Un ladro con un codice etico professionale unico viene ingannato dalla sua squadra e lasciato per morto. Usando un travestimento e stringendo un'alleanza incongrua con una donna, cerca di co... Leggi tuttoUn ladro con un codice etico professionale unico viene ingannato dalla sua squadra e lasciato per morto. Usando un travestimento e stringendo un'alleanza incongrua con una donna, cerca di cogliere l'ultima rapina della sua ex banda.Un ladro con un codice etico professionale unico viene ingannato dalla sua squadra e lasciato per morto. Usando un travestimento e stringendo un'alleanza incongrua con una donna, cerca di cogliere l'ultima rapina della sua ex banda.
- Premi
- 1 candidatura
Carl J. Walker
- Ohio State Fair Accounts Manager
- (as Carl Walker)
Trama
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThis is the first adaptation of a Richard Stark/Parker novel to use the character name Parker, the name from the novels. Although the following movies are based on the "Parker" novels, the name was always changed: Senza un attimo di tregua (1967) (Walker); I 6 della grande rapina (1968) (McClain); Organizzazione crimini (1973) (Macklin); Slayground (1983) (Stone); and Payback - La rivincita di Porter (1999) (Porter).
- BlooperWhen the fireworks at the auction go off, a woman in a black dress runs down the center aisle twice.
- Citazioni
Leslie Rodgers: How do you sleep at night?
Parker: I don't drink coffee after 7.
- ConnessioniFeatured in Bringing the Hunter to Life: The Making of 'Parker' (2013)
Recensione in evidenza
Parker has existed as a movie character for quite some time now, just never as his proper name. Donald E. Westlake's famous anti-hero has been in many movies ranging from Point Blank (Walker) to Payback (Porter), with a few others in between. And, honestly, you're better off with any one of those as this is a very lazily-produced potboiler.
Jason Statham is the now English Parker who has been betrayed by his latest criminal cohorts and left for dead, so far so familiar. Quickly regaining his strength he sets about exacting his payback (!) by usurping them on their next jewel heist down in Florida, recruiting desperate real estate agent Leslie (Jennifer Lopez) along the way. The action is exciting and well done, and the movie is fun, but...wow...does it look terrible.
Adapted from Westlake's novel Flashfire and directed by Mr. Helen Mirren (Taylor Hackford, a veteran filmmaker who should know better) you'd be forgiven for refusing to believe that this cost $35,000,000. Where did that money go? It's not up on screen. Shot in 5K resolution but then edited in 2K, thus losing 60% of the detail in the process (why???) this movie is filled with harsh color boosting and hard contrast. The aerial shots of sunny Florida look like they were shot in 144p. It really is the ugliest mainstream movie I have seen in the past decade.
It seems that since the advent of digital cinematography that production standards have suffered. Shooting digitally tightens the schedule as less time is needed between takes. There's no more loading, cutting, and printing, and this removes vital down-time that would otherwise be used to enhance the production value. For example, there is a scene where Jennifer Lopez is checking out Jason Statham's ass and is hungry for him. All I saw was an actor wearing a crushed suit that he appeared to have slept in. They didn't even bother ironing it! Imagine if they got that lazy with James Bond.
Parker looks like they just chucked the camera down, shot the scene with absolutely zero thought given to atmosphere or composition, and then quickly moved on to the next one. Look at Payback from 1998. The original cut of that movie looked very noir, while the 2006 "Straight Up" cut with different filters and lighting looked like a gritty 70s thriller. Any random episode of Neighbours or Home and Away looks better than Parker. An extremely poor effort that spoils the whole movie. It's simply not pleasant to look at.
It's so strange that Jennifer Lopez is the best thing in this, easily outshining the actress/character who is playing Parker's boring, flat wife. Having previously been a drag with no charisma (Money Train, The Cell, Ben Affleck) she's definitely become more entertaining and interesting since becoming a MILF.
You'll never come back to this movie, which is a shame as I often enjoy either cut of Payback and Lee Marvin's Point Blank is a classic of 1960s cinema. This movie will never achieve such status and it's poor production value is to blame.
Jason Statham is the now English Parker who has been betrayed by his latest criminal cohorts and left for dead, so far so familiar. Quickly regaining his strength he sets about exacting his payback (!) by usurping them on their next jewel heist down in Florida, recruiting desperate real estate agent Leslie (Jennifer Lopez) along the way. The action is exciting and well done, and the movie is fun, but...wow...does it look terrible.
Adapted from Westlake's novel Flashfire and directed by Mr. Helen Mirren (Taylor Hackford, a veteran filmmaker who should know better) you'd be forgiven for refusing to believe that this cost $35,000,000. Where did that money go? It's not up on screen. Shot in 5K resolution but then edited in 2K, thus losing 60% of the detail in the process (why???) this movie is filled with harsh color boosting and hard contrast. The aerial shots of sunny Florida look like they were shot in 144p. It really is the ugliest mainstream movie I have seen in the past decade.
It seems that since the advent of digital cinematography that production standards have suffered. Shooting digitally tightens the schedule as less time is needed between takes. There's no more loading, cutting, and printing, and this removes vital down-time that would otherwise be used to enhance the production value. For example, there is a scene where Jennifer Lopez is checking out Jason Statham's ass and is hungry for him. All I saw was an actor wearing a crushed suit that he appeared to have slept in. They didn't even bother ironing it! Imagine if they got that lazy with James Bond.
Parker looks like they just chucked the camera down, shot the scene with absolutely zero thought given to atmosphere or composition, and then quickly moved on to the next one. Look at Payback from 1998. The original cut of that movie looked very noir, while the 2006 "Straight Up" cut with different filters and lighting looked like a gritty 70s thriller. Any random episode of Neighbours or Home and Away looks better than Parker. An extremely poor effort that spoils the whole movie. It's simply not pleasant to look at.
It's so strange that Jennifer Lopez is the best thing in this, easily outshining the actress/character who is playing Parker's boring, flat wife. Having previously been a drag with no charisma (Money Train, The Cell, Ben Affleck) she's definitely become more entertaining and interesting since becoming a MILF.
You'll never come back to this movie, which is a shame as I often enjoy either cut of Payback and Lee Marvin's Point Blank is a classic of 1960s cinema. This movie will never achieve such status and it's poor production value is to blame.
- CuriosityKilledShawn
- 22 feb 2020
- Permalink
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Parker?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Siti ufficiali
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Tay Trộm Chuyên Nghiệp
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 35.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 17.616.641 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 7.008.222 USD
- 27 gen 2013
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 46.922.566 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 58 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti