Get Carter

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!

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.***

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

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.

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.