Get Carter

Kay doesn't seem to know the meaning of moderation.

The only fun is in watching Stallone square off against Alan Cumming and Mickey Rourke.

McKenna's script is a frayed string and a contextual nightmare, peppered with puzzling references to the first film in a lame attempt at homage.

Stallone returns in a gangster remake that wears itself (and the audience) out trying to be cutting-edge stylish.

Should you get Carter? Sure - but make it the Michael Caine classic Warner Bros. is releasing on video next week.

If you've never seen the original, you may have no idea what's going on.

So minimally plotted that not only does it lack subtext or context, but it also may be the world's first movie without even a text.

After watching the trailer, I thought it's a good movie. I wanted to watch the movie with an interesting plot and interesting events. It is one of the best movies made in the early 2000s. Sylvester Stallone was a good actor. Rocky Balboa is my favorite movie he's in. Alan Cumming and Michael Caine were famous and popular actors of that time played in the movie.

Never saw the original Get Carter but this remake with Sylvester Stallone was okayish but not the best. I'm rating it 6 purely because some of the action was good and fight scenes and Rachael Leigh Cook is my kind of ideal woman or young girl in this, she's hot... Mickey Rourke was laughable and can't act if his life depended on it and we get so many annoying characters and Stallone isn't perfect either. The action scenes are done okay and Rachael Leigh Cook are the only reason this gets a 6

Forgettable remake lacks the bite of the original with a distracted bumbling Stallone mumbling his way through the plot which basically plays to the same tune but lacks much of the punch of 70's carter in spite of its far larger Hollywood budget. 2000's carter is less brutal and far less intimidating. There is some fantastic cinematography here wasted with some...distracting performances from the a-list cast. Rourke and Caine were excellent here though and it's a shame neither of them had been cast in the central role. Stil might bel worth a watch if you liked the original.

Good turns by Stallone and Rourke are wasted by Tony Kaye's over-stylized direction and poor pacing. Bad films are not near as bothersome as the ones with good source material and a good cast that frankly should have been more than merely watchable.

Note: 1971 vers; After seeing a trailer I resisted seeing this downbeat British so-called ‘thriller’ for many years but recently gave in. Can’t say it was worth it, if anything, it simply shows that some audiences were over-indulging in the new ’freedoms’ within production codes of the 70s. This overly bleak, overly brutal, overly immoral product is a sign of its time and about as perverse as it could get. The main characters motivation is poorly developed and unconvincingly drawn – we have a trained killer who ruthlessly uses everyone, his friends included, to get his way. His totally soulless, uncaring nature makes him as unlikeable as the sordid characters he’s out to kill. So, unless you are a criminal lowlife there’s not one soul you can identify with in this painful story. His violent treatment of women is as sick as the very situations he’s supposed to be ‘defending’ them from, those being; sexual exploitation via pornography with murder thrown in - potty writing to be sure. The moviemakers are clearly enjoying inflicting the same level of grotesqueries on women as they hypocritically claim to be ‘combating’. Beautiful Brit Ekland is again reduced to the thankless and pitiful role of a sordid gangster’s moll – no help to her career whatsoever. The bad guys are all so obviously bad as to be borderline ‘caricatures’ - we are being manipulated into disliking them just so we can ‘enjoy’ their violent demises. This overworked story element can either be done well or end up as the silly sensationalism we see here. Michael Cain claims his ‘super’ cool killer was based on some of his own family and friends (nice!) claiming he may have ended up being the same if not for the movies. His violent tough guy fights are so poorly choreographed and edited as to make them rather unbelievable. ‘Carter’ gets raves from some but is essentially just another sordid seventies movie like ‘Villain’ (Burton) and others in the new age ‘R’ Certificate ilk.