Get Carter (2000) User Reviews

Perfectly watchable thriller - but little more

[Pedro_H · 6/10 · 11 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."

Inferior Remake

[JamesHitchcock · 4/10 · 6 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

Get (the original) Carter

[BroadswordCallinDannyBoy · 5/10 · 5 April 2007]

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

Trendy, junky, phony remake

[Erewhon · 4/10 · 15 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.

Started well, ended badly.

[glennwalsh44 · 8 January 2003]

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.

Forgettable

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 2 December 2015]

Sylvester Stallone's remake of the British classic GET CARTER has gone down in history as one of the biggest flops and worst remakes ever. Watching it now, I can see why; it's a completely forgettable film that might just pass muster as an average straight-to-video thriller but which feels like a catastrophe when compared to the original.

The problems with this film are myriad, but most noticeably missing is the sense of location. GET CARTER made excellent use of its northeastern locations, whereas this remake just has an ordinary Seattle backdrop that looks like a hundred other thrillers from the era. It's not one of Stallone's finest performances either; he looks constipated throughout the production, which is a surprise given that he'd made the excellent COP LAND fairly recently which had contained one of his greatest performances.

The casting of Michael Caine in a crucial role just reinforces how tedious and average this thriller is. Sure, the plot is fast paced, but the direction is hollow and the action sequences feel sub-par, somehow. I notice that director Stephen Kay has wisely stuck to television fare after the double whammy disaster of this and BOOGEYMAN (which was even worse).

Sly tries dark gritty style

[SnoopyStyle · 4/10 · 23 May 2015]

Jack Carter (Sylvester Stallone) is a Las Vegas mob casino collector. He returns to Seattle for his brother Richie's funeral. Jack is suspicious and starts investigating. Richie's wife Gloria (Miranda Richardson) and daughter Doreen (Rachael Leigh Cook) are not close to Jack. Richie ran Cliff Brumby (Michael Caine)'s club. Cliff claims that the mysterious Geraldine (Rhona Mitra) is Richie's mistress. Jack finds bottom feeder Cyrus Paice (Mickey Rourke) now as a local porn king working for wealthy Jeremy Kinnear (Alan Cumming). Meanwhile Jack's boss back in Vegas is looking for him.

Sly tries to be interesting and gritty. It's laying down some heavy style with limited success. The plot doesn't really move. There is a little bit of fun with Sly going up against Mickey Rourke. It would be better to give more drive to Jack's mission. It needs something that could raise the stakes like kidnapping Doreen. This needs to have a mission other than just investigating Richie's death. If that's all there is, then he should start breaking fingers and busting heads. It also means that he could drop the case at any time. This is a scatter shoot of villains and random dark stylistic choices.

Another unappreciated film by an unappreciated icon

[invincible_seattle · 7/10 · 1 August 2002]

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.

why remake this?

[KHayes666 · 4/10 · 10 October 2007]

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

Acceptable though inferior remake dealing with a Las Vegas avenger goes home to Seattle to learn his brother's death

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 25 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 .

Such a disgrace

[searchanddestroy-1 · 2/10 · 24 April 2022]

I was such in a hurry, back in 2001, to watch this movie, because I am a die hard fan of the genuine GET CARTER, back in 1971. Such an extremist, ayatollah like fan of this absolute masterpiece. And what a pain for me to discover this pure garbage, because mostly of the script and Stallone. Shame on him, such a skilled actor, who could have had greater roles after F. I. S. T, ROCKY, PARADISE ALLEY, such a skilled actor, but who unfortunately was lost in the image he had of himself. He totally smashes this film. I prefer forget this garbage. But I wanted to warn you.

Much better than expected

[jmorrison-2 · 8/10 · 24 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.

Effective. Complex. Layered. Well acted. Sharp. Smart.

[Vlad-58 · 7/10 · 2 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

Caine is still Carter

[Robsnide · 1/10 · 14 September 2010]

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?

Actually probably Stallone's best in a long while

[wellthatswhatithinkanyway · 26 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.***

run away as fast as you can

[krispaulric · 1/10 · 2 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!

Arrrrgh Hollywood!! GO HOME JACK!!

[ozwillb · 3/10 · 16 December 2021]

Stop remaking classics! When a film is called a classic it's because the film is pretty much perfect. Why then would you want to tamper with it, mindless. After 30mins everyone's telling Jack to go home, and truthfully I'm on their side!!! I forgive Michael Caine because they probably offered him more money than sense! And he probably doesn't give a toss!

Trite, overplayed, lecturing nonsense which functions only as a guilty, mindless revenge picture.

[johnnyboyz · 5/10 · 12 January 2010]

Stallone and director Stephen T. Kay's re-imaging of the stunning, 1971 British gangster film Get Carter is a monumental mess on mostly all levels; a wavering, distorted and frankly quite annoying piece that renders what was once scuzzy pulp into polished actioner and slow burning film-noir into loud, messy, flashy nonsense. Some will claim it is Kay implementing his own style onto a set text, but in this case it is a set text that did not need re-imagining combined with a style we don't want to see, while the original did not need an update and certainly doesn't need to be fiddled with in order to act as a directorial calling card for someone who would later go onto have a career in making television shows.

The 2000 remake of Get Carter begins in its immediacy of establishing some sort of passing of the guard; this by way of briefly playing the old theme tune from the original film over the images before a newer, more contemporary beat kicks in continuing the same basic tone; in a sort of style that sounds like it was spat out of a rave club and landed smack bang on the soundtrack. It's a telling moment; a moment in which the recognition of the old was there, and that this newer version of both the music and film brings everything up to speed for the sake of it. Sylvester Stallone is Jack Carter this time around, a heavy working in Las Vegas more-so London who boards a train in order to travel to Seattle more-so Newcastle in order to attend his brother's funeral. One would hope the distorted, fragmented manner in which Jack's train journey is put across by way of the angles and editing is representative of the character's distorted and wavering emotions as he gradually gets closer to home with the realisation of a sibling's death gradually kicking in, rather than be included for the fact it might, in the maker's eye, 'look cool'.

Carter finds an unnatural manner in being able to waltz around kicking guys' heads in; bullying his way into confrontations with people and evading injury during car chases with more sombre, more down to Earth scenes with Doreen (Leigh Cook), his niece and his brother's daughter. The scenes with Doreen enable Carter to act as some sort of would-be fatherly figure as he attempts to take her under his wing; delivering advice as if it were his brother's own, about life and what to do with it and how keeping on the straight and narrow is important – it's a life lecture from an action lead who, on other occasions when speaking to other characters, tells them: "Sure it does" when told that revenge doesn't work and it's implied that it ought to be something to be chased down.

The film sees Carter visit a whole bunch of misfits, from Alan Cumming's techno-boffin Jeremy Kinnear to Mickey Rourke's porn king-come-businessman Cyrus Paice, an individual who distributes a lot of pornography akin to Caine's version, only because it's now 2000 and it's the 21st Century we've moved into here, everything is done by way of computers and disk drives instead of 8mm film stock. I say the 1971 film was "Caine's version", but Michael Caine does actually have a role here, that of Cliff Brumby who you'll remember was tossed over the side of a multi storey car park in the old one by Caine himself. The joke around about the time of the release of this, I'm sure, must've been that Caine is playing the character he tossed away over the side in the original; while in playing a part in the ill-advised remake of Get Carter, thus has now tossed his own career over the side. Fortunatley, this didn't have the ill guided effect on his career it might've done.

Snide jokes aside, the problem that the remake of Get Carter is a dunderheaded, bits and pieces revenge action thriller starring someone whom seems to gradually get less and less interested as the film progresses is just half the issue. It's additionally just too all over the place to get involved in and too wavy in whether it wants to pay a lot of attention the the '71 version or not. Whilst the film attempts to get some sort of dramatic flow to proceedings going, there'll be a scene straight out of the original that'll disrupt its course and make you go to yourself: "Oh yeah, it's that part." or "Oh look, this is how they're re-imagining this bit." which is so distracting and so annoying, completely destroying any sort of dramatic weight the film might have been carrying up to the respective point.

Running on colourful visuals and really lacking that distinct aura of menace the original certainly carried, 2000's Get Carter is rather a gross misfire. Its want to balance a morality tale with wanting to be faithful and unfaithful in equal measure to the original doesn't sit, while the meek level of substance by way of Stallone life-lectures twinned with the fact what it is that he does is on display just comes across as sanctimonious and stupid – if there was ever a point in which this remake really needed to borrow from the '71 version, then it was with the ending and Carter's overall fate. If director Kay has translated anything, it's that he's translated a once unhinged, crime fuelled revenge tale into an unengaging and soppy series of grumbles, gunshots and girls that does absolutely nothing for its audience.

" I'm the kind of guy your mother warned you about "

[thinker1691 · 7/10 · 22 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. ****

Another cash grab garbage

[jordondave-28085 · 1/10 · 4 March 2023]

(2000) Get Carter ACTION/ DRAMA

You know a movie is really bad when RT can't even produce a correct synopsis for this forgettable remake of the 1971 classic starring Michael Caine whose talents were greatly wasted and exploited, which by using Caines's presence was nothing more than to be used as a tool to sell this picture! According to RT,(it may have been changed since then) it says Stallone's character was a hit man but upon watching it, he was more of a debt collector for some gangsters or another which it was hardly a factor throughout! The movie claims this film was based on a novel written by Ted Lewis called 'Jack's Return Home' but it's more like a return home to the garbage dump. Stallone stars as Jack Carter who after arriving at his brother's funeral, becomes obsessed by finding out how and why he died which turned out to be more than what he thought it'd be! The only action one would see is a few ho-hum brisk brawls for the first 1 hour and 10 minutes for he's always seems to conveniently find them whenever he wants to- no one seem to press any assault charges by the way! Two car chase scenes which're lame with no policeman on sight despite wrecking havoc they created, no police intervention of any kind or that the gangster's goons setting a hit on the Stallone character for shafting his original duties! One scene in particular which absolutely makes no sense whatsoever showcases one of the bad guys whose suppose to be a young millionaire of some sort because of pornography on-line, and says on a phone that he wants Carter dead and the best he's done was sending one person to do the job, and he doesn't even complete doing the job or succeed killing anybody for that matter since it occurred at the family home, as opposed to sending out a lot of hit man's, assassins or trained professional killers! As an action fan, this was a complete waste of my time! Some good dialogue exchanges occur at the beginning completely ruined by the second half especially the fact that the film turned the Caine character into one of the villains, making it even less sense! I've got so much to say about this film except that I don't feel to waste the space.

You must know the difference between a promise and a threat.

[michaelRokeefe · 6/10 · 26 September 2001]

Director Stephen Kay gets one hell of a performance out of Sly Stallone. Ranking right up there with Rocky fighting the Russian boxer. Stallone plays Jack Carter, a no nonsense enforcer for the mob in Vegas. He goes back home for his brother's funeral and suspects that the death was not accidental, but murder. Carter goes up against some tough resistance in collecting info on his brother and his death.

Carter's niece(Rachel Leigh Cook)slowly warms up to her estranged Uncle. Mickey Rourke is one bad ass rival and Michael Caine is not a total dormant threat. The scenes that Stallone shares with Rourke are explosive, how could they not be. This action filled drama also stars Miranda Richardson and Johnny Strong. Rough and tumble thrills keep your attention. Surprisingly powerful story.

It hurts me to say it, but another misfire from Stallone...

[gav-11 · 5/10 · 16 August 2002]

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 porn, 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.

Here is a 'Stallone role' that I've been waiting for...

[buzznzipp1995 · 9/10 · 24 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 (****)

I kept waiting for this movie to stink...

[bkelley-1 · 7/10 · 23 April 2008]

...but it never did! It's actually good. Some very good acting, some very good, well-developed characters and a plot that you actually get involved in and care about. At first, it keeps looking like the kind of movie that's going to beat you over the head with every simplistic character motivation or plot point, but it doesn't. It actually leaves a lot unexplained, to great affect. Even the third act, in which many movies, even good ones, fall completely to pieces, is solid here. The 4.6 rating is really not fair, and is more about how much some people just DESPISE Stallone and anything he does, no matter what. I generally hate about 80% of what Stallone puts out, but when I like him, I like him a lot. And in this movie, he's good. Mickey Rourke is good (starts out strong but gets a little two dimensional as the movie develops, but that's OK, he's still fascinating to watch). John C. McGinley is John C. McGinley-good. Rachel Leigh Cook is very good, and actually great and very moving in one scene in particular. It's really not a bad movie at all.