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 a thief who has an unusual code. He doesn't steal from the poor and hurt innocent people. He is asked to join four other guys on a job. They pull it off flawlessly. They tell Parker that what they got can help them set up another job which will net them much more. But Parker doesn't want to join them and asks for his share. But they need it all so they try to kill him. They dispose of his body but someone finds him--he is still alive--and takes him to the hospital. After recovering he sets out to get back at the ones who tried to kill him, another one of his codes. Despite being told that they are working for a known mobster which he was not aware of, he still wants to go after them. He learns where they are and poses as a wealthy Texan looking to buy a house. So he hires a real estate agent, Leslie Rogers to show him around. He is actually trying to find out where they're holed up. And when he finds it, he sets out on his plan to get them. But when they learn he is alive, ...Written by
Parker steals a blued M1911-type pistol from the hunters' motel room and it ends up in his duffel bag. Later, the blued M1911 has been replaced by a nickel-plated M1911, Ross's "best .45" from later in the film. See more »
Of course, similar events - revenge after double-crossing - have been depicted several times and will definitely be depicted in the future as well - but it is the direction and choice of actors that counts. As for Parker, everything is at least okay with those: the director Taylor Hackford is an accredited creator and names like Jason Statham, Nick Nolte, Jennifer Lopez are certain signs of quality and non-boredom. They are pleasant to follow even in less interesting and less veracious scenes.
Well, the script is probably the weakest part of the movie: too much predictability, excessive sections (e.g. Parker-Claire, prolonging the duration to almost 2 hour 15 minutes) and trivial ending (unlike in movies by Guy Ritchie, for example).
Nevertheless, Parker is still an above-average A-movie, qualifying well for a sociable entertainment.
35 of 59 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this