

  24. Maybe it’s just me (and maybe not), but Statham’s tough guy/badass routine seems like it’s beginning to grow mold. Just the first traces, mind you, but it’s growin’. His onscreen persona seemed to work well enough in the Transporter movies, and even more so in the free-for-all, Id madness of the Crank movies. Lately it seems kinda tapped out, and IMO only recently truly works in movies where he’s playing off other Alpha Males (DeNiro and Clive Owen in Killer Elite, nearly the entire cast of both Expendables movies). He needs to branch out before too long, and (thanks Mike A) merely tracing his work with “wacky disguises and comedy accents” isn’t gonna get it done.

  25. I don’t agree. It’s the out-branching that kills most promising action careers. I like it better when people stick to what they know.

  26. Pegsman – yeah, these days he seems to balance his martial arts stuff out with more serious type roles (or sometimes a combination of both, such as Safe), which is a good idea as he is slowly approaching fifty after all. He’s good at those types of roles, just as he can be really funny when he’s given good dialogue and he doesn’t try too hard. But this Parker trailer is just giving me a bad vibe. Sure, the wigs and accents are probably just a small part of the film, but there is nothing else in that trailer that makes me think the good is gonna outweigh the bad.

  27. Also agree that Statham should stick with what he does best and what people want to see him do: be a badass. I don’t think that routine is getting old at all, it’s just that sometimes there’s a bad film around that routine that doesn’t make it work as well as it still can, given the right material.

  28. I liked BLITZ a whole lot, since it was a pure cop-movie. Not very original, but I never felt it was trying to aim other than the usual audience for these type of movies. It was very entertaining and I like Statham more when he plays more these down to earth,grizzled, shit out of luck-characters than the superhuman Transporter-Man.

  29. @pegsman & Mike A: I hear you, guys… good points. I’m not suggesting that Statham pull a 180 and go the [to switch art forms, and BIG shudder] Garth Brooks-to-Chris Gaines Route. He just needs to find different inflections, permutations, call it what you will… WITHIN his established movie persona in order to remain viable.

    Clint Eastwood (if one dare compare him to Statham, now that Clint has attained the title of Professor Emeritus Of Modern Movie Badasses status [I doubt Vern would approve of such verbiage, but I’m DAMN sure he nodded his head in agreement]) knocked out a One-Two Punch as an actor with Unforgiven, and then In The Line Of Fire, and on the heels of it… both were so well brought off, it not only enhanced his reputation as a great badass actor, it also morphed it into another phase. Yes, the elder statesman taking hold… but also the vulnerability, the lighthearted humor, the irony, the wistfulness about lost opportunities… these things began to make themselves apparent. I like Jason Statham; don’t get me wrong. But I have many doubts that he can sustain, for too long, his career beyond its current course IF it doesn’t present something fresh.

  30. Haven’t seen the trailer yet, but I’ll probably give it the benefit of doubt. After all, the trailers for SAFE made that look like a generic Statham actioner, but that film was pretty dark and brutal.

  31. Larry – except I don’t think Statham seems to care that much, or he’s just being offered any non-action oriented movie roles and he’s just accepted his lot in life.

    I remember (the terrific) THE BANK JOB from several years back, and I reviewed it for another website, I thought it showed pretty much I enjoy Jason Statham. For people who just think he’s just that British posh guy who kicks alot, I felt BANK JOB was the perfect sort of vehicle for Statham, and it does reveal him to be the Charles Bronson of our era, a quickly believable force of personality that you know something will break during his narratives. (If Bronson was in his prime today, he would have to learn martial arts like Statham did so he can have his action career. Funny enough Liam Neeson is doing the Bronson parts now that don’t require martial arts.*)

    I meant that as an acting compliment for Statham (I still hold it), and once upon a time I really thought he could even break out as a mainstream star because he had charm, he was charismatic, oh and he kicked ass too. But that unfortunately didn’t happen.

    *=Vern, you’re reviewing TAKEN 2, right?

  32. I guess I got sidetracked, but my point I wanted to make: Statham in acting I compliment as Bronson-esque, but now he’s got Bronson’s career from the 1980s with Cannon, doing all those endless, mostly poor movies (that mostly for me personally run as a blur together) and pretty much run into the oblivion ground as a result.

    (Of course I could say Nic Cage is having the same problem too. I mean there was a time when he was an A-star, who did his action movies plus the occassional serious acting job. Now he does STOLEN, and nobody gives a shit or even aware that it came out or exists.)

  33. I can´t believe I´m hearing this. Have I been in a slumber for 50 years and just woken up and realizing its suddenly socially accepted to diss Bronson´s Cannon-era?

  34. I’m taking a pass on TAKEN 2 until DVD. I loved the first one (full disclosure: I had a porn store import of the unrated international version a year before it hit U.S. theaters, so I never had to deal with the sloppy editing of the PG-13 version that seemed to piss a lot of people off) but at this point it’s pretty clear that Olivier Megaton has no idea what he’s doing and needs to get his awesome name repossessed so it can be given to someone who deserves it. He’s the dullest director in Luc Besson’s stable and he needs to be put out to pasture.

    That was a pretty good the way I extended that horse metaphor in my opinion.

  35. ShootMcKay – I don’t care about social norms. I just don’t care for most of those movies. (Yet I won’t get hosed for saying the same for most of Chuck Norris’ Cannon movies either. Huh.)

    OK I had enjoyment with DEATH WISH 3, obviously. But otherwise, Ney!

    Majestyk – you might be right.

  36. @Mr. Majestyk. By all accounts as the release clock draws near… it would seem Taken 2 is little more than a retread of the first one. Damn shame. Maybe if Luc Besson had saw fit to step up and direct it, we could have had something vibrant on the order of The Professional, but… no. Not happening.

    Taken 2 may not usher out Neeson’s tenure as an action hero, but I’m guessing it will prove to be a bump in that particular road. Still, who, Nostradamii above & beyond us, thought his career would’ve taken such a 90 degree turn this far along? Zero count.

    Which is cool. Keep ’em comin’, Liam. Clock’s not done tickin’ JUST yet.

  37. “By all accounts as the release clock draws near… it would seem Taken 2 is little more than a retread of the first one. ”

    Larry – Are you really that surprised? This was made by the same people behind the TRANSPORTER series, and what really made any of those movies stand-out asides from #2 is campier/more ridiculous than the other two? They’re not filmmakers as much as soda pop manufacturers. They make Coca-Cola, which you expect to taste like Coca-Cola. That’s their mentality.

    Of course its maybe not the best news that many critics who actually liked TAKEN are hating the sequel. Opps.

    “Taken 2 may not usher out Neeson’s tenure as an action hero, but I’m guessing it will prove to be a bump in that particular road. ”

    Would THE A-TEAM flopping count as a bump? If so, TAKEN 2 would be a small pothole in comparison. If current opening weekend projections pan out (last I heard, mid-30s to early 40s), that would more than likely or closely make up the budget in America alone. Then gravy profits, especially from overseas markets.

    (Speaking of Neeson, one of his second wind action career movies he did that I enjoyed (despite being really sorta stupid) was UNKNOWN. Hitchcock meets the Joel Silver actioneer, minus the Shane Black script doctoring one-liners. I guess he was busy.)

  38. At least Stathams recent run have been hard edged, violent thrillers (Blitz, Killer Elite, Safe), rather than the anaemic Transporters and Deathrace and Expendables. And judging from some of the shots in the trailer this is following in that same vein. Obviously, though, as entertaining a film this might be, it’s not the literary Parker…

  39. Speaking of trailers the DIE HARD 5 trailer is officially all over the interwebs.

  40. Despite the fact that I seem to hate everything else these days, I’m remaining cautiously optimistic about DIE HARD ON A RUSSIA, but I think I’ll be more cautiously optimisticer if I don’t watch that trailer and just go into the movie blind. There’s nothing on earth that’ll stop me from seeing it, including it looking absolutely terrible, so I might as well avoid all the months of speculation and worry.

    Sort of how I feel about elections. I already know how I’m voting so let’s just skip the dog-and-pony show and get right to the ballot box.

  41. I don’t think any member of our fine community here wants a DIE HARD movie to NOT be good. After all this site is like The Church of John McClane. One thing I do hope is that there is more solid chemistry between McClane and Son than there was between McClane and the Mac Guy. It coming out in FEB and not JUL isn’t very optimistic since so much crap gets released in FEB but it could also be a nice early in the year surprise like both HAYWIRE and THE RAID were in 2012. Here’s hoping.

  42. Back to PARKER though. This definitely is as discouraging a trailer as the one for the REACHER movie. Early buzz on the movie has been pretty bad too. I think I’ll just go watch POINT BLANK or PAYBACK again.

  43. Broddie – Well two things:

    (1) I wouldn’t look into Febuary, no more than whenever Sony dumped the last RAMBO movie into theatres. They think they can score the easy pin in early spring, well God bless’em because that’s what those crummy kids CGI movies do all the time. (Seriously THE LORAX. wtf?)

    BTW, since I brought up Rambo, thoughts on that rumor that he’s fighting a mutant monster in the next movie?

    (2) So this Christmas, we’re getting JACK REACHER, right?

    Then Christmas ’13, we get JACK RYAN.

    Christms ’14, Tom Cruise and Young Captain Kirk cross-over in a proto-remake of FACE-OFF to be titled JACK OFF.

  44. It seems as if few films are greenlit these days that aren’t based off an existing property, whether or not that property will draw large crowds. Even if you might get more people to see your film because it is based off a Parker novel (I’ve only read a single book in the series), you’re just as likely to alienate those people by making drastic changes. And, let’s be honest, the Parker novels, although a lot of fun, don’t have the blockbuster status of Twilight. It just makes me wonder why they didn’t just go ahead and make an original film. Likewise, there’s rumors of a Manimal remake. What the hell is Manimal, you ask? I have no fucking clue! But apparently some studio wants to remake it. I don’t think there’s a huge audience for a Manimal remake (unless I’m not talking to the right people), but for whatever reason some studio thinks it would be a good idea to pump out an updated version. At this point I just don’t understand what studios have to gain financially from these sorts of decisions.

  45. RRA – That rumor is old. It came about cause Sly thought about the idea since he has the rights to a similar story based on a book called HUNTER. So I guess he figured 2 birds one stone. Strallone scrapped the idea in the end though, I don’t even think Rambo should be sequalized again either. The last one was the best sequel to FIRST BLOOD and they should leave it at that. Good ending for Rambo the character.

    RBatty – MANIMAL was a shitty TV show from way back when in the 80’s. I guess it’s cheaper for them to just play it safe by buying up movie rights to licensed fare than investing in something original.

  46. Broddie — I understand why a studio would want to remake some tv show that still engenders warm and fuzzy nostalgia like The Smurfs or Transformers, but I just don’t get the point of remaking a show that nobody has ever heard of before. Just from an economic standpoint, this doesn’t make sense to me. I mean, I know a lot of obscure popular culture, but I don’t know Manimal.

  47. that Manimal movie has GOT to be a fucking joke

  48. It’s true, Manimal is no Automan.

  49. I had to look up Automan as well. I guess I don’t know as much as I thought.

  50. You do know that they wisely decided to make that MANIMAL movie as an animated one? I think it might work a lot better that way.

    And Automan is no Turbo Teen.

  51. I’ve heard of both Automan and Manimal, but I’ve sure shit never seen them

  52. Yeah, I was always more of an Automan and Street Hawk guy than a Manimal man.

  53. That sounded strangely sexual.

  54. Anybody remember that cartoon from the eighties where some random caucasian teenager could turn into a car for some reason? It didn’t just happen magically, like POOF! and he’s a car. No, his body actually stretched and morphed, Rick Baker-style. His smile would get freakishly wide and become the grill, and his hands would turn into big pink blobs before becoming the tires. The color was the last thing to change, so for a few seconds he’d be this vaguely flesh-colored werecar with eyes.

    Somebody should make that into a movie is what I’m saying. Do it all old school with latex and air bladders. Maybe get Michael Bay to direct it. He seems like he’s half-car anyway.

  55. Found it! It was called TURBO TEEN. Here’s what Wikipedia had to say about it:

    The series is about a teenager named Brett Matthews who swerves off a road during a thunderstorm and crashes into a secret government laboratory. There, he and his red sports car are accidentally exposed to a molecular beam invented by a scientist named Dr. Chase for a government agent named Cardwell. Man and machine become fused together and as a result, Brett gains the ability to morph into the car when exposed to extreme heat and revert back into his human form when exposed to extreme cold. With this new super hero power, Brett and his friends; Patti, (a freelance reporter), mechanic Alex, (who calls Brett, “TT”), and Brett’s dog Rusty, go on crime-fighting adventures together and solve other mysteries. A recurring subplot involves Brett, Cardwell, and Dr. Chase’s search for a way to return Brett to normal. Also, a recurring villain is the mysterious, unseen “Dark Rider” who drives a monster truck and seeks to capture Brett Matthews in order to find the secret behind his abilities.

    That sounds awesome and all, but I’d personally be pretty pissed if I was that kid. Now whenever he wants to go anywhere, he’s got to burn himself so he can turn into his own car, and then hope that somebody at his destination will have some bags of ice or something so he can change back. And what happens when he goes shopping? Does he put his purchases on his back and hope that they end up in the backseat by the time he’s done transforming? And what if he hits a cold patch and changes back when somebody’s riding in him? That could get really messy for everyone involved.

    You know, maybe Cronenberg is a better choice to direct. He’d finally get to mix his love of cars and body horror in a more entertaining way than CRASH: NO, THE OTHER ONE.

  56. Some of the reviews I´ve read of this are not positive at all. I would have liked a great Parker-movie and it seems like this is not it. But I´ll probably watch it anyway at some point in my life.

  57. Shoot— Do yourself a solid and STEER THE FUCK CLEAR of this until it reaches DVD… and then ignore it until it reaches basic cable. Seriously. I watched Parker last night at a 10:30 showing, and there was one other person in the audience. One.

    (SPOILERS AHEAD):

    This one isn’t like recent Statham-centric outings such as Safe and The Mechanic, which were enjoyable without being knock-you-flat-on-your-ass great. The action scenes are too few and poorly choreographed. Michael Chiklis and Clifton Collins Jr. are both wasted. Nolte disappears after the first 1/2 hour, not that he’s too integral to the plot anyway. Hennifer Lopez has this wird counterpart role to Statham as a ditzy high-end realtor. The only unequivocably good part is when Parker gets his revenge on those who wronged them, but by then it’s too little, too late.

    (END SPOILERS)

    Not actively offensive, mind you. Just very flat. It’s not Statham’s fault; I’d put the blame on Taylor Hackford. He’s not really suited for this kind of movie. Here’s hoping the next Expendables Alumni Movie (Bullet To The Head) does a better job. With Walter Hill at the wheel… I’m voting “yes”.

Leave a Reply





XHTML: You can use: <a href="" title=""> <img src=""> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <b> <i> <strike> <em> <strong>