Get Carter

Avoid this movie at all costs. If someone asks you to watch it with them, give them a smack and run away. This is the worst movie I've ever seen. I paid $4 to torture myself with this horrible mess of a film. Don't make the same mistake I did! Run away, far, far away!

I truly wanted this film to be good, but as i suspected it is terrible.The film manages to wimp out at every moment that made the Caine version so hard hitting, brutal and memorable. Kay has given many of the charcters a moral compass, and from what i can see, for no other reason than that the producers obviously think an American audience need clearly drawn boundaries between who is 'good' and who is 'bad'. Stallone's burgeoning relationship with his niece (she is definitely his neice, none of the ambiguity concerning the girl's parentage in this version)is perhaps one of the most ill advised plot developments ever written. One minute he hardly knows her, the next they are big buddies. He even gives up smoking for chrissakes! Stallone's Carter is a far more sensitive man that Caine's and ultimately this is what makes the film so pedestrian. He has gone back home more in an attempt to fix the broken pieces of his own life, rather than in search of vengeance. The porno movie elements lack the genuine unpleasantness of the original, the movie balks at any realistic violence in favour of a more dumbass hollywood approach where grown men can fight for twenty minutes without collapsing from exhaustion. and what is all this rubbish about 'taking things to the next level'? This may be abit of a hastily written review, but words cannot express how crap this film is, especially when viewed in the light of the superior original. Im no film purist, (i genuinely think Money Train is a good film) but even without the memory of Hodge's film, Get Carter 2000 fails to convince. Having said that, the beefed up score (though underused) is a treat, and the title sequence on the train at the beginning is great. There is perverse pleasure to be taken in how dreadful this whole movie is, but i've seen grittier episodes of Airwolf than this.

I must confess I hadn't seen the original Get Carter before watching this. I'm glad, this way I'm not biased. Carter is a 'heavy' for a loanshark. When he hears about his brothers death he travels back to his home town he left years ago to dish out some pain, and (of course) play father to his Brother's daughter. What follows is a gangster farce about *, hookers and 'Mr. Bigs'. Sounds cool?, in fact Sly even looks cool, but unfortunately it isn't. Get Carter (2002) is one of the best looking movies stallone has ever been cast in. The cinematography of Mauro Fiore (Training Day) is exquisite. It's a shame that Director Stephen Kay couldn't match that. And I'm not sure what went wrong with the editing (strange, because it was the same guy who edited 'Apocalypse Now'). The Film just feels out of sync. It doesnt flow very well at all. The action is good(if too sparse) but seems to have an unwelcome comedy feel to it throughout. John McGinley, and Mickey Rourke in particular, give excellent performances as the bad guys. What bothers me is Stallone's attempt to play a 'hard man' and 'long lost loving uncle' at the same time. It just doesn't work. Stallone isn't helped either by the rest of the cast which boasts Rhona Mitra as a main character(with a particularly poor performance). Miranda Richardson suffers too in this movie as Carter's Brother's wife. Surprisingly, Michael Caine makes a cameo too, although I can't help thinking I wish he hadn't. It could have been brilliant, but instead it's (dare I say it) a hard to follow, badly paced, and forgettable film. That sounds bad, but it's still worth a rent though (even just for the fact it looks great). I'll give it 5/10. Average.

Get Carter! I've seen the original.. But I think Michael Caine should'n't have gone for a part in this film. Being in a re-make.. That's the problem with Hollywood right now.. Why are there so many re-makes..? Not all of them like do so well in the box office. And this one is a right example.. Same old storyline.. Now we have Sylvester Stallone playing the title role.. What was really off putting.. was the way how Steven Kay try to direct this film unlike the original which was directed by Mike Hodges.. Hodges direction had class, but this one didn't.. There wasn't one of those 'shots' that Hodges did with the original.. and basically, it all went downhill from there.. Having Michael Caine playing a bad guy in this film was also a bad move.. In fact, he shouldn't be in it at all.. But who can blame him..? Michael Caine, I respect him for being one of the best British actors around.. But this was like 'No! Not this one..!' Well needless to say.. This was not a good film.. It was totally boring! A disappointing 1 out of 10!

I had heard this movie was panned by many critics, but I thought this was a decent effort, and a very good job by Stallone. He plays, what initially looks like a one-dimensional character, and actually portrays him as a very tough guy, living in a very tough world, but with an intelligent, decent, almost gentle side. Stallone is rightly criticized for playing in some laughably bad movies (Cobra), but the guy has some acting chops. This is a very good acting performance by Stallone. He plays a fairly stoic character, but he brings an underlying gentleness that works well with the other characters, especially his young niece. The look and feel of the movie is excellent. The rainy, seamy side of Seattle is portrayed very well. The action is good, and some of the Director's tricks (slow-motion, fast-motion) actually works quite well. Not an award winner by any means, but a decent, entertaining movie.

Stallone's 'acting' - Terrible. Wooden, lacking emotion. Adding overtly sentimental 'family' scenes to a film that was supposed to be gritty and unpleasant just shows how the American film market is saturated with homogenised, heavily-censored twaddle. I'm so angry after watching this pile of steaming dog diarrhoea that I can barely string together a coherent thought that doesn't need to be expressed purely as a scream of rage and frustration. Anyone who thinks the remake is better than the original should be shot. I normally tolerate others' opinions, but as far as this film goes I'm as militant as an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist. One of the worst films I've seen in my life.

In our times, the idiots, cretins, imbeciles seem to prevail; yet it is still astonishing that a movie like this crap ,this mega—crap, ever gets being made, released ,etc.. Our times are maybe poor for the Hollywoodian cinema, with several trends of lifeless flicks occupying the first ranks; yet this Stallone flick is outrageous even being given that. What kind of morons, of retards, of cretins are those who dared to get this rubbish on the market? (Let alone any comparison with one of the masterpieces of the thrillers, the Caine film I mean. Is Stallone the man to replace …Caine? How dumb must one be to even dream of this?) It is bad AS exploitation, violence, brutality, etc.; it is an outrageous movie for its genre. Its problem it's not its genre; on the contrary—it is its failure as a genre movie. It completely fails to be a genre movie. It is not for those who like genre films.

Oh yes he's heavy and he ain't got a brother anymore. I saw this in 2000, (in THX -Dolby ) I was engulfed from the moment it came onto the screen!! that is probably the best way to view this, on a huge screen with a kickin' surround sound system, in the dark! Undistracted of course. For one the story fit him, the scenery, taking place up in Seattle was a smart departure from some of the other movies he's made. A different town than Vegas and L.A. for a lone-shark heavy who is looking to settle a major score. Stallone is a marvel in this picture ( for me anyway ) I don't mind if some others would not agree on that. The music scoring from Mr. Bates was authentic in that it captured the film's situations movement and the places that the story took course. From the train itself to the rainy weather, and the cemetery etc. I was so into this story and the fact that the music was right on the money, that it literally mesmerized, as I watched everything take place! A day of reckoning for Jack, in regard to his brother's untimely death. Actually, in this story as Jack catches up to an old acquaintance, (Rourke) who is very stubborn and truly as strong as a bull, a real fighter. Mickey Rourke, I believe was at his apex, in looks and ability, for this. He seems so different now a days. Michael Caine plays a seedy character, looking somewhat financially made, but washed out as a man standing against Jack, he was perfect for the part as well. He dresses impeccably well and yet, he will bust heads in order to get his business done. I thoroughly enjoyed the performances, the rainy weather, music score and the scenery that Stephen Kay put together for "Get Carter" (The Truth Hurts) . I felt, again as if the studio tampered with the ending and it did not stay true to the story, thats why I rate it a 9 not a ten. Even so... I would say it is worth the time of the die hard Stallone fans to see this, even for those lovers of drama and revenge stories. Recommended (****)

CONTAINS SPOILERS. As someone who ranks 'Get Carter' (1971) on my top ten list, I probably should have avoided this, but curiosity got the better of me and I finally got a copy of the re-make on VHS in a sale. It started well and there were some nice nods to the original film, notably Carter's traveling to Seattle by train, the theme music and of course Caine's cameo. Did anyone notice that the guys sent from Vegas came in a Jaguar? I assumed that Seattle was a good US version of Newcastle, northern, wet and gloomy. Unfortunately as the film progressed it became obvious that this was not in the same class as the original. In fairness, there was some good acting from Stallone and Rourke and the action sequences were well-handled and stylish, particularly the car chase. Unfortunately, that wasn't enough to save the film. The problem was that no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't help comparing it to the 1971 version. In the original Carter is cold and calculating beyond anything we have seen before to the point of being irredeemable and it was this facet that shocked audiences then and still does. He only shows emotion once, when he sees the 'blue' film, but this only stirs him into violence rather than reason. He kills without compunction everyone he feels responsible for his family's fate and those he can't kill he leaves open to the authorities. He is the ultimate 'hard man,' and when he says 'with me it's a full time job' you know he means it. Stallone's Carter should be in group therapy by comparison. He comes across as actually quite weak by the end of the film. In the original we never know for sure that Doreen is his daughter (rather than niece), but it is signposted. In the Hollywood version it is made explicit and the story loses a lot of impact, replaced by some sort of father-daughter bonding that is out of touch with Carter's character. BIG SPOILER - YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. The ending really put the cap on things. For those of you still reading this who have not seen the original (you have been warned), Carter is shot dead by a hit man after killing Paice. The irony is that Kinnear has ordered this not knowing that he is about to be arrested by the vice squad for peddling under-age *. All of this is lost in the re-make as Stallone's Jack Carter drives off into the sunset, presumably redeemed by his experiences. And with that, a classic is reduced to a good, but not great thriller.

Approximately 1/10th as good as the original, this version of GET CARTER doesn't even have the courage to use the original ending. And it is edited in today's hyper-trendy style using extremely brief shots edited together in a welter of images hoping to create an impression of kinetic action. Instead, it's just indecipherable chaos. Stallone tries his best, but his mustache and goatee have the odd effect of squeezing his lips together increasing his resemblance to a fish. He's also saddled with long, boring scenes with his niece (or maybe she's his daughter) that really don't lead anywhere. This has a different main villain than the original, but it's hardly a surprise since Mickey Rourke's character gives it away in his first scene. (But what happens to Mickey Rourke later? If he's dead, why wasn't there some kind of reaction from the numerous bystanders?) Stallone needs to forget about the audience liking him, and go for the realism of the character, but he never, never will show that kind of imagination and integrity. Showy, trendy junk.