Movies-TV

I GOT Carter - FINALLY!! (the edited version)

Jack Carter (Sly) is a "financial adjuster", as he calls it, who works out of Vegas. His brother in Seattle dies in a drunk driving accident but he doesn't buy that. He eventually finds out the truth & "adjusts" the 3 people who had a hand in his brother's murder. HOW he "adjusts" them is well, I won't tell you. You have to see the film.In his quest for vengeance, he humanely ties up some loose ends with his sister-in-law & niece. Those are very touching moments in the film, giving us a Carter we can relate to. I have never seen the original Get Carter with Michael Caine in the lead so I really can't compare the two.Sly is older & more tired-looking here but ya gotta love his goatee & shiny suits! I DID!!

STALLONE'S WORST MOVIE SINCE 'THE SPECIALIST'

i was looking forward to seeing the remake of GET CARTER with sly stallone taking the jack carter role originally played with meanness by michael caine. seeing the film yesterday made me wanna add a 5th star to caine's '71 classic. my jaw dropped in horror, & the audience was laughing at the wrong moments while some left during the 1/2 way point. this is one godawful remake! poorly directed, poorly acted and poorly written. caine has a small role wasted here as a bar owner. mickey rourke as a computer porn merchant looks as if he's still in straight-to-video features like THURSDAY & ANOTHER 9 1/2 WEEKS. and poor stallone has another failed comeback attempt in GET CARTER. check out his size 86 suits. i thought sly was gonna morph into The Incredible Hulk any minute. stick with the sleek original wonderfully done by veteran Mike Hodges. director Stephen Kay destroys the remake.

good movie for another era.Haven't seen the original but..

If this movie was made about 20 years ago; I could see it being a hit. The trouble is that Stallone is choosing scripts that would have worked ...if done in the eighties.

We've all seen this plot before. He performance is good but his character is too one note. He wants revenge for the death of his brother. I didn't believe his hit man with a heart of gold act though. The action scenes were good. The action was very influenced by music videos. While not a total waste of time the movie needed more substance to work.

I could see Stallone in roles taken by Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro..I think that he needs a role that doesn't put him in the tough guy mode. "Cop Land" proved to me he could do Oscar material.

Distilled "Carter"

Having not seen the original for some time,I finally saw it in its entirety last week.Considering I've only just seen the remake tonight,it's fair to say it's going to be difficult to describe it as a film that stands on its own two feet.GET CARTER(1971) was about a mobster going back to Newcastle to find who murdered his brother.His search for the truth is ruthless. GET CARTER(2000) follows much the same story,Newcastle is now Seattle.I had my misgivings about Stallone playing Carter,but surprisingly he pulls it off.Not only does he look the part,this is one of his best roles. Supported by a sleazy Mickey Rourke,Miranda Richarson as his late brother's wife,and Rachael Leigh Cook who shines in this version,as her daughter Doreen. I wasn't expecting an action fest because the original gets by because of Micheal Caine's ruthless determination to get the truth. I do like this version but I have to deduct two stars for trying to sanitise Carter and adding a happy Hollywood ending.Also most of the film,the director is so obsessed with attention span,he "strobes" the picture regularly and unnecessarily.The final confrontation between Carter and Mickey Rourke is an anticlimax.The beach chase replaced by a brawll on a dancefloor.Not quite as memorable. Stallone seems to better with age and here he still packs a punch.And rather being a hinderance to a remake with a"you're the disease,I'm the cure" approach,he's much better in this film.

A total waste of time

I saw this film at a time when the theatre was otherwise busy, but found that I was the only one seeing Get Carter. Apparently the buzz was out on this film, and I quickly saw why. Speaking as someone who sees a lot of movies, this one was bad in just about every way a film can be. The script was boring and confusing. Most of the acting was OK (by Hollywood standards, that is) but it counted for little. The usually excellent Michael Caine added nothing and his character seemed artificial. Stallone did his usual character, and it was appropriate, but the way the story unfolded gave him little to do except ramdomly beat people up. The worst part of the film was the editing and related tricks, like unnecessary quick cuts, fast and slow motion, strange camera angles, etc. These served no purpose, did not advance the story or contribute to the atmosphere; but they did give me a headache. Save your money!

Give Stallone a break

There are just some actors people love to bash. Poor Stallone is one of them. Don't get me wrong; he's done some home horrible movies, but Get Carter isn't one of them. I didn't see the original, so I didn't go into Get Carter with any expectations on how it would do as a remake. I judged the movie on its own merit. The acting was good; the story was interesting, and the action was captivating. Stallone pulled off the tough guy character brilliantly; he genuinely came across as one mean SOB without any cheese; that's hard to do. It would have been easy to overdo the role. If people want to bash Stallone, they've got plenty of material to do it with. Get Carter is not additional ammunition for that cause. Sly: hold your head up on this one. You proved you're capable of excellence in Cop Land. Frame this one and put it up on your wall, too.

What I have hoped for, I did not get...

Frankly "Cop Land" was the first movie that made me think Sly IS an actor who can act differently, he IS able to give a different taste than the one he gave in "First Blood" and "Rocky" series. This thought made me watch "Get Carter" which was a disappointment, because it gave me a certain "ROCKY CAME BACK" feeling. His make-up did not help to change this image nor did the small parts of Mickey Rourke (which was too repetitious!), and Michael Caine. I think the best thing about this movie is the production crew who made a work of art out of a hopeless script, and worn faces.

Actually probably Stallone's best in a long while

STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All CostsStallone'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.***

An slick entertaining thriller.

Jack Carter (Sylvester Stallone) find out the news that his brother died of an car accident, based on Drunk Driving but Jack doesn't believe it. Once Jack meets his brother's wife (Miranda Richardson) & his daughter (Rachel Leigh Rock) & his old friend (Mickey Rourke) not everything's it's seems to be. Then he meets his brother friend (Micheal Caine) & his business parter (Alan Cumming), the situation is getting much worse than he has think.

DVD's has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (2.35:1) transfer & an strong Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. An good running commentary track by director:Stephen Kay. Deleted Scenes with the Original Ending. Cumming is the Stand-Out in the film, who has the best supporting role in this. An underrated thriller was an Box Office Flop but it has a good Stallone's Perfromance, his best since Cop Land. The Problem with the film, it`s comes to no surprise of the Identity of the Killer, who murder Carter`s Brother, that`s only main problem but another than that. It`s a solid, stylish film which is Based on a Novel by Ted Lewis, which it`s originally called:Jack`s Return Home. Screenplay by David McKenna (S.W.A.T., Blow, American History X). Super 35. Grade:B+.

Avoid like the plague.

Apart from "Rocky", Sly Stallone has had no other great movie. This remake of the 1971 version that starred Michael Caine is another text-book example of how not to do a remake and another wreck for Stallone.He has received more razzie awards than anybody else.Stallone plays Frank Carter, a Vegas thumb-breaker who goes home when his brother is whacked. Naturally, Carter is upset and sets out to find who offed his brother. I'll keep this brief so I'll just say: avoid this dreck that is filled with lousy writing, ugly acting, and Mickey Rourke. Apart from money, is there any reason why garbage like this is always being made ?Rating:* (out of *****)

this film is under-appreciated

WARNING: POSSIBLE MINOR SPOILERS So many people hate this movie. They hate it because they hate Stallone. They hate it because they're such big fans of the original cult classic. They hate it because... they have no taste in movies.
I've seen the original, and I respect the original, and I liked the original, but this is a very good remake, and a well done movie on its own.As the previous review stated, Stallone's acting is top notch, and those people who only see him as he was in "Tango & Cash" and "Judge Dredd" need to remember that he was also in the "Rocky" series and "First Blood" which all required good acting. In this, he comes across as a character who is tough for a living, not because he necessarily is tough, but because he has to be, and underneath he is a real person with real human emotions. But a tough man in a tough underworld can't let others know he even has emotions, so it stays buried... and yet, we know he cares. An excellent performance by Stallone.The supporting cast is just as good, with Michael Caine (who plays Carter in the original), Rachel Leigh Cook (who proves in this movie she's more than just another cute teen), Miranda Richardson who is as strong as ever, Mickey Rourke, (finally getting good material he can work with), and Alan Cumming, who (besides Stallone) stole the movie. Alan Cumming is incredible... (see "Titus" or "Anniversary Party" to see what I mean).What really makes this movie to me though, is its style. The grainy look making it feel somehow more real and less like a movie. The use of light is amazing, and when added to by the quick jerky editing, creates an interesting and almost paranoid look, similar to the recently released "Insomnia" from director Christopher Nolan.
(And, despite what most critics say, there ARE ways of doing jerky cuts and quick editing and still make a movie that isn't compared to a music video or a Superbowl commercial. It's all in the director. David Fincher was slammed by critics when "Se7en" first came out, and everyone said he was just another MTV guy making his break into Hollywood. Now critics everywhere respect him and hold him up as one of the most original and innovative new filmmakers... see?) I really hope that director Steven Kay doesn't have second thoughts about doing anything else just because fans of the original bashed this one all to pieces, because I'd like to see what else he'd do. Even the use of the camera, for instance: a shot of Stallone sitting in a car while everything is going wrong. Instead of inserting some kind of corny dialogue or, even worse, doing nothing and quickly cutting to another scene to keep a fast pace, the shot just literally turns upside down. Very easy, not much high tech wizardry needed or special effects to make a point come across, the director opts to just turn our perspective of the world upside down so we can identify with the character. Good stuff. Simple, but effective.For those who have heard of the movie, but haven't had the guts to go see it because all you've heard is bad stuff... don't listen to THEM! This movie is very well done, I think even better than the original, because this 'version' decides right from the get-go that it's not going to be just another action movie where some guy goes around beating everybody up to get revenge. I don't even hold that it's and action movie at all, more like a suspense-drama with a faster heart-rate. It's about the search for truth and redemption, and the price all of those involved will pay while finding it.

Depressed

If I was 16 I would have liked this movie. Lots of tough guy heavy talk with significant conversations and rapid retorts. But I've seen all these cliches over the years and I wish for real people saying real things. It seems most of the Carter's suffer from clinical depression and just mope through life smoking cigarettes and complaining. The plot was barely there mostly being a confused reason for Stallone to beat people up. Special effects were routine and poorly done. The roads were alternately wet and dry through the chase sequence; the shot out back window appeared and disappeared. Continuity was poor. Watch the cigarette ash, cigarettes seem to burn backwards, the ash shortening. And those sequences with Carter and the dull niece drawn out with a leitmotif of maudlin music, excruciating.
Mickey Rourke looks like he is swimming in steroids. He is creepy. The whole movie and cast needs some shock treatments to bring them back to reality.

Would you expect a cool and damn good looking Sly Stallone?

I have seen the trailer for "Get Carter" in cinemas several times - and I thought, "Wow, this seems to be a cool movie". So I got the DVD, watched it, ignored the bad voting on imdb.com, and made my own opinion - that's one thing I always do - never let any other critics tell you whether it's good or not - and I was not disappointed. OK, I'm a Stallone fan, I love Rocky, I love Rambo, and I like those kind of movies like Get Carter - bad things happen and then it's Blood for Blood and so on... I just wanna say it's a real good film, Stallone proves that he CAN act, the rest of the cast is great too, so watch it. It's worth it. 9 out of 10. p-ta 2k1

Trendy, junky, phony remake

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.

Waste of Money

To sum it all up, this movie sucks! It was one of the worst films I had ever seen. This was by far Stallone's poorest performance. If I could give a rating lower than one star I would. I recommend you save your money on this one!

Stupid.

I wanted to love "Get Carter". Because I love mobster movies, movies that take place in Vegas, and Stallone is one of my all time fav actors and him playing a hitman, in Vegas was a match made in heaven, but the film still sucked. Had some good action scenes but it was all still a bore. I did found myself looking at my watch a lot and wondering when this was going to be over. Here is a little info about the story. Sly plays a bad-ass hitman who is a former prisoner too and he finds out that his brother has been killed and now he is pissed and he will make the killer pay. Been there. Done that. But hey, the acting is still much better than a lot of other crappy action movies. Sly and crew will impress you with the acting and you may think it is a shame that great actors like that wasted their time making this movie, The flick made Sly look like Rocky again because he was made out to be very tough. Which was cool because I was glad to see Rocky come out again. Somewhere in Sly's body, Rocky is in there lurking who comes out every now and then to make us cheer. And I don't blame Sly, Mike, or Mick for this bad movie. They are all great actors and did great in this, the story itself just sucked. Course, if you ever are at home on a Friday night and your just typing away at the computer and the TV is on and you just want something to listen to, "Get Carter" is not a bad choice. Because every now and then you may just turn away from the puter' to see what Sly and the boys are up to doing. And "Get Carter" was much better than Sly's newest film, "Driven".

Not bad, but should have been left alone.

The original 'Get Carter' is one of my favourite movies, and I rented this remake from the bargain bin expecting a disaster. I was pleasantly surprised by some aspects of this movie. For one, Stallone puts in a very good performance as Carter. Mickey Rourke & Alam Cumming also shine, but it's the direction of this movie as well as changes to the plot which really let this movie down. It's MTV cinema - scenes are edited to the soundtrack rather than the story & flashy visual effects are utilised inappropriately, giving the movie the feel of a pop video rather than a movie. In terms of the story, Stallone's Carter is a much more politically correct character than the Caine original which weakens the story - for an example he's nice to women & doesn't kill any!. I'm sure all the scenes of him 'bonding' with his niece were installed for Stallone to show his range as an actor, but considering the nature of Carter's 'profession', they just don't seen believable. Compared to the original this remake does not pack the same punch - as good as Rourke & Cumming are, they nowhere near as good as Ian Hendry and John Osborne in their respective roles. 'Get Carter' is well worth a viewing, but the original is for me superior.

Probably Stallone's best movie

This is by far Sylvester Stallone's best movie. This movie got trashes by critics & especially movie fans because Stallone wasn't shooting everyone in sight...he was acting instead! Oh no, acting...how could he. But seriously, Sly gives a very humane side here, which is one of the reasons why the film holds together so well. This is a remake of a Michael Caine movie, who appears in this version as well. When Jack Carter(Stallone)'s brother is murdered, he goes to the funeral & decides to look into the mysterious surroundings. What he finds is a plot of twists & turns & finds so many people are involved. If you are a Sly or just a movie fan, definitely check this movie out! I gave it 9 out of 10 stars.

A Solid Film

Many people hated this film for one big reason, the lack of action. In a sense I found that to make Get Carter better than I expected. It is not everyday that you find a Sly Stalone film that has depth and style. I enjoyed the storyline and the characters, plus the film techniques are astounding. That keeps the film interesting and it gives a view through the eyes of the characters themselves. I really enjoyed the score and soundtrack as well. It established the feeling and mood very well. I recommend this film.

Good becomes bad

The Y2K Get Carter remake of the great 1971 film of the same name is puzzling to me. First of all, why they'd want to remake a great film is beyond me. Second of all, if you're going to remake a great film (assuming you're trying make another great film to go along side of it) you might as well actually remake it well! But no, the producers go and get a director who never made a good film previously to this stint on the resurrected Get Carter (think of a living dead sort-of resurrection), Stephen T. Kay. Way to go. Kay brings to the film a sort of FX-TV look, complete with a neo-MTV soundtrack. Yeah, put that in your pipe and smoke it.... Then they get writer David McKenna to write the screenplay. McKenna had the Oscar-nominated American History X under his belt at that point (though the Oscar-nom went to actor Edward Norton), but he followed up with the critically-panned Body Shots. You'd think that would have been a red flag, but hey, luckily I don't have to defend the choice. So under McKenna's pen we go from a brutal crime flick about one man's darkness in the 1971 film to a crime flick still, but now Carter is the Angel of Justice or something and far less dimensional. On top of that, the story is changed so we have a different ending that is FAR less powerful than that of the original Get Carter. The dialogue gets murdered as well. For example, we go from Caine's Carter's intimidating "like p**s-holes in the snow" description of Eric's eyes to Stallone's Carter's laughable "like cat-p**s in the snow" description of Cyrus' (whoever that is) eyes. "Cat-p**s"? are you freakin' kidding me? How did we get to "cat-p**s"? Then we get to the cast which, in my opinion, is hit-or-miss. But hey, at least we have a couple of hits. Miranda Richardson does well in her supporting role as Gloria Carter, Jack's sister in law; Rachael Leigh Cook also does a good job in her supporting role as Doreen Carter, Jack's niece; and I really think that Sylvester Stallone did the best job he could with the material as Jack Carter. Sure, he's no Caine, but who is? Stallone relatively holds his own throughout the film despite being surrounded by a mostly horrid cast. John C. McGinley, Alan Cumming, and Mickey Rourke are all painfully bad. You know the feeling you get when an actor is so bad you feel embarrassed for them? These three supporting performances in Get Carter are perfect examples of this! Then we have Michael Caine - of whom I honestly can't decide whether or not gives a good performance because I can't get over what a backstabbing Judas he is for being apart of this film in the first place! Caine has admitted that he does a lot of films just for the cash, and this has got to be one of those jobs, it just has to be! Run, don't walk, to the great original 1971 Get Carter film instead of this atrocity.