Get Carter (2000) Poster

(2000)

User Reviews

Review this title
288 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Perfectly watchable thriller - but little more
Pedro_H11 September 2003
A mob enforcer goes back to his native Seattle to sort out the suspicious death of his brother.

The original film is one of the best English thrillers of all time and despite being made nearly thirty years ago still packs a punch. Sadly this film is not really in its league, despite a bigger budget and more ground coverage.

The main problem is that the authors clearly love the original and this leaves so much of what happens as a question mark to the new viewer. Characters are thrown in from nowhere and Carters involvement with his bosses' girl is almost in another movie. Micheal Caine's small role (as a barman) is funny in that he was the original Jack Carter, here reprised by Sly Stallone.

While quick to admit this is mediocre stuff you have to say that you get your share of car chases (well done too), fights, creeps, sleaze, family bonding, shoot outs and even the odd bit of light humour. The fight between Stallone and Mickey Rouke (here playing a buisnessman-stroke-creep) for example.

This film features interesting cinematography, with strange forward jump cuts (ripped off from The Limey), odd angles and the use of colour filters. In short, the producers trying to make more out of the material than is in the script. The choice of a wet Seattle is also curious and different. Presumably the nearest to Newcastle-Upon-Tyne (the setting of the original) that the producers could think of.

So it is only an average product, but will see much worse than this in our lifetime and it does move along at a fair and steady clip. People are getting to knock Stallone for being Stallone, but he doesn't do bad a job here, a stonefaced enforcer that is prepared to shed a tear when needs be! Not great acting, but he looks the part.

Don't be put off by the low IMDB ratings, plenty of worthy films are two or three points higher but are far more boring. Popcorn fodder it may be, but I thought it was worth seeing through and even declared myself modestly entertained at the end of it. Not as good as the original but not a lot is.

Footnote: This is actually not the first remake of Get Carter. A blackspolitation version was made in the 1970's called "Hitman."
52 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Inferior Remake
JamesHitchcock6 October 2005
The central figure of this film, Jack Carter, is a Las Vegas gangster who returns to his roots in Seattle following the death of his brother. This was officially reported as an accident, but Jack suspects that his brother may have been murdered by members of the local criminal underworld. The film charts Jack's attempts to find out the truth and to take revenge.

This is, of course, a good example of Hollywood's cannibalising of the British and European film industries in its endless search for a good story. It is a remake of Mike Hodges's classic from 1971, one of the few great British gangster films. That film was one that grew out of, and yet at the same time transcended, a particular place and time, the North-East of England in the early seventies. This was a time of rapid social change in Britain, marked by increasing social mobility, growing permissiveness and relative prosperity, elements all reflected in the film. Like many of the best British films, it had a strong sense of place. Its fidelity to a real time and place was not a weakness but a strength, helping to establish it firmly in the realm of reality and to convey its major theme, the sterility and futility of the criminal lifestyle. Its view of the underworld acted as a necessary antidote to the tendency, very prevalent in the late sixties and early seventies, to glamorise criminals ("The Thomas Crown Affair), sentimentalise them ("The Italian Job") or mythologise them ("The Godfather").

Stephen Kay's film attempts to establish a similar sense of place to the original; the Seattle we see has a bleak, forbidding atmosphere, always shrouded in rain or mist. It has a much more star-studded cast than the original, with at least one reasonably good performance from a convincingly thuggish Mickey Rourke. Despite this, however, it is a far inferior film when compared with the original. The main reason is the way in which the character of Jack Carter has been changed. Michael Caine's Carter was, for all his sharp suits and fast cars, no more than a ruthless street thug, a poor boy made bad at a time when other poor boys were making good. Sylvester Stallone's character, by contrast, may have a rough exterior (Stallone plays him as outwardly impassive, with a gruff, emotionless voice) but beneath it he is one of the good guys. The plot has been rewritten to make Carter less brutal and ruthless and to allow him to survive at the end. The original was a morality play on (as another reviewer has pointed out) the theme of "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword". The remake is simply a revenge thriller with a hero whom the audience can root for.

This illustrates one of the perils of the remake. Kay's film has kept the title, the bare outlines of the plot and even some of the names of the characters, but completely fails to capture the spirit of the original. Moreover, it is unable to replace that spirit with anything new. If the film-makers had wanted to make an exciting goodie-versus-baddies revenge thriller, they could have chosen a better starting-point than the plot of a film made some thirty years earlier with a very different aim in mind.

It has become something of a tradition for remakes to feature cameo appearances by the stars of the original films. Martin Scorsese's "Cape Fear", for example, featured no fewer than three actors who had appeared in the earlier J. Lee Thompson version, Gregory Peck, Robert Mitchum and Martin Balsam. That, however, was a rare example of a remake that we as good as, or even better than, the original. Kay's "Get Carter", however, is not in the same class as Hodges's. It was, therefore, rather disappointing to see Michael Caine appearing in a remake that can only diminish one of his best films. 4/10
36 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Get (the original) Carter
A remake of the 1971 film with Michael Caine.

Las Vegas mob enforcer Jack Carter travels to Seattle to investigate his brother's mysterious death. Local crime lords want him out, but Carter unrelentingly proceeds in finding the truth.

Starting with a promising beginning (though it remains amusing that someone thought that Stallone can match Caine's acting) the film soon slumps into a bad case of mediocrity. It has the same idea as the original and tries to be as badass with its kinetic and almost experimental direction, but ends up being just poor. Stallone's Carter is given an almost soft side that goes complete against the character from the first film. On top of that there are some enjoyable car chases, but they serve as sensationalism that was critically lacking from the first film.

Then there is the ending, which has some merit (since the film already establish Carter as softer then the original), but even so, it is still pretty stupid and leaves the film with little to say or resonate with. That ultimately makes this is second rate crime movie that you might enjoy, but don't count it. --- 5/10

Rated R for violence and profanity
42 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Started well, ended badly.
glennwalsh448 January 2003
Warning: Spoilers
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 pornography. 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.
20 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Another unappreciated film by an unappreciated icon
invincible_seattle1 August 2002
Warning: Spoilers
For some unknown reason, the industry 'suits' have decided to black-list Sylvester Stallone, not giving him large leading roles, and when they give him a role, they refuse to heavily market his films. This trend started, I believe, sometime during the early 90s, probably after his last big hit, "Cliffhanger." Nevertheless, Stallone has continued to make films, most of them actually pretty good.

That said, "Get Carter" is probably one of Stallone's better films of the last ten years (I think it's second to "Cop Land"). He portrays his role as the 'financial adjuster' (as he described it) Jack Carter. The remainder of the supporting cast, including Mickey Rourke, Rachel Leigh Cook, John C. McGinley, Alan Cumming and Michael Caine, each deliver convincing performances, conveying their characters' emotions with amazing quality.

I really noticed the way the film's editing and photography changed towards the end of the film, after beating up McCarty (McGinley) in the elevator. The way the film swiftly cuts ahead a couple of seconds is simply spectacular to watch. The many odd photography angles describe the uncertainty of the scenes, and make me feel unsure as well.

Living in the Seattle area, seeing the great landmarks I see every day on the screen is quite something else. And for the record, it doesn't rain nearly as much here as people think.

If you haven't watched this film and have heard all the negative reviews given by the industry-paid critics, ignore them and rent it. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
65 out of 102 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
slick editing can't hide the holes
mattgenne14 March 2001
By far, the most entertaining moment on the DVD of "Get Carter" is the hilariously outdated 1971 theatrical preview for the original version of the film, which starred Michael Caine. (Caine does appear in this Stallone update.) Sadly, this update stinks. Sylvester Stallone's Jack Carter, a Las Vegas button man, skips town without his boss's permission and heads up to his old stomping grounds in Seattle to investigate the mysterious death of his brother, whom he hasn't seen in five years. That's the pitch.

The action is surprisingly restrained and impressionistic. For example, when one of the minor bad guys gets killed, we see the result of a headlong plunge but not the actual slaying. But this kind of restraint doesn't dovetail with the promise of the previews: an ass-kicking Stallone in a Rat Pack suit. The director tries to gloss over the many plot holes with slick, faux-Fincher cuts and zooms, but he's just covering.

Here's the tragedy. Action-thrillers don't require good acting, but they sure are enhanced by it. Most of the actors in "Get Carter" have the ability to far outshine this genre, much the way the actors in 1998's "Ronin" did-within the context of the plot, the cast of "Ronin" delivered their lines with utter conviction.

Not necessarily so here. Those stars in "Get Carter" who have real talent weren't used enough, and those who don't have the strongest dramatic chops were given boatloads of screen time. Sly is wooden at times (as per usual), but has some fine moments.

Miranda Richardson, as Carter's widowed sister-in-law, is solid, but underutilized. Mickey Rourke, as an internet porn purveyor, has obviously been working out some more, but it's still apparent that he peaked in "Diner." The big surprise was just how much actual characterization they allowed Rachael Leigh Cook--as Carter's bereaved niece--to show off. Any one of these actors, given enough on-screen opportunity, might have saved "Get Carter" from its ridiculous plot holes and incongruities. But they didn't. Do yourself a favor: avoid this film.
21 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Effective. Complex. Layered. Well acted. Sharp. Smart.
Vlad-582 March 2004
I simply do not get what certain people have against this movie. Sure, it's not a cinematic breakthrough, but it is very sharp, smart and focused. Jack Carter's brother, Richie, dies under mysterious circumstances. Jack goes back to his home town to check things out and perhaps find out the truth. What he finds is not all that easy to get to grips with.

This is not your usual run of the mill revenge movie. The story has some layers to it and I am surprised to see that people did not appreciate that. Jack Carter is not a good guy. He is a bad man working in bad town doing bad things. Always was a bad guy. But he reaches a moment in his life when the things that take place between him and his boss's girl Audrey, the things that he finds out about his brother and his brother's family, all of them act as a catalyst. For once in his life he tries to set things right. How does he do that? By doing what he knows to do. He does bad things. The guys he goes up against are a little a out of the reach of the law. To wait for justice to set things right is not a concept Jack is familiar with. The only things he knows is to take care of his own dirty laundry. And at the moment his life is his dirty laundry. He was not there for his brother, for his niece and he missed some oportunities... Time to set things right. But he does only bad things in this movie. He kills people by shooting them, by throwing them out of the balcony, by beating them up in the elevator. WHY? Because these are the same things that would happen to him if he let his guard down.

Great acting performances form most guys in the movie. Stallone seems to have found some serious acting genes within himself. This is some of his best work and his best is very good. Not only for the genre. Although when looking back at Oscar (his 1991 comedy), D-Tox (a very underrated movie) and Copland I have to say that this is not a one off. No sir. When the script, the director and the rest of the cast are good he can act big time. Michael Caine made a very good movie called get Carter back in 1971. I love that movie and is always one of my favorites to watch on Turner Classic Movies. The remake, I felt, is just as good. Sure it has the sort of usual happy ending, but that is just the American Way of ending action movies. They love a hero. Mickey Rourke, Alan Cummings, Michael Caine and Rachael Leigh-Cook are very good in this one. Somehow Miranda Richardson seemed a little over the top in her angry widow/mother scenes.

Michael Caine acted in this one simply because he knew it was good. The movie could have been done without him, without a doubt. But he did it because unlike other remakes, this one is just as good as the original. It has it's own style, a somewhat different story and a happier ending. Otherwise, they are two very similar movies. And even if some consider the original as better, they should not write this one off. The layers are there, you just have to dig. And this only because the producers did not get this movie. The director, the cast, everybody got this movie and knew what they were making except for the producers who seem to have been thinking of another movie. Michael Caine seems to have given his seal off approval to Stallone's acting in this one. The producers wanted a classic 80's action movie. At least that's what I feel. So, this is a very good movie. Just as good (or almost as good, depending on how you look at it) as the original. It has great acting, sharp directing, nice car chase scenes, nice action scenes, some great moments, some wonderful music, a simple yet effective storyline that keeps you guessing and wanting to see more. And as someone put it, crap like XXX, The Fast and The Furious (+sequel, at least is has some cars), Charlie's Angels (+sequel. could not even watch) and other such teen-hormone-slang-flash-driven movies have a higher rating, IT SIMPLY ISN'T RIGHT!!!!!! 7.5/10
55 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Trendy, junky, phony remake
Erewhon15 October 2000
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.
16 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
" I'm the kind of guy your mother warned you about "
thinker169122 April 2011
In 1971, the first of these action, violence prone films was offered. In the original novel, written by Ted Lewis, it was Michael Caine who was the unstoppable, revenge filled Gangster out to discover who killed his brother. In this updated version directed by Stephen Kay, we have Sylvester Stallone playing Jack Carter. Both versions were very well conceived. The updated film has added the blood, gore and non-stop drama which is common with newer versions. The story remains the same in that Carter (Stallone) learns his younger brother died under suspicious circumstances and he is determined to learn why. Along the way, he is met with business types who are not interested in helping Carter find the truth. To that end, John C. McGinley, Mickey Rourke and even Michael Caine get in the action. The movie is filled with dark sequences, black violence and thrilling chase scenes, all of which add to the final outcome. Great movie and a worthy successor to the original. ****
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Totally Unenjoyable
Cristi_Ciopron24 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
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.
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Acceptable though inferior remake dealing with a Las Vegas avenger goes home to Seattle to learn his brother's death
ma-cortes25 August 2012
Violent film about a hardman named Jack Carter, he is a domineering , dapper angel of vengeance who returns home to investigate a familiar crime and meets sleazy character after another . An acceptable noir film produced by actor Andrew Stevens , Elie Samaha and professionally directed by Stephen Kay (Boogeyman , The last time I committed suicide), though with no originality . An extremely tough movie burdened by cruel murders and seedy characters , based on a novel titled 'Get Carter' by Ted Lewis from 1970 . This brutal , austere crime-thriller focuses a cheerless enforcer Jack Carter (hard-working star Sylvester Stallone) , a tough , amoral gangster who works as a killer in Los Angeles . Passable Sylvester Stallone in the title role , but inferior to Michael Caine (he played Jack Carter in the original) here playing a secondary role as Cliff Brumby (his character was only in one scene in the original cut, but test audiences said they liked him and they transformed the movie to have Caine as the bad guy) . Here Stallone is a hit-man who returns home to investigate his brother's death by some mobsters .As he decides to travel his natal Seattle to investigate who is responsible ; Jack contends enemies , but he stands a head above fellow hoods , but not apart from them . Two-fisted Jack in order to revenge his sibling , vows vengeance and spontaneously meets sleazy characters (bad ass Mickey Rourke and nasty computer magnate Alan Cummings) in the middle of sinister bands war and running afoul into underworld . When his brother dies under mysterious circumstances in a car accident , gangster Jack Carter travels to Seattle to investigate and reunites his widow (Miranda Richardson and niece (Rachael Leigh Cook) and he subsequently meets ominous characters who may have been involved . Carter aware the murder of his brother at the hands of a "gang" opponent led by a mobster . We see as his facade of sophisticated and elegant mob gentleman with exquisite manners , educated pose , and expensive costumes , begins collapsing , leaving see the lascivious, malleability and a cold killer . Carter starts moving in this ambient but all of this ends in a shocking discovery delivered by a compact disc which greatly angers Carter . This triggers a wave of violence that sweeps the the underworld lumpen in Seattle . Carter keeps the things moving along until ending vendetta. The end of the film is like a summary of the entire story for the scenarios that uses austere bleak and cold environment .

This interesting film features thrills , well-staged car chases , raw energy , adult subject matter , clunking cruelty surrounding , lots of violence and enlivened by high-powered performances . Plenty of intrigue, atmospheric music ,noisy action and grisly killings until impressive finale vengeance . It is a very violent film , depressing charismatic , magnificently set , but always strong , with a perfect abstraction of a climate of moral misery to game with a colorful photography by magnificent cameraman Mario Fiore . Adequate and moving musical score by Tyler Bates with a rare mixture . The picture obtained moderated Box office , there were plans to do a sequel which never materialized .

The main differences between the classic version and this recently made story are the following : The British 1971 bruising film "GET CARTER¨ far superior to remake , is an original movie with abundant nudism , kinky sex , excessively violent and set in Newcastle , a city in northern England portrayed as a cool place , foggy , sordid , rainy , dirty , gray and industrial aspect , shabby environment and ramshackle scenarios , full of sad pubs , buildings almost in ruins , piers of black water and ravaged aspect postindustrial , while this remake 2000 , viewed as an act of sacrilege in Britain , was set in rain-lashed Seattle , a bustling city full of light and luxurious pubs and glamorous nightclubs .

GET CARTER 1971 was splendidly performed by Michael Caine with Ian Hendry , John Osborne and Britt Ekland ; there is also a Black Gangster version titled ¨The hit-man¨, a Blaxploitiation movie regularly directed by George Armitage with Bernie Casie , Pam Grier , Roger E Mosley and Paul Gleason .
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Actually probably Stallone's best in a long while
davideo-226 June 2002
STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All Costs

Stallone's remake of the 1971 classic of the same title finally arrives over on British shores.Only it arrives straight to video.This probably isn't very surprising anyway.The Michael Caine (who also appears here,albeit not in the title role again!) original is seen as an untouchable classic by our movie-going public,and an American re-make would probably be interpreted as the ultimate kick-in-the-teeth.

But for those not bothered about cultural rivalry or who weren't alive when the original was released,this really isn't that bad a film.It has a really involving camera style and the mystery of Stallone's brothers death is intriguing.There are some interesting characters,with Caine as a mysterious promoter type,Mickey Rourke as an old rival of Stallone's and Miranda Richardson as his deceased brother's wife.

This is sadly though,however,a real case of style over substance,all of these things are really well thought out but for some weird reason,they don't really blend that well together.

Still,considering Stallone's recent turkeys,this is quite likely his best in a long while and really not a bad effort.***
17 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
run away as fast as you can
krispaulric2 January 2003
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!
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
why remake this?
KHayes66610 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
OK, the original version of this movie wasn't imposing so why bother to remake it? The storyline is Stallone plays a Luca Brazi type mob enforcer who heads home for his brother's funeral. When he gets home he learns some of his old cronies were responsible so you know the drill....revengeeeee! I say the only reason this movie is watchable besides the usual Stallone delivery is because of Rachel Leigh Cook...this was back when she was in her true prime and she is GORGEOUS in the movie.

The movie is more cerebral than action so if you're into that sort of thing give it a look, otherwise better bring some pillows and a blanket.

The highlight of the movie is the opening scene where Carter beats the shyt out of the dude and Con tries to talk him out of it 4 out of 10
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Here is a 'Stallone role' that I've been waiting for...
buzznzipp199524 January 2007
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 (****)
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
real good
arker3 April 2001
this movie has recieved a lot of bad reviews, let me tell you that it is not an award deserving movie or anything like it. But it is a really good one, the directing and production are real good, the acting is godd specially from stallone, this movie is worth watching. It is not just action it goes deeper, and beyond believe it or not. Go see it.
10 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Caine is still Carter
Adrianapolis14 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The impossibility of making good films in the 21st century is perfectly illustrated by this perfunctory remake of the 1971 Mike Hodges classic which starred Michael Caine as 'Jack Carter', a gangster who travels to the north of England to find out how his brother Frank died. This version shifts the story to America, and casts Sylvester Stallone in the main role. Caine himself plays 'Cliff Brumby'. The end result is a routine crime drama whereas the original is a classic. But what really takes the breath away is the ending. Instead of being shot on a beach, Carter jumps into his car and drives off. Presumably it was changed because American audiences hate films with unhappy endings. I take it then that if ( heaven forbid ) 'One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest' ever gets remade, it will climax with 'McMurphy' building a jet pack and escaping from Nurse Ratched's institution by zooming Rocketeer-like over the fence. Have movies ever been quite as bad as they are right now?
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Much better than expected
jmorrison-224 July 2002
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.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bad Remake
jeff_allen9 October 2000
Stay clear of this remake. Two years ago I helped preserve the original for WB. I had to watch the film several times and came to enjoy it. I saw the remake this weekend and come home very p***ed. Everything you liked about the original has been removed and only the worse parts have been left and are over developed. The worst part of the charactor development is that the negative life that Carter has lived never really catches up with him as it did at the end of the original. The only saving grace for this film is that smidgens of the original music sound track were used. Save your money and see the original even if only on video tape.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Underrated, slow burner
bbraddock-498961 May 2019
This film has been destroyed by the SO-CALLED critics. This is a good film, from the feeling, acting, music score... it's a slow-burning, film noir revenge thriller. Mickey Rourke shines and Stallone is great as the old-fashioned, train traveling anti-hero. This film was released in the (hate Stallone) era and it's a damn shame. If you like revenge films, in a dark fashion, with a great score, this is your movie. I remember Payback, with Mel Gibson released around this time and it's a great companion film, although very different. Stallone fans, film noir fans have a good time with this one. It misses the cue at times, but delivers when it counts. 4/5 stars... 8/10
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
My most hated movie of all time
Mumsworth1 June 2002
If i could give it negative points i would but since i can't i will just do everything in my power to get you not to watch this movie. Not only is it bad but it literally hurts me to think about it but i must now for the good of the children and the children's children. the actually movie is just bad but throw in the pointless music, disturbing camera angles and messed up colors and now you have a movie so bad it still haunts me.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Should of called it Forget Carter
eckhouse2425 January 2001
They should have called this movie Forget Carter. The One Liners were really bad. This movie was too short and it was really hard to follow the plot. There was no suspence, and it appeared as if Michael Caine served no purpose in this film. If there was one Stallone Movie that should have never been made, this is it. This makes Stop Or My Mom Will Shoot look like an Oscar contender
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
WTF?
jmarcel25 April 2001
Sly looked cool and tough in the trailer and the poster and the cover of the video box. He's a little girlie man in the movie. This is one of the worst "action" movies ever made. The director didn't know how to move it along. It reminded me of a cheap movie called "the swap" which was called something else and had footage of a young Robert DeNiro in it. You know the movie I'm talking about, you saw it at Suncoast for $6.99 and almost bought it because it had a big picture of Robert DeNiro on it. THAT movie is better than this.

Really, I'm not kidding. DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I prefer the original. This re-make was awful..!
smiley-3225 October 2005
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!
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed