I saw it last night. It was a decent noir/caper flick.

JLo was the weakest link, but not because of her acting (she's actually a pretty good actress, as Selina and Out of Sight demonstrated). Her character was written in a way that her motivations came off as forced simply to move the plot along.

The title is fucking awful.

Just like "Jack Reacher"

It's one thing if the movie is historical, like Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter starring Daniel Day Lewis and Sally Field.

Never title the movie the main character's name.

Why?

I know, right?

Because a group of us were going to the movies and between things some of us had seen, some of us didn't want to see and the approximate time we planned to go, Parker was the consensus choice of the group.

Yeah, every one of the following movies, named after the main character was a complete bomb:

Dirty Harry
Jackie Brown
Donnie Darko
Jerry Maguire
Rocky
Forrest Gump
Aladdin
Austin Powers
Bambi
Beetlejuice
Erin Brockovich
ET
Shaft
Shrek
Mr. Roberts
and about half the superhero movies ever made.

ET wasn't his name.

Erin Brockovich is historical.

And you still went to a movie starring Statham and J.Lo.

By the way, I did just mention the title.

I never said anything about box office draw, or critical acclaim.

Seriously, did you even see the preview?

I know Parker must have been hard to pass up.

When I think karate movies I think the British too, and I also like my female leads to be over sixty with a huge ass.

Did Statham hold a Coke for the entire film?

No, but I read the script online.

It looks like a fun action movie. I'll probably just wait for netflix to see it.

I'm sure I'm just being cynical. I'm sure in thirty years Parker will be just as successful and beloved as Rocky.

Strawman argument. No one said it would be.

You said:



I merely pointed out many successful movies that did, in fact, do that, indicating that your suggested rule was without merit.

Stick your lawyering up your ass fuck face!

Look, I think the point here is that using a personal proper noun as a title--that isn't even remotely unique--isn't very compelling and more than a little pretentious in its attempt to identify the character as someone worth paying attention to.

So the title is the guy's name....So what? We're long past the point in our cultural development that we can put out a book or a movie with the protagonist's name as a the title and still expect people to care about this person--unless that name is as unfortunate as "Forest Gump".

The only things about names like "Jack Reacher" or "Parker" that the creators are expecting to inspire intrigue in a potential audience are the actors attached to them. Pretty arrogant if you ask me. Hollywood at least waited until after the release of Silence of the Lambs and Red Dragon before making Hannibal.

The only thing Parker has going for it is an intense and stoic "Transporter" monologue accompanied by a series of fast a loose pre-packaged action scenes. It's the Statham special.

And YOU, young man, should be ashamed of yourself for supporting it.

It's yet another adaptation of The Hunter (Point Blank, Payback), but fitted out around Statham's persona. although it's the only film that Westlake/Stark allowed to actually use the Parker name.

Grimm! You are still alive!