the audience applauded

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

A thief with a unique code of professional ethics is double-crossed by his crew and left for dead. Assuming a new disguise and forming an unlikely alliance with a woman on the inside, he looks to hijack the score of the crew's latest heist. Parker is definitely not one of Jason Statham's best films and it has it's fair share of problems especially Michael Chiklis as the villain was kind of a letdown, Jennifer Lopez was fine i guess although she wasn't that much needed to be in here but she did pretty good and as a whole this is a watchable action flick that's all. (7/10)

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.

If Jason Statham has been stuck in one-dimensional roles, he's not going to make any breakthrough at Parker, despite having southern accent and hair at the first scene. A bit of action, more of heist thriller, Parker is overly long and awkwardly paced. Fight scenes are sparse, for those who hope for high octane skull mashing, this probably won't meet such expectation. Addition of Jennifer Lopez adds some light humorous touches, warranting her appearance more than just an eye candy.Parker (Jason Statham) is a man betrayed by his teammate after completing an almost botched heist, he was shot and left to death. Unsurprisingly, he doesn't die and vows revenge instead. Most of the movie is cat-and-mouse plots as he chases them across countries in not so exciting pace. There are a couple of fights in between, although the amount feels lacking for a movie led by Jason. For these few scenes, they are done quite well. Unbarred bone breaking punches, kicks and other assortments of nearby potential weapon swinging are viscerally entertaining.The rest is a bare heist plot, which really won't hold a candle compare to more cerebral crime action movies. Pacing is undeniably slow, most of the things happening on-screen, even some with both leads appearing, are somewhat lackluster. The movie has about two hours in length and frankly with this long dragging set-up, one might expect some clever scheme building up towards the end, but it is not so. Without spoiling anything, the pace is equally stale from start to finish.Jason Statham bring his usual screen presence, he's a rugged, honor bound thief who keeps his principles religiously. When he threatens or hurts someone, he does so very earnestly, at that regard, he fulfills his role. However, there's little difference from other Statham's movies. Jennifer Lopez as Leslie is actually quite good. For someone who has superstar fame, she acts as poor people convincingly. There are modesty and honesty when she appears as well, making her likable to the audience, aside for her popularly known hind allure.The two leading actors do their parts well, however the script and direction are mediocre. Parker is a bland movie, which has brief excitements across its lengthy run, albeit barely enough for the whole.

Jason Statham is type cast for a good reason. He has a limited acting range and unfortunately he tries to stretch it a little too far in this film. I was looking forward to a typical Statham film, and this is not really that bad, but it's messed up some by Statham attempting to reach depths of character that are beyond him. "A man's got to know his limitations," and Statham usually does, but not quite here. Jennifer Lopez is another big letdown. She couldn't act her way out of a wet paper bag. Also, jeez, when she whines about the obnoxious behavior of the spoiled mega-rich it's just too much, given that she herself in real life is very well known for being utterly insufferable and bizarrely demanding. (These complaints voiced from her character make it hard to sustain any suspension of disbelief. Maybe her unconvincing down-to-earth act was supposed to be ironic or meta or something?) On the positive side, Statham is his usual indestructible self and the plot is workable, although there are a lot of holes if one stops to really think about it. Even allowing for all of my grouses, there is probably enough "Statham action" to satisfy all but his most die- hard fans, so this effort squeaks by with a passing grade. Perversely, if this film had tried to be less, it could have been so much more.