Showing posts with label Richard Stark. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Stark. Show all posts

Monday, July 11, 2011

Parker: Chiklis Cast As Villain!


Deadline is reporting that The Shield/Fantastic Four/The Commish star Michael Chiklis has been cast as "the villain" in Taylor Hackford's upcoming Parker film based on the brilliant series by Richard Stark.  Chiklis can definitely do scary and I can easily see him going up against Jason Statham's Parker.  But I still want to know what this movie is going to be; another adaptation of The Hunter?  Is it Flashfire like once rumored?  Or something wholly original; just stealing Stark's character?  Taylor Hackford is still the x-factor.  I don't like him as choice of director.  And the rumors of Jennifer Lopez joining the cast have me fearing the worst.    I so want this to be the start of some demented franchise, but the chances of that are extremely unlikely.  Plus, let's not get ahead of ourselves Brad, let's have one decent Parker film first.



--Brad

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Parker: Lee Marvin By John Boorman


While trolling youtube for all things Lee Marvin and Parker I discovered this really nifty mini-documentary that filmmaker John Boorman (Point Blank, Hell in the Pacific, Deliverance, Excalibur) did for the BBC called Lee Marvin: A Personal Portrait.  It's really fantastic with appearances from folks like William Hurt, Jim Jarmusch, Pamela Marvin, and others.  Readings from Marvin's personal journal about his WWII experiences as well as his great fishing expeditions in Australia.  And yes, you'll be able to see the wallet Marvin was carrying when a bullet went whizzing through and granted him his Purple Heart.  Really, I would love to see this cleaned up and put out as a DVD extra...maybe on that Point Blank blu ray we're still waiting around for.







--Brad

Parker: Payback vs. Payback

VS.  

The 1999 theatrical release of Payback came and went without hardly a notice from this film fan.  I know that I saw it in the theater.  And I know that I thought it was "okay."  But in February of '99, I was 19 years old, and was probably more interested in offbeat horror flicks like Ravenous or the mondo genius of Being John Malkovich.  At the time I had no idea who Richard Stark or Donald Westlake was and I had only seen a smattering of films made before the 1980s.  Lee Marvin was a god to come; Mel Gibson had just lost his cool cred' with the abismal Lethal Weapon 4 and with Payback I was probably hoping for a return to action badassery.


The Payback theatrical cut is not a bad movie.  But...if you've never read The Hunter than the film will probably not stir a single serious emotion in your mind or body.  A solid, crime revenge film that doesn't really differentiate itself from a dozen other crime revenge films.  Mel Gibson is Porter.  Shot, left for dead.  On his belly with a back alley doctor clawing bullets out his back; a thin narration lets you know its all about the Seventy grand and maybe a little retribution if can score it.

Mel Gibson is a solid Parker (Porter).  As writer/Director Brian Helgeland says during a DVD extra, "You get Mel cuz Humphrey Bogart is dead."  He has that charming scumbag quality that Bogart displays in flicks like The Petrified Forest.  They say and do terrible things and you love them for that.  When Porter puts a pillow over a defeated colleague's face and pops a few rounds through, you crack a smile if not cheer outright. 


Payback has a taste of Richard Stark's novel and a taste of John Boorman's Point Blank, but Mel Gibson is never quite as cold as Parker or as angry vicious as Lee Marvin's Walker. There's too much heart in Porter. He's definitely pissed that his wife shot him in the back. And he totally wants to kill Val (not Mal like the book) for the double-cross, but he shows too much heart for Maria Bello's Rosie and he's missing that calculating distance.  Plus, you have that awful narration completely betraying the intelligence and the code of Parker, and if you've read the books than you're tearing at your scalp every time the inner monologue starts.  


Now, fastfoward seven years and Warner Brothers & producer Mel Gibson throw more cash into Payback and allow Helgeland back into the editing room.  See, in 1999 WB didn't understand or want the violent world of Porter; what they wanted was a quirky, post-QT/Lock Stock ironic crime action picture.  After a few test screenings, they fired Helgeland and hired Paul Abascal for ten days of reshoots completely altering the tone and rewriting the climax with this goofy, stupid Kris Kristofferson offspring kidnapping bit.

Watching the Payback: Straight Up Edition blu ray is a shocking, revelatory experience.  I have seen plenty of Director Cuts in my time (Blade Runner, Aliens, Superman II, Watchmen, etc), but I have never seen a director's cut that radically alters the movie as much as this one.  It's a totally different film with a completely different 30 minute climax and a much more vicious Porter.


Gone is the silly, very 90s blue bleached bypass print.  Gone is the horribly stupid narration.  Most of the quippy humor has been stripped from the script.  But most importantly, Parker's cold, mechanical rage has been restored.  

The film opens proper.  A new quote runs red over black, "principle n 1:  one's own rule or code of conduct or devotion to such a code."  Porter marches across the George Washington Bridge, bloody betrayal boils underneath.  He still steals the bums money, pulls the right cons to get him back on his feet.  But the whole vibe is different.  Chris Boardman's score has been completely replaced by the quiet cool of Scott Stambler.  Porter still door kicks Deborah Kara Unger, but it's not just a sudden burst of anger.  It's a seething anger.  It's almost Lee Marvin angry.  No punchers or knives or irons pulled.  


And No Kris Kristofferson and his god awful, horny son!!!  Yes!  In fact, Bronson doesn't even show up in Helgeland's cut; nope The Outfit's matriarch only appears as a voice seeping through a speaker.  Porter has to settle on proper low rent criminals like Greg Henry, William Devane, and James Coburn to beat and torture. 

The Straight Up Edition, miraculously (yep, it had to be divine intervention!), reveals a nearly spot-on adaptation of Richard Stark's The Hunter.  It's not perfect (again, that would be the Darwyn Cooke graphic novel), but the professional and amoral brilliance of Parker has been re-edited into Mel Gibson's Porter.  And, yes, we can now finally Root for the Bad Guy.


--Brad

Saturday, April 23, 2011

Parker: Jason Statham In Flashfire?


The wonderfully obsessed website, The Violent World of Parker claims to have learned from "a reliable source" that the upcoming Taylor Hackford/Jason Statham Parker film will be based on the novel Flashfire, published in 2000 its one of the later novels that I haven't quite reached yet.  It appears to be a bank heist book with heaps of double-crossing.  Sounds good.  The 90s resurrection of Parker is most curious to me and I am anxiously awaiting the point in which I pass Butcher's Moon and move on to Comeback.  Does Stark/Parker still got it after a 23 year absence?  

But that's neither here nor there.  I am happy to hear that it's an adaptation and not an original Hollywood concoction. Although, Statham is hardly my perfect choice for Parker he can make the beast work.  Fingers crossed.


--Brad

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Parker: The Outfit


























The third in Richard Stark's Parker series, The Outfit sees our favorite hunter turned hunted as the criminal organization once known as The Syndicate fails in its first attempt on Parker's life.  Bad move, friends.  Parker knows that the only way to get out is to hit back and hit hard.  Once deemed untouchable, Parker lets all his low-rent criminal buddies know that The Outfit is free game and as he hits one Outfit association after the other so do his friends.  After all, how do you get revenge on a corporation?  You go for the wallet.


Darwyn Cooke takes a few more liberties with The Outfit than he did with his adaptation of The Hunter.  He condenses the second novel, The Man With The Getaway Face into 23 pages, setting up Parker's new mug as well as the rat who finks his location to The Outfit.  Sure, this makes sense but I'm a little bummed that the crazy switchbacking plot of Getaway Face will never get its proper moment in the sun as that armored car heist (and the complications that ensue) is one of my favorites from the series.  Second, Cooke introduces the criminal thespian Grofield into the series one book too early.  I find this to be most curious.  Grofield is a bit of a goof, a comic character that plays well in larger cast stories like The Score, but he sticks out like a sore thumb here.  Why does Cooke bring him into this plot?  He has a couple scenes and then he's gone.  Very strange.


Darwyn Cooke's work on the Parker books is some of his finest.  As much as I love The New Frontier (and  its animated adaptation), The Hunter & The Outfit are just unbelievably amazing.  Obviously, a lot of my love stems from my love of Richard Stark's character and the fact that even though we've had some pretty fine film adaptations (Point Blank, The Outfit, Payback: Straight Up Edition), we've never quite seen the real Parker outside of the novels.  Well, the only other place to find the real Parker is in Darwyn Cook's books.


The film adaptation of The Outfit has been unavailable on DVD for far too long.  However, if you you click on over to the Warner Archive you can score yourself a bare bones edition for $19.95 ($9.95 for a downloadable version).  Although, not a perfect adaptation of the Stark novel it is totally worth the twenty bucks.

Directed by John Flynn (Rolling Thunder, Best Seller, Lock Up), The Outfit is much more of personal revenge story than the book.  Since they didn't have The Hunter's narrative to fall back on as the catalyst, this film's plot is sparked when The Outfit kills Duvall's brother for an unsanctioned bank job.  Duvall in retribution starts hitting The Outfits payroll where and when ever he can.


Duvall is Macklin not Parker, but there are several familiar names sprinkled throughout.  In a much more prominent role than the book, Karen Black is Bett Harrow.  There is an Alma in Jane Greer.  A Madge in Marie Windsor.  A Jim St. Claire in Bern Hoffman.  But even though Joe Don Baker is obviously playing Handy McKay, he's called Cody instead.  Handy is a pretty big part of the series and I wonder if Donald Westlake had the same rules about his name as he did about Parker's.  And the villainous Robert Ryan isn't Fairfax or Bronson, he's just Mailer.


But Duvall is a pretty darn good Parker.  And if you watched that brief interview with Westlake I posted earlier in the week than you heard that the man himself thought Duvall captured Parker's attitude even better than Lee Marvin in Point Blank.  That Workmanlike Crook attitude.  And I guess I get that.  But Marvin is still my cinematic Parker.  But more on that later.

--Brad

Monday, April 18, 2011

Parker: Donald Westlake Speaks


Here is a great "mini-interview" with Donald Westlake about the creation of Parker and Parker in the movies.  My favorite bit  are the kind words he says about Robert Duvall's performance in The Outfit, calling it the closest version to the literary Parker.  Interesting.



--Brad

Parker: Jason Statham Just Cast--AS PARKER!?!?!?!?


That's right!  According to Joblo.com, action star badass Jason Statham (The Transporter, Crank, Death Race) has been cast as the title character in the upcoming Parker movie based on my beloved Richard Stark novels.  


Now, before I even comment about the casting choice I have to comment on the movie's title:  Parker.  As stated in an earlier post, Parker has never appeared on screen under that name.  Stark (aka Donald Westlake) always insisted that the films not use the name unless they were going to do a series.  Of course, now that Westlake has shuffled off this mortal coil, his estate doesn't need to bother with such pleasantries.  Or could we possibly be seeing further Parker adventures from Statham?  I'm guessing that's putting the cart before the horse.



So, do I like Statham for Parker?  Hmmmm, sure.  As seen in the Crank films and the more recent Mechanic, Statham can play the brute well and that's essential for portraying Parker's cold mentality.  I don't think that Statham will have much need for his kungfuery, since when Parker strikes he usually just needs one bullet or a strong pair of mitts.


If anything, what makes me nervous is this write-up in Variety:

"Pic, based on the book series by Donald Westlake, revolves around a thief who, though at times is forced to be a killer, still lives by a code of honor that includes never stealing money from people who need it. His word is his bond, and if he is crossed he will strike back relentlessly."

Um, "code of honor" and "never stealing from people who need it."  Ok, sure, Parker does have a personal Code, but they make it sound like he's got a heart of gold or something.  That sure as hell ain't the case.  His code is that he does as little as possible to get away with the money.  He's professional.  If he has to kill a kid and bury him in the basement, well, he'll kill a kid and bury him in the basement (and yes, that is something Parker has had to do).  He's not honorable and he sure as hell will steal from people who need it.


Also, Taylor Hackford is attached to direct.  Love Ranch, Ray, The Devil's Advocate, White Nights, An Officer and a Gentleman.  All fine films, but is this the eye I would want behind the first film allowed to use the name Parker?  No way.

Another Passage from Variety:  "'I don't want to get stuck in a genre,' Hackford told Variety. 'What I like the most about this piece of material is that you can take a genre piece like this and turn it into a great movie.'"  Not very inspiring.  


Still, I have a huge man-crush on Statham.  And, like I said, I do think he can pull off Parker's cold brute force nature.  And of course I will get excited for any new film having the slightest to do with the Stark novels.

But, I am concerned.  Taylor Hackford is a decent, but uninspired director.  And what's the script going to be like?  Is Parker another remake of The Hunter?  Is it one of the other books:  The Score?  The Mourner?  Butcher's Moon?  Or is it some random scriptwriter's idea of Parker?  That makes me the most nervous.



--Brad