Btexxamar I like Black Panther, but I didn't like this movie.

LouHomey From my favorite movies..

Cody One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Cassandra Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

alindsay-al There are so many Jason statham action films out there that it is crazy, this guy will always have a steady paycheck and that is credit to him. I have just watched Parker and this is one of the more forgettable films he has done for sure. The premise of the film sees a thief with a code betrayed and left for dead, do he has to go after the ones who turned on him. Now Jason statham was okay in this movie because he played the same character that he does in everything so it works in this film. But his character has this code and he just ignores it for the majority of the movie and I just don't understand why you're really meant to root for this guy that much as he isn't shown to be a good person. On the positives Michael chiklis is actually quite entertaining in his role and you can tell he is having fun in this role. But everybody else is just so boring, Jennifer Lopez is a one dimensional character that is as cliché as you can get, same could be said for Bobby canavalle's character and I could barely understand nick nolte half the time he was on screen. The story should have been a simple one of a revenge thriller but it tries to be too much and introduce other plot elements that you just don't care about or want to see in this movie. By the time the film focuses up you will have lost interest in what is going on. The script surprisingly had some decent humour in it, and some one liners that actually worked because of what type of film this is. But the dram is awful, I didn't care when I was supposed to and it hurts the film as it leads to you not really rooting for the characters. The style has some pretty brutal action scenes in it and I liked some of the heist elements of the film. Though I noticed that the editing of some of the fights was really jarring and hard to follow as it cuts so many times. Also the pacing of this film is not good, I would have preferred it to have been easily 15/20 minutes shorter then what it was. Overall safe is another statham movie but unless you are a huge fan of his I reckon this is one to ignore.

johnnyboyz To be blunt, "Parker" doesn't work. It isn't thrilling enough to be the crime thriller it evidently wants to be and is not satisfying enough to be the rock-'em sock-'em actioner it seems to want to in part be as well. Its pace is unmeasured; its narrative loses us too many times; it doesn't seem to know what to do with its supporting characters and isn't funny when it's trying to be. Jason Statham is the titular Parker, a thief with very little background to him other than the fact he is English; possesses a vast experience in engaging in heists and is married to a woman who is the daughter of an elderly gentleman that seems to know the ins and outs of the coast-to-coast American criminal underworld. Aficionados will already know that he is based on a character going on 60 years old: Donald Westlake's (writing under the penname Richard Stark) rouge gangster-cum-thief Parker, who first appeared in the novel "The Hunter" and the film "Point Blank". Back then, he was played by Lee Marvin but has, over the years, undergone an array of modifications that has seen him depicted by people as somewhat diverse as Mel Gibson and Peter Coyote. Indeed, the last we saw of him was in 1999, when a troubled picture by the name of "Payback" was shoved into cinemas off the back of changes at the very top and a variety of re-shoots. In the meantime, he has appeared in a series of Darwyn Cooke graphic novels in the late 2000's which, from what I have seen, caught the mood and tone of a lot of what Stark wrote. "Parker" is brighter and breezier than much of its preceding kin; it is fluffier and more throwaway. The film, itself an adaptation of a book entitled Flashfire, which I have read, seems to be aware of who all the characters are but doesn't have the faintest idea in how to direct them around the screen. The opening heist is at an Ohio county-fair, where the money made on the day is targeted by Statham and four other goons: a black one; a balding sociopath; a wormy one who's only there because of who he's related to and a demolitions expert, whose role is much smaller than in the novel upon which this is based. We are informed fairly early on that Parker is not an animal, in that he takes time to calm down a nervous hostage where another may have killed them on the spot. From here, violent disagreements (unrealistically played out in a moving vehicle) lead the others way with Parker's share to another job they need the total haul to pay for, and this causes Parker to have to start from scratch in getting over an injury; finding clothes; a car and whatnot so as to eventually find his share. Statham, the wrong choice for the role, struggles with a character that is one-dimensional; flaccid and needs various shots of his scars to develop character. Stark's novel, neatly unfolded and indelibly written, provides all these people with the room they need to breath: the ditzy estate agent whose down on her luck looking to 'pull' the lead; the local Florida policeman who fancies her and thus threatens to rumble the plan she has with Parker the more he follows her around; the Latin-American forger who has his own problems; the gang of four who betrayed Parker in the first place and are now busy planning a new job; the anonymous assassin sent by the mafia to kill Parker after he interferes with their circles of influence.Taylor Hackford looks to paint a canvas of similarly broad scope of these characters; people and scenarios, but does not manage it. His film constantly feels as if it is in a rush to get where it's going, when tone and mood are what characterise film-noir. Parker's relationship with Jennifer Lopez's estate-agent is not tense or teasing enough to have us genuinely feel like he is torn between falling for this woman and remaining faithful to his existing partner, who are very much into one another. Its centrepiece, this quite gruelling fight scene in a hotel suite involving knifes; shower curtains and all the other elements, merely reminds you of a better crime film in "Eastern Promises". The great, overbearing thing hanging heavily over this film is the quite brilliant 1998 Steven Soderbergh film "Out of Sight" which, like "Parker", depicted a likable villain amidst a sea of psychopathic ones; provided its protagonist with an unlikely love interest and saw events dart from bleak industrial cities to sunny Florida hotspots. The casting of Lopez in this sense was poor judgement on the producer's behalf, who must have been aware how akin to Soderbergh's piece "Parker" would represent and that she played a role in making it as god as it was. I wanted to like "Parker" more than I did, but its existence is a sign of the times: flashy, shiny and colourful crime fiction featuring people ill-suited to the roles provided and unsure as to how to unfold a burning story because this is not the age of narrative film-making. If there is to be another Parker adaptation in the future, which I hope there will be, I would hope few people involved in this one have any say in how it turns out.

Ole Sandbaek Joergensen Something different for Jennifer Lopez, but all-in-all an okay movie with okay acting, lots of fighting just the way it should be in these films, but in the end Jason Statham has a brand, a way were all his movies becomes the same, same acting, same action, same thing.There is nothing special or new about this one either, it is just plain good action and fighting, unfortunately no surprises, it's pretty much straight on payback fighting flick. But sometimes that works out okay, that is what we want, just be on the sofa, soak in mindless action that entertains and passes the time.I would have loved something new from Jason, but maybe it is kind of Jean Claud Van Damme, it becomes the same thing in a bit of different clothing each time.

bowmanblue ...then it's beginning to feel like you've seen them all. I like Statham's films. They don't try to be Oscar winning deep dramas; they simply give you action, a few fight scenes and the odd car chase. You know what you're getting and he normally delivers. However, if you look at his last few films, you may well start to see the formula repeating itself a little too much.'Parker' follows the formula pretty closely. Statham + a doublecrosss = seeks revenge (fights and car chases included). And this time he's practically more indestructible than he is in Crank. You may have to suspend your disbelief on a regular basis to fully appreciate this film.Plus you have J-Lo thrown into the mix as a - sort of - love interest for him. Some people hate he being included and, although I'm not a fan, I have to say that I didn't find her character as annoying as I find her in real life. She plays the 'feisty damsel' pretty well, i.e. someone who needs rescuing from time to time, but, at the same time, can hold her own in a room full of baddies.Basically, if you've seen one of Statham's recent films, then you've sort of seen this. It's not as good as (the first two) Transporter films, but it is better than some of his last ones. If you like his stuff, then you'll probably enjoy this. It's not a flop, but it's nothing too original either.