Get Carter

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

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.

I can't believe the critics this movie gets here. I hated Stallone as Rambo, as Rocky and I love him in this role. And even if you have seen the 1971 original, not everyone can remember all the details - at least I couldn't. (I think there is just about two or three movies about Jesus, and nobody cares about the remakes). Stallone is out to take vengance on the murderers of his brother, a decent barman working to support his family. The story takes place in seattle, and as you can imagine, there are a couple of shootings, car chases and so on. But that's not the movie. The movie is the fight from a bad guy against the bad guys to get justice for someone who didn't do anything wrong. The movie has an extraordinary visual quality, the titles and the music are worth seeing and hearing this movie. And one very seldom quality at the end: This movie is not to long. Get Carter! 7 of 10!

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.

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.