Parker (2013) - Movie Review

Jason Statham really needs a trademark or catchphrase.  Arnold had, "I'll be back"; Stallone had, "Yo, Adrian"; Chuck Norris the roundhouse kick and his meme; Van Damage could do the splits; Steven Segal had girly running and being fat.  What's Statham's?  Being likable in mediocre movies?

Statham continues that trend in Parker.  Parker is a no-nonsense thief that has a code: he doesn't steal from people that can't afford it, and doesn't hurt people that don't deserve it.  That doesn't stop him from constantly stealing people's cars.  He even steals a minivan from a soccer mom.  That's stealing from someone that can afford it?  You don't know if she has insurance.  Anyway, after a job where his team robs an Ohio state fair, they double-cross him and leave him for dead.  The tone is set with the bad dialog and over-the-top sneering of the bad guys.  Really, Michael Chiklis?  You're better than this.  During the double-cross, Parker gets shot several times and throws himself from a speeding car.  They double back to finish him off, shoot him again, and leave him for dead.  Later in the film, when the guy that shot him finds out he's still alive he reacts with blind rage.  This is what you get for not shooting him in the head.  Typical, inept movie bad guys.

Parker has untold recovery abilities that rival Wolverine.  In just a few hours he seems to have completely recovered from his injuries, and is back to kicking everyone's ass as he's out for revenge.  This isn't any more silly or ridiculous than any classic, 80's action flick, and if that's all Parker was about, I probably would have enjoyed it.

Meanwhile, Jennifer Lopez stars in a completely different movie about a real estate agent that has money problems, and lives with her soap opera addicted mother.  I'm not kidding when I say it's a completely different movie.  The tone of her arc is the polar opposite of Parker's, and her scenes are in a completely different state with no awareness at all of Parker or what he's dealing with.

Eventually, the two of them are clumsily brought together in a totally contrived and convoluted plot that takes entirely too long to play out. Parker is now posing as a wealthy Texan looking to buy a house, but the way this is executed I honestly thought he was playing a completely different character, and the movie was going to have some weird mistaken identity plot with people confusing Parker with this Texan. I'm actually kind of disappointed that isn't what happened.

The scenes with Lopez weigh the movie down so much that you often forget you're watching an action movie.  In fact, it felt like her role was expanded simply to justify getting a big name like Jennifer Lopez.  They even give her an overly dramatic scene where she laments about how horrible her life is, how she can't meet a man (even though a cop played by Bobby Cannavale hits on her in every scene he's in), and doesn't care if she dies.  Parker makes her strip to check her for a wire, which felt like an opportunity for Lopez to show us she's still in really good shape.  There's no chemistry at all between her and Statham, and since Parker already has a girlfriend (also a totally unnecessary role) you know there's no chance they are going to hook up. Hell, the role didn't even need to be played by a woman.  It was completely unnecessary to the film, and if they had taken every scene of Lopez, and his girlfriend, out of the film, you would have had a much tighter and more entertaining action film.

What I didn't realize going in that Parker was based on the same character and series of novels by Donald Westlake (a.k.a Richard Stark).  This is the same character played by Mel Gibson in the far superior Payback (which I'm watching again on Netflix as I'm writing this).  It was interesting for me to learn this, because of the double cross and revenge angle of Parker, I constantly compared this to Payback.

What really confounds me is that this was directed by Taylor Hackford, who directed Ray and The Devil's Advocate, and the screenplay was written by John J. McLaughlin, who wrote Hitcock and Black Swan.  Something doesn't add up.  It has a decent setup, but is completely ruined with a predictable plot that gets worse the longer the movie goes on.  Parker is almost two hours long and it has no business being more than 90 minutes.

There isn't nearly enough action in the film, but when there is, that's the strength of the film.  Statham always brings it when it comes to fighting, and the fights here are brutal and entertaining. When there isn't action, Statham sleepwalks through his scenes as if even he was bored with the lack of action.  I did find it odd that once again, they used really bad CG blood and gunshots in a few places.  I don't get why films are doing this when it looks so awful.  Is it cheaper to use CG now?

The supporting cast is wasted as well.  They get guys like Michael Chiklis, Wendell Pierce and Clifton Collins Jr. to play the bad guys, but all they do is sneer and are about as generic as bad guys come.  Nick Nolte plays Parker's mentor, but he was clearly out of it.  In his introductory scene, he goes to shake the hand of Parker's girlfriend, who was his daughter!  They did one of those awkward handshakes that became a hug, and I couldn't understand why they just didn't do another take. "Remember Mr. Nolte, this character is your daughter.  You aren't meeting her for the first time."  Don't tell me this was the best take.

Parker has a contrived and convoluted plot bogged down with a completely unnecessary Jennifer Lopez, who appeared to be in another film entirely. Parker fans are likely to be disappointed in a very run of the mill action film that wastes a promising setup, and lacks enough action to be truly entertaining. It's a rental at best.

1.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Hitchcock (2012) - Movie Review

A movie based on a book about the making of a movie.  If this loops on itself more, it'll create a singularity that will destroy us all.

Hitchcock is a behind-the-scenes look at the making of Psycho, a movie that starred Anne Heche and Vince Vaughn.  I'm kidding, of course.  That remake sure was a misfire, wasn't it?  I actually knew very little about the movie Hitchock going in, but I'm always up for a good biopic, especially when it's about such a fascinating person and iconic film.

We begin as Alfred Hitchcock is looking for an idea for his next film.  He wants to do something a little different, and thinks he's found it when he reads the book Psycho by Robert Bloch.  The studio, however, isn't too thrilled with his choice of project, so Hitchcock decides to take a risk and finance the film himself.  He's believes so strongly in the film, that he even has all copies of the book bought up, so that nobody would have the twists spoiled.  Even back then Hitchcock understood the value of no spoilers.  These days any asshat with a blog can spoil a movie for you.  Wait a second...

It's funny to me that a well respected director like Hitchcock didn't have full confidence from the studio when wanting to do a different project.  When you consider the crap that gets made these days, it blows my mind that he'd have difficulty getting a film made.  It also goes to show you how different the business is now.

Hitchcock is based on the book Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho by Stephen Rebello. From what I hear, it's a fantastic and extremely well researched book that I'm going to have to pick up after watching the film.  Despite being based off such a well respected book, the movie version of it felt a little thin.  I think the problem director Sacha Gervasi (Anvil: The Story of Anvil), and writer John J. McLaughlin had was that they couldn't decide on what to cut from the film.  There's a lot going on, so you have a mix of the film being a little tonally inconsistent and lacking depth in a few key areas.  For example, you learn about his relationship with his wife Alma (Helen Mirren) and their difficulties.  This was an area I wish the film would have gone a little more in depth into.

There are some funny moments, but you never feel like they were making a comedy, and there isn't enough about his personality to come away thinking it's a character study. Throughout the film you see these exchanges between Hitchcock and Ed Gein, an actual serial killer that the character of Norman Bates was based on.  I wasn't clear what these scenes were meant to represent, so they felt odd and seemed like they could have been removed in favor of focusing more on the making of Psychoand Hitchcock's personality and relationships.

I find it a little ironic that a movie about "The Master of Suspense" contained very little actual suspense.  We all know how this is going to turn out.  It's not like we're getting an alternate universe were he's never able to complete the film, or it's a bomb.  It's still fun to watch it all play out though.

As you'd guess, the strength of the film are the performances. Anytime you get Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren as your leads, you know you're going to get a well-acted film.  Mirren is wonderful and you see how Alma was 'the woman behind the man'.  She would have carried the movie by herself were it not for the performance of Anthony Hopkins as Hitchcock.  It seems like kind of an odd choice to get someone so well known to play Hitchcock, but the makeup job is so good, that it actually took me a bit before I realized it was him.  I thought Hopkins was playful and it made me like Hitchcock all the more.  Scarlett Johansson plays Anne Heche...I mean Janet Leigh and I found her to be very pleasant.  Jessica Biel and James D'Arcy have very small roles as Vera Miles and Anthony Perkins.  You'll recognize much of the supporting cast and I was surprised to see people of their caliber play such small roles.  Even The Karate Kid shows up.

Lastly, I wanted to give a small shout out to my favorite theater The Vine (www.vinecinema.com) in Livermore.  They upgraded their screens and projectors just this past week, and boy what an upgrade! The film looked fantastic.  It was bright and clear, with HD quality that rivaled my 3D TV.

Whether you're a fan of Hitchcock, the movie Psycho, or just like a good behind-the-scenes biopic, there's a lot to like about Hitchcock.  I had fun with the film and enjoyed it, but couldn't help thinking there needed to be more.  You have great performances from the cast, but it only scratches the surface.  This isn't something you need to rush out and see, but I do think it's worth seeing.

3.5 (out of 5) Death Stars