Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.0 AVERAGE
4.0 AVERAGE
This was excellent! Set in the 60s, this is a great noir revenge story about a protagonist (Parker) who's too badass for words, and who can't trust anyone but still kills everybody while smoking, drinking and being a total dick to everyone. It felt almost like a period piece even though it was only set 50 years ago, because of the art (Cooke's art looked like 60s advertising) and the understated misogyny of the protagonist. The art really made the book, and I'd recommend checking it out to see what graphic novel's could be (but seldom are).
This was quick to read, easy to understand and the characters well defined. I like the feel of this book.
The artist Darwyn Cooke reminded American comics of their mid-century mystique and allure. With this, his adaptation of the hard-boiled detective-less novels of Donald Westlake (who wrote them under the name Richard Stark), Cooke visits the era's underbelly.
Well, that's what the original novels were: dark, bloody stories of an anti-hero named Parker who commits crimes, kills people, hurts people (often women), and still manages to make you want to read the next one. The Parker novels are the ultimate refutation of that lazy criticism "Oh, I didn't like it -- there was no one to relate to." The only characters most readers of a Parker novel might remotely relate to are Parker's victims, and yet still we keep reading.
In Cooke's hand, the settings and characterizations of the first novel in the Parker series are more Mad Men, more Breakfast at Tiffany's, than the original seemed to be. They're more "uptown." Parker is more handsome (even the introduction states he was intended to look like Jack Palance, but instead we get something closer to an American version of Golgo 13, or of Clark Gable on steroids). The settings are more glamorous. With a few exception, the goons look like male models.
But it's still bracing stuff, told with a mix of casual familiarity and carefully paced action. At times the book feels less like a careful adaptation, and more like a drawn journal that Cooke kept while reading the original novel -- there will be a few images, and handwritten description of the plot as it unfolds. But most of it is told with an economy and elegance (there are numerous wordless passages, true to Parker's malevolent silence and the absence of introspection that it represents) that is rare in mainstream American comics.
In the end, I think this book is more enjoyable to fans of the original than it might be on its own, but I am so engrossed in the source material, I am not the best judge. I do recommend this adaptation, heartily.
Well, that's what the original novels were: dark, bloody stories of an anti-hero named Parker who commits crimes, kills people, hurts people (often women), and still manages to make you want to read the next one. The Parker novels are the ultimate refutation of that lazy criticism "Oh, I didn't like it -- there was no one to relate to." The only characters most readers of a Parker novel might remotely relate to are Parker's victims, and yet still we keep reading.
In Cooke's hand, the settings and characterizations of the first novel in the Parker series are more Mad Men, more Breakfast at Tiffany's, than the original seemed to be. They're more "uptown." Parker is more handsome (even the introduction states he was intended to look like Jack Palance, but instead we get something closer to an American version of Golgo 13, or of Clark Gable on steroids). The settings are more glamorous. With a few exception, the goons look like male models.
But it's still bracing stuff, told with a mix of casual familiarity and carefully paced action. At times the book feels less like a careful adaptation, and more like a drawn journal that Cooke kept while reading the original novel -- there will be a few images, and handwritten description of the plot as it unfolds. But most of it is told with an economy and elegance (there are numerous wordless passages, true to Parker's malevolent silence and the absence of introspection that it represents) that is rare in mainstream American comics.
In the end, I think this book is more enjoyable to fans of the original than it might be on its own, but I am so engrossed in the source material, I am not the best judge. I do recommend this adaptation, heartily.
dark
mysterious
medium-paced
This is a beautiful graphic novel adaptation of this original novel. With an illustration style reminiscent of the time in which the novel was set, Cooke uses modern sensibilities and storytelling to evoke the feeling of the novel. This is a must read for graphic novel fans, Parker fans and those who love the detective thriller.
A slick, proper noir with gorgeous art. Will definitely pick up more!
After watching the Mel Gibson movie again last week, I decided to give this one a try.
Both Payback and this graphic novel are based on Richard Stark’s first Parker novel and so they basically tell the same story.
Parker has been double-crossed by his partner in crime Mal Resnick, shot at by his wife and left for dead. Resnick took Parker’s part of the loot and used it to pay off his debts to the Outfit, a crime syndicate.
But Parker isn‘t dead at all. And now he’s back to get his revenge and take back his money.
There are a few differences between the movie and the comic. The job Parker and Resnick did together, which in both instances is told in flashbacks, is completely different and the role of Parker’s wife in it is also slightly changed.
That turned out to be a good thing for me, because otherwise there would not have been much of a point in me reading this only a week after I’ve seen the movie.
Unfortunately this means that Lucy Liu’s character from Payback is missing here, or more precisely, is massively changed and does only make a rather short and insignificant appearance. Which really is a shame, because hers is one of the most fun characters in the movie.
But more importantly, I don’t like the changes to the main character. Parker is a total bad-ass in the movie as well. But in the comic his brutal force is also directed towards innocent people. Parker was easy to root for when he only kicked the asses of all the bad guys, but much less so when he’s violent towards women (that didn’t shoot or try to shoot him). That turned me off completely. He’s also lacking the self-deprecating quality and some of the cool of Mel Gibson’s impersonation. I don’t know which one‘s closer to the character of Richard Stark’s book, but it doesn’t matter. Point is, I loved the character in the movie but thought he’s an asshole in the comic.
I’m still willing to give this a three star rating instead of a two, because the story nevertheless is entertaining and the comic does also look incredibly cool. It has that wonderful 60ies style that makes it great to look at.
Am I continuing with this one, though? I’m not sure. I just don’t like the guy.
Both Payback and this graphic novel are based on Richard Stark’s first Parker novel and so they basically tell the same story.
Parker has been double-crossed by his partner in crime Mal Resnick, shot at by his wife and left for dead. Resnick took Parker’s part of the loot and used it to pay off his debts to the Outfit, a crime syndicate.
But Parker isn‘t dead at all. And now he’s back to get his revenge and take back his money.
There are a few differences between the movie and the comic. The job Parker and Resnick did together, which in both instances is told in flashbacks, is completely different and the role of Parker’s wife in it is also slightly changed.
That turned out to be a good thing for me, because otherwise there would not have been much of a point in me reading this only a week after I’ve seen the movie.
Unfortunately this means that Lucy Liu’s character from Payback is missing here, or more precisely, is massively changed and does only make a rather short and insignificant appearance. Which really is a shame, because hers is one of the most fun characters in the movie.
But more importantly, I don’t like the changes to the main character. Parker is a total bad-ass in the movie as well. But in the comic his brutal force is also directed towards innocent people. Parker was easy to root for when he only kicked the asses of all the bad guys, but much less so when he’s violent towards women (that didn’t shoot or try to shoot him). That turned me off completely. He’s also lacking the self-deprecating quality and some of the cool of Mel Gibson’s impersonation. I don’t know which one‘s closer to the character of Richard Stark’s book, but it doesn’t matter. Point is, I loved the character in the movie but thought he’s an asshole in the comic.
I’m still willing to give this a three star rating instead of a two, because the story nevertheless is entertaining and the comic does also look incredibly cool. It has that wonderful 60ies style that makes it great to look at.
Am I continuing with this one, though? I’m not sure. I just don’t like the guy.