MovieChat Forums > Get Carter (2000) Discussion > A remake better than the original.

A remake better than the original.

posted 21 years ago by MattiasH
204 replies | jump to latest

I thinks so, I liked it alot, everybody say it stinks but I like it. The Michael Caine version from -71 did stink though.

[–] jrb1802 21 years ago

Get Real

- JRB

[–] lferrigon-1 21 years ago

I did not see the original so I can't comment on that but I loved the movie myself. I especially loved the interaction between Carter and Doreen and that you were not asked to approve of what he does for a living.

[–] ewaf58 8 years ago

For goodness sake watch the original. Only then will you realise how awful this film is,

[–] jsagle 19 years ago

What you said.

[–] robot-cat 21 years ago

the remake was crap. the original was infinately better than any Sly vehicle.

[–] Elementalhedgehog 21 years ago

Please tell me this is a joke. The original is a classic and shouldn't have been f*cked with.

"Kid vicious did the heavy lifting. Cordy just mwa-ha-ha'ed at us."

[–] johngotti1012002 20 years ago

First of all jack-off...it isn't a joke..this Remake WAS & IS better than the original!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Everyone is thanking the original saying that if it wasn't for Caines movie back in the '70's that there wouldn't be no Get Carter 2000!? I think it's the other way around morons!? If it wasn't for Stallone's Get Carter character, no-one would know what the hell an original Get Carter with Caine was for christ sakes!? I mean, come on...what are the british..just jealous??

I like Micheal Caine, and I think he's a pretty good actor, but a "scary" hitman type?? I don't think so! Stallone as Carter says it simply to him in that scene in Caine's club...you know..you remember: " You're a big man, and out of shape, so SIT DOWN because for me it's a fulltime job!" ( or..something like that?)

The only F!@*-ing reason why I watched, or even heard of the original was because of Stallone's GET CARTER 2000..so BITE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You limey's should be thanking Sly, and not pissing on his awesome performance because it was BETTER!!!!!!!!!!!

And, by the way..what retard called Mickey Rourke, "ROONEY"???

I believe that Mr. Rourke is one of the finest actors there are and "made" the movie even better!

Yours Truly,
Yank..( Don't worry..I caught that remark from one of ya's )

[–] carter667 20 years ago

I disagree, snake eyed Michael Cain is terrifying in the brutal original. This is a seriously watered down, feel good version with a paunchy, aging Stallone playing his usual movie-star hard man. This second American remake (there was a blackploitation version in the 70’s staring Barney Casey and Pam Greer called The Hit Man) has some truly awful direction with irritatingly flashy camera work and jumpy editing in the modern style. Cummings and Richardson are wasted in nothing parts and only Mickey Rourke manages to come out of this with dignity in tact (they should have made him Carter)

The original may now look a little over praised now but was ground breaking at the time. Prior to Carter in 71 there was no real tradition of British gangster movies (I am opened to being corrected on this) with the exception of Brighton Rock the majority of movies in this genre had been comedies (Lavender Hill Mob, Ladykillers etc) or B movie quickies in the 50’s and early 60’s. There was a certain amount of playing with an American genre in a British setting, which made the movie interesting to UK audiences at the time. The Newcastle locations were also new to many. The north had been used for kitchen sink social realism movies before, but rarely seen in genre pieces like this. Added to that the brutality of the film was quite shocking with Cain violently dispatching everyone in site. I still have memories of Cain stabbing a helpless character to death with a small penknife and throwing another chap from a high rise building and seeing him landing on a car full of kids. Compare this to the soft centred Stallone version with the touchy feely family scenes.

Hollywood appears to have formed a cottage industry (badly) remaking old Michael Cain movies (Alfie, The Italian Job and now Get Carter). If you think that Cain can’t be scary you obviously have never seen Mona Lisa.

P’S. The new version of Get Carter may have lots of car chases but it doesn’t have a guy with six fingers like the original.

[–] Sir_Alfred 20 years ago

The original is SUPERB.

Michael Caine is the man. Get Carter imo is the 2ne best British film ever made (after The Third Man, which itself is arguably British).

Its just superb and it HAS to be in the top 250, in fact its a disgrace that it isn't....

................... ....................
Long live Steven Patrick Morrissey!

[–] kaemera 19 years ago

The original is good, but I thought Caine was better in "The Ipcress File."

[–] rclay-1 17 years ago

Anybody who thinks this is better than the original needs to be locked in a small room, and forced to watch Spongebob Squarepants the Movie until the end of time.

[–] rclay-1 17 years ago

Anybody who thinks this was better than original, should be locked in a small room and forced to watch Spongebob Squarepants the Movie until the end of time.

[–] imbluzclooby 19 years ago

A PAunchy and Aging Stallone?! Carter 667 you are an idiot! Stallone even in his worst shape is a 1000 times in better shape than the always pasty and flabby Caine. Michael Caine was sporting some pretty hefty love-handles in 1971 with a sunken and wimpy chest to boot. Stallone was ripped and muscular.

[–] drm_skr 18 years ago

BTW I love the editing, camera work, and bleach bypass. I think it make it worth seeing the film alone. I showed this film as my example in my AVID editing class. I also like how they didn't go with the old, "He-witnessed-a-murder" or "he-owed-money" but instead went with a much more personal and horrible seacret. Personally I think this is Stallone at his all tiem best and he's much scarier here then say Denzel in the simmilar "Man on Fire". I can very easily buy Stallone as a cld blooded killer but Denzel . . . please.

[–] Stoshie 13 years ago

"BTW I love the editing, camera work, and bleach bypas"

Many times that can enhance a movie. But here is was used to distract people from being aware of the terrible direction and the ridiculous acting where everyone was chewing the scenery in their undeveloped and stereotypical roles.

And...Stallone scary? Standing around with an expressionless face is hardly scary. It is laughably bad acting.

[–] Pharaoh-in-de-Nile 20 years ago

johngotti1012002

Actually most people had heard of the original before this sh!t was out!

And the only reason it was made was because the American "film makers" were jealous the USA didn't make the original... the same with all the sh!te remakes of non-US classics!

[–] plonkman 19 years ago

Perhaps you should step out of the world of B-rate American Flicks, and watch some of the classic pictures of our time. Get Carter is widely considered to be the best british film of all time. Indeed, it was voted so by the general public. Oh, and the remake was voted the WORST remake ever.

Michael Caine made that role his. Its not a thing against Stallone, its just that no actor of this age could come even close to reproducing the sort of performance that Caine gave. The setting of the original helped as well. Do you have any idea where Gateshead is?

"I like Michael Caine, and I think he's a pretty good actor, but a "scary hitman type"??'

Professional killers dont need to be WWE actors who failed the doping tests for anabolic steroids. Look at, say...Al Pacino's Scarface. Was Tony Montana the hulk? I think not. Was he effective? Yes.

Just because people like you can relate to mindless violence doesn't mean that films with that (and poor acting) are automatically better.

[–] kevinis40 12 years ago

I normally do not care much for remakes but there are some gems Like "Cape Fear". Nonetheless, I have not seen the 1971 original this remake was based upon. I took this as a family film full of family ties and values. The revenge aspect was lost or tangled up in the touchy feely aspect and left me confused at times. If its Thriller it is a poor one. THe car chase scene and other flashes points and jump cuts were too many and obviously used to move the film along. They did little for the plot. I did enjoy some of the dialogue. His niece and others mocking his clothes. Those comments helped to keep Las Vegas in my mind. Its was a nice technique. The climatic surprise ( contents of the video tape) leaves you wondering who Carter needs to seek wreak revenge upon. Not allowing the viewer to see more of the tape left one with the empty feeling. I was not convinced of his rage. While the culprits becomes the entire cast yet Carter is a fix it bully type, everyone is guilty of something. I was not rooting for him as my anti-hero. I was left wondering who is the good guy.

Finally, Gretchen Moll is unaccredited and plays a minor role yet she is as always lovely as a damsel in distress
Making A Living Seeing

[–] walesara54 19 years ago

Just as americans would say that Sly's remake was better, there are a lot of brits that would disagree. Only difference is that those brits are mainly adults because of the films age, and would just cast a simple opinion and not bitch about it. For it's time the film was a classic. No serious special effects, graphics, sexy female co stars , it was as we would expect Newcastle life to be at that time. By todays standards then yes sly's film had more bangs and action. But then that is typical of HIS action films, not Michael Caine's. Sir Sylvester Stallone just wouldn't sound right really.
Enjoy your life people.

[–] ustayherepenny 19 years ago

johngotti1012002, you sir...are an idiot, you say the remake is better as fact simply because you prefer it, i don't dislike america or americans, but its people like you who perpetuate the bigotry directed at your country (from the rest of the planet, but hey, we're all wrong and you're right).
The original Get Carter is a bonafide classic, not just in britain, but everywhere yet simply because YOU haven't heard of it its englands fault, we're all jealous limeys, jealous of what? an aging stroke-faced actor who plays an excellent boxer because he speaks fluent punch-drunk? Get a grip you silly twat, you seriously have no idea what makes a good movie/actor/argument

I've said my piece, feel free to rant at me now for highlighting your inadequacies.

[–] cragybgoode 19 years ago

I come from england but more importantly NEWCASTLE!!! and this film could not have worked better any were else and putting it in L.A is a joke just not the same effect at all.

[–] Nomad-1968 19 years ago

True enough the original stands up as a true classic, a true British classic at that - the setting - seventies Newcastle was unique for its time and now represents a totally different world. The old ways are seen giving in to the new (Brumby's restaurant and Glenda's apartment) - Newcastle is seen emerging from it's grim industrial past. But when Carter and Glenda go to her flat just listen to that desolate wind howling on the soundtrack! The seventies Newcastle gives the film an ambience that the remake sorelay lacks. [Incidentally, the original novel was set in Scunthorpe]. In the novel he doesn't die and goes on to feature in two inferior sequels.

[–] drm_skr 18 years ago

Actually it was set in Seattle

[–] rickmoore-2 18 years ago

You are a *beep* moron. You have no taste or culture what so ever. Lose some weight you fat amercian *beep*

[–] drm_skr 18 years ago

I gotta admit that I agree. One of the funniest things was to try and see Micheal Caine trying to pull off being a tough guy in the trailer! :-D Face it the Brits might know the words but not the music. Also getting a gun is hard enough in England so you think you could do better then some huge ancient double hammer job. Al least saw it down for cryin' out loud but then again maybe you don't know anything about that.

[–] SteveNZ 15 years ago

I just took a quick look at the board comments on Michael Mann's 2004 Collateral, in which the pixy-ish Tom Cruise plays a hit man, and yet for some reason nobody has complained that tiny Tom lacks menace or isn't sufficiently intimidating. And yet you think Michael Caine isn't tough enough?

I suspect that the failure of many posters on this board to recognize how menacing Michael Caine's performance is in the original Get Carter is a reflection on the youth and inexperience of the posters, or the fundamental politeness of American society, or both. Yeah, Sylvester Stallone would make a pretty intimidating nightclub bouncer, or maybe even a low-level Mafia foot soldier. And how nice for you that you've never encountered anything worse than a steroid-inflated doorman, which may be why you don't mind that in this Get Carter Stallone never gives any suggestion that he's playing a guy who's psychopathically evil, and willing to kill without a second thought.

Which means he's not like Caine's Carter, who improvises a nasty little car accident for the goons who first try to get him out of town, then drags one away for a little "enhanced interrogation'; brutally beats another man senseless and then, when the audience probably thinks he's had enough, hurls him off the roof of a multi-level carpark onto a car-load of kids; hunts down the man who has had sex with his niece/daughter and has a conversation with him that we all know is going to end with him sticking a sharp implement into his liver; and so on. The Brits might know the words but not the music? In this case I'd say Caine is conducting a full orchestra, while Stallone is improvising on a kazoo. (I'm neither British nor American, by the way.)

Stallone's acting is perfunctory, even for him (and you'll note that whereas Caine has two Oscars for acting, Stallone has one acting Oscar nomination and eight Razzies.) My theory is that this is because of the star effect that William Goldman describes in his book Adventures in the Screen Trade. When most actors reach a certain point in their careers they become more concerned with preserving the popularity and value of their image rather than tackling parts that extend them, which means no more really villainous parts. Arnie made his career by playing a completely evil role in the first Terminator film, then never went there again. Robert De Niro never did anything like Travis from Taxi Driver again. Even Al Pacino has never done anything like Tony Montana from Scarface again, and there's plenty of other examples.

Stallone has never played an all-out bad guy to begin with, and wasn't about to play one in 2000, so that means the original Jack Carter was never going to appear in this remake, which therefore could never be anything more than another routine action movie. Like car chases? Shoot-em-ups? Here's Get Carter 2000. Want to know about the complexities of a character who's both pure evil and sympathetic, intelligent and thuggish? You need Get Carter 1971.

I could make some remarks about gun use in the 1971 film compared with the 2000 version but that's enough for now.

[–] taffy_turner 15 years ago

I couldn't have put it better myself and the 1971 original wins on every level.

http://www.myspace.com/taffy1967

[–] silverballs80 18 years ago

The line you quoted is from the original movie, it was re-used in the remake. I'm sure the remake is great if you like stupid, mindless action movies, and judging by your post I can't say I'm surprised you didn't like the original. The original had a subtlety to it that the remake would have been incapable of. The subtlety was one of the things that made the film great, but was never going to appeal to people like you because it's quite obvious from your post that you know nothing about subtlety. You need everything laid out in front of you because anything that is merely implied would go straight over your head. Spoon feeding the audience is what American remakes specialise in, they take the good things from an original movie, then they put them into a format that even stupid people can follow. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

I'd be interested to read any opinion or reply to this post, providing it consists of something more substantial, rational and well rounded than a paraphrase of "Of course the remake was better, JERK, bite me."

See if you can offer a well reasoned argument to substantiate your point of view.

your heartbeat is a countdown.

smile.

[–] shelltoes 18 years ago

you're an idiot.

[–] umph_umlah 17 years ago

are you for real? stallone is the lamest actor ever,btw stop with the childish insults and grow a pair kid

[–] umph_umlah 17 years ago

dumbass ,stallone is lame like u

[–] PUCCINI007 17 years ago

If you think this is better than the original,
I pity you, f u cking retard!!!

[–] richsass 17 years ago

I agree with your comments. I saw the Stallone version and thought it was a good movie with no knowledge of the Caine version. I saw the Caine version on TCM and was not impressed. I find most British movies overrated.

What are you gonna do? Kill me? Every body Dies. John Garfield (Body and Soul)

[–] matt19007 16 years ago

Typical American. Can't think of your own stuff so you nick ours. Stallone did a good job, yes but Caine gave a better performance as Carter. Both films were good and as a Stallone fan, I don't agree with the many people who call the remake crap.

HOWEVER,

You Yanks don't have any imagination and so, Hollywood has to steal a film that 90% of people consider to be a classic just to make some money out of fickle Americans going to worship an action hero like Stallone at the cinema.

[–] matthew-male 15 years ago

Whatever you say *beep* for brains.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CannibalCraig 13 years ago

Wow, you really have no idea what you are talking about. The original Get carter is considered one of the best British films ever made. It was also met with much controversy because of the more relaxed cencorship. They could get away with grittier violence and social commentary that you didn't see much of before hand. The only people that would look into the original Get Carter because of the remake are kids that have no idea of cinema.

Having said all that, I don't think this version is as bad as most people make it out to be. It is entertaining, if not a bit slow in some areas. And Sly is actually rather good as Jack.

I'm just a guy that likes horror flicks.

[–] Stoshie 13 years ago

Wow, calling people "morons" and "retards" certainly convinces people you are right! "Bite me" helps, too!

Wait...no. It shows you don't know *beep* about movies and are unable to rationally defend the piece of crap remake of "Get Carter".

As for Mickey Rourke, he plays the same character in every movie he is in. Same facial expressions, same body movements. He has improved a tiny bit over the years, but overall, his earlier work shows he had no ability to play anything other than one character. "One of the finest actors"? Spit take!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] moxey (141) 8 years ago

"First of all jack-off... it isn't a joke"

It is.

"If it wasn't for Stallone's Get Carter character no one would now what the hell an original Get Carter with Caine was for christ sakes! I mean come on... what are the british...just jealous??"

And yet American filmmaker Quentin Tarantino said Get Carter was his favourite British film and described it as a big influence on him with the crime genre.

American filmmaker Steven Soderbergh made The Limey as an homage to the film because he's a big fan.

And American filmmaker Stanley Kubrick (regarded as one of the greats) named it one of his favourite films. ALL before Stallone made this crap.

Funny rant though.

[–] TheOnlyUHFfan 21 years ago

I haven't seen the original, but I liked the Sly version. I'm probably not a good guage, however, since I also liked Payback (which I liken to Get Carter only because they're both on TBS/USA/TNT all the time and there is a lot of colorless in the cinematography).

Meh...to each his own, but to repeatedly ask someone if they're joking about their opinion is silly.

"I'm telling you, it's jobs. We gotta get jobs. Then we get the khakis. Then we get the chicks."

[–] geedeebee 21 years ago

Bollox. MC's Get Carter is a classic. Stallone isn't fit to lace Mr Caine's shoes. Get real. Get Carter.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gazwilliams2004-1 21 years ago

Come on this movie was shi*te!.Part of of the original worked was because it was set in britain if it had to be remade it should have been seen set in britain .Michael Caaine is really limited as an actor but he totally blows you away in the original,and you could actually understand the plot.

[–] Cider 21 years ago

This film is pitiful, just pitiful. Just another yank rip off of an English classic.

What did the man who invented the drawing board go back to?.....

[–] booyahboy_uk 21 years ago

If the original stank, then this remake wouldn't have happened. Get Carter is one of the defining British gangster films, along with A Long Good Friday; to say this Stallone remake is better when it made absolutley no impact is a bit stupid.

[–] scones_0991 21 years ago

Look here, mate. Get Carter from "-71" was a bona fide classic. The departure by Caine into an incredibly dark, subtle criminal role from the lighthearted ones he played showed him a different light, and it was the revenge film to end all revenge films.

Please say you were joking, 'cos Sly is a poor actor, especially when you compare his Carter to the timeless and brilliant Michael Caine version.

[–] z03fke 21 years ago

yeah the original Get Carter with Michael Caine is superb, sly suck on this ;)

[–] ninfilms 20 years ago

Anybody who thinks Sly's Get Carter is better than Mike Hodges' classic needs their heads examined. Stallone will always be good in the kind of films like Rocky, Copland even Night Hawks. Stallone can't play any evil bastard like Jack Carter, Michael Caine can.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] robert-moore300 20 years ago

Just funny... so funny.

Your a big bloke but your out of shape... For me its a full time job so behave yourself.

[–] agelessstranger 20 years ago

whoo,
i'm glad i found this board about one of my favorite movies. I haven't seen the original Get Carter yet, but I'm sure it'll be better than the remake. There are some memorable performances in this version such as Mickey Rooney and Alan Cumming, but i'm sure Michael Caine is better than Stallone.

I also have to respond to the guy who said Michael Caine does not come across as a tough guy. I dont know man, Caine portrayed a hell of a tough guy in the movie Blood and Wine with Jack Nicholson. And Caine's performance in Quills was most definitely hard edged. Plus the dude is pretty large and looms on the screen pretty easily.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] agelessstranger 20 years ago

Yeah,
my earlier remarks should be disregarded for that enormous slip up. Referring to Mickey Rourke as Mickey Rooney is the ultimate sin for a movie buff and I humbly apologize. Also, you are right to an extent about Michael Caine not being a tough guy. The majority of Caine's roles are non-tough guy, but he can play intimidating very well. Quills comes to mind immediately for one of his intimidating brutal roles. Also, do not write off Blood and Wine, for a lesser known movie it is surprisingly well done, and Caine completely disappears in his role. I'm not sure what you could call that role other than a tough guy role. As for your other comments about the remake being a classic, I most certainly agree that it will gain more respect and cult appeal as the years pass by.

"If it isnt the Vegas man, with the Vegas tan."

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]