A remake better than the original.
I thinks so, I liked it alot, everybody say it stinks but I like it. The Michael Caine version from -71 did stink though.
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Get Carter (2000) Discussion > A remake better than the original.
Those who favour the remake over the original don't know what a real gangster film is and that's not an opinion, it's simply fact, since I have lived in Newcastle all my life I think it's wonderful that such a genre defining picture is set in my home town, unfortunately I wasn't even born when the movie was filmed and released but a lot of the original locations are still standing, mostly notably The High Level Bridge and The Multistorey Car Park In Gateshead, which, sadly is slated to be torn down, although they've been discussing that for years.
The original is fantastic and the remake, though technically good and narritively sound, just can not compare with the original, You have to remember Carter is not a likeable guy, he would kill someone without the least bit remorse and in the remake he bonds with his niece, which I'm sorry to say did not work for me, even if Doreen was played by Rachel Leigh Cook.
"I am Yulaw, I'm nobody's b*tch, you are mine!"
[deleted]
there are only a few remakes that are better than their originals and they are War of the Worlds and walking tall
shareAll of these posts are too long, i cant be bothered to read a longwinded whining message like many of the above, im going to say very briefly why the original GC is arguably brilliant and why this plagiarised rubbish cannot be compared to a british Caine classic like Get Carter.
1) GC 2000 is not original in the slightest, it seems like stallone read the script, cut out all the great one-liners, inserted his own american semi-dramatic scenes such as the snivelling on the roof scene (which made me crack up)
2) Michael Caine is brilliant, NO american remake of ANY british film has EVER been better than the original. Also how can you steal an idea, mess around with it and use techniques that werent available 30 years ago, so that ignorant fools can preach about how much better it is than the original!
3) I had to relieve myself several times throughout the film, as just the thought of Stallone playing Jack Carter seriously made me laugh uncontrollably, i predicted the ending before i saw it, i knew that Stallone's overinflated ego would prevent him from recreating a similar ending in which carter dies, instead we see him give a crooked smile and drive off.
4) There were none of the original lines that gave the real Get Carter its appeal, like "you're a big bloke but your out of shape, i make a full time jo of it, so behave yourself" in place of this Stallone decided to say whilst still snivelling " she trusted you.. and you raped her!", since when was Carter Mr.Sensitivity, he was a hard ruthless b*****d
To quote the tagline "The Truth Hurts"
i agree no american remake has overtaken its british original
shareBy christ how can some speech impediment suffering muscle bound yank with the ugliest mother on the planet actually do a better job than Caine. This thread is a load of wank.
I...am an enchanter. There are some who call me...Tim.
lol. i recall an earlier posting which said "what are the brits..jealous", or words to that effect, well yes i suppose we're jealous that some incoherent plagiarist who purports to be an "actor" i.e. Stallone was able to take a great film like Get Carter, cut out everything that made it good, add a few of his own pathetic influences while sh*tting on the entire film, use modern film effects that wernt available at the time and call it a film. I'm sorry but one thing some of us are definitely guilty of is quality film making and cynacism (thats a bit of a big word, you may need a dictionary)
shareSo...can Goodyear not say they make a better tire than the original wheel because they have technology available to them that wasn't around when the first wheel was invented? That's dumb.
And if the thought of Stallone playing Get Carter made you laugh so much that you had to pee numerous times...why did you bother seeing it? Did you not know it was Stallone playing him?
And why complain about how long the posts are...and then make one as long as the longest one on the board?
"I'm telling you, it's jobs. We gotta get jobs. Then we get the khakis. Then we get the chicks."
Good point, however i was talking about films and not tyres, i was saying that a film made 30 years ago is BETTER than one which relies on modern technology and a big budget. The point that i was trying to get across was that the criteria for a decent film is a strong cast i.e. michael caine etc, and not some tiny wannabe with a twisted mouth. How you managed to equate the comparison between two films to tyres i dont know.
The incontenance comment was just a joke but i did honestly find the stallone version funny where it was intended to be serious if not compelling e.g. "she trusted you, and you raped her", chokes a snivelling stallone.
About my long post, youre right it was longer than i expected but everything i wrote was justified not just some american post preaching about how a plagiarised film can beat the original.
It's not plagiarism when there's consent. And you can't possibly think that the "remake" is an American invention. It has nothing to do with nationality and to bring that into the discussion is ignorant and I know you weren't the one to introduce it, but you perpetuated it.
It was easy to compare tires to films. It was an allegory, where you compare two things that are not similar.
And justified or not, the length of your post makes your criticism of others' look stupid.
"I'm telling you, it's jobs. We gotta get jobs. Then we get the khakis. Then we get the chicks."
I just saw the original. Never bothered seeing the second one. I thought it was awesome. One thing I think is important for Caine's character is he's a real ladykiller. He's a very sexual creature, and all of Caine's charm works for that. He is also a calculated killer (duh). And when he first arrives in Newcastle, he's treated like any outsider, until he starts shaking things up.
While viewing the first movie made me curious about the second, something bothers me quite a bit about Stallone. I'm not talking about the Sylvester Stallone who wrote a movie called "Rocky" that ended up being the surprise win of 1976, or the Stallone who started a similar franchise with "First Blood." But the Stallone of today is ugly, disfigured by plastic surgery, and his arms are bigger than his head. In short, a guy like Stallone would stick out like a sore thumb. Sure, he's a tough guy, but does he still have that charm that can make women want to get into bed with him? Hell, I din't know if he had it back when he got big. He's more of a bull than a lion.
I may still watch the movie to see what's different. If they kept the kiddie-porn twist or not. All that. And I like Mickey Rourke. I imagine he makes a good Eric. Even before I saw either, I kept thinking why would Stallone think he could do Caine? If he did a remake of a Charles Bronson movie, so be it, but Michael Caine?
Why is everyone getting so worked up over this? MattiasH is obviously taking the piss, no one is actualy so stupid to think that the 2000 is better than the 71 Get Carter.
shareThe original USA remake, Hitman, is on the same fantastic level as the Caine Get Carter. Both are highly regarded by film critics from both sided of the atlantic. I don not have any problems with Americans, or the films you produce. But quite simply the 2000 remake of Get Carter is one of the poorest films ive seen and most people agree. As for know one knowing what it was before the remake, it dosent make it any less of a great film.
shareMichael Caine was sporting some very flaccid love-handles and a sunken and wimpy chest in the 71' Get Carter. Stallone, however, was muscular and cut. Caine was far too flabby and pasty to pass for a hitman.
You Brits are hostile and jealous and herald your 1971 'Get Carter" with greusome effrontery. Caine at the time was only 37 years of age and looked wrinkled and puffy. Stallone was 54 and in far better physical condition. Get real you losers! It's the truth. Deal with it.
Since when did American films imitate or remake British films. Some of you posters act as if American films did it on a regular basis. Not to my knowledge. Maybe the British persuasion is paranoid and they feel the need to knock off anything that is American.
share[deleted]
of course u can like the 2000 remake, i personally think its an ok movie. also i think sly has made a very big impact on movies in general, look at rocky and rambo. rocky 1 is a cult movie and to think sly himself wrote the script in under a week (i am open to be corrected upon this info) in such simple and to the point manner deserves credit.
of course caine and sly r 2 totally different actors and the 2 carter movies 2 totally different movies, in style and setting as well as in pace and action.
i personally prefer the 71 caine version. i prefer his subtle toughness (real tough guys don't wave their 44 magnum around all the time and wear sunglases at night) but again this might also be a cultural difference. american movies, especially the newer ones tend to be big, blow up, tough rapper style movies (xxx 1 & 2) being a very good example of that.
i never liked those kind of movies and for me a good actor is someone who tells u to get *beep* only with his eyes, his expression, more than with obvious crude actions.
but everyone is entitled to his own opionion - mine being that i prefer caines carter.
“Michael Caine was sporting some very flaccid love-handles and a sunken and wimpy chest in the 71' Get Carter. Stallone, however, was muscular and cut. Caine was far too flabby and pasty to pass for a hitman.
You Brits are hostile and jealous and herald your 1971 'Get Carter" with greusome effrontery. Caine at the time was only 37 years of age and looked wrinkled and puffy. Stallone was 54 and in far better physical condition. Get real you losers! It's the truth. Deal with it.”
Cain was playing a gangster not a hitman, also Capone wasn’t anything like Stallone but got the business done, a great deal of gangsters are not built like Stallone. I’ve known quite a lot of thugs that you would never think were anything special (one was skinny as *beep*) until you see them get down to it.
As for the 2000 version better than the 1971 version, utter tosh! maybe American's can't relate to 1970's Newcastle life but that's not a mistake of the movie.
http://www.maverick-media.co.uk
[deleted]
[deleted]
Caine wasnt believable!! and Stallone really held the film together then?!
shareLets recall something here, Hollywood are the ones remaking films, i havent seen a british remake of a film YET, with the exception of Mean Machine. Anyone care to enlighten me further?
This film sucked, GET CARTER, the original, is and always WILL be the better film. Unless is remade once more starring Michael Caine as carter, nothing will ever beat it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
"The original "Get Carter" sucks big time and no one's ever really heard of it! LOL!"
I think you'll find most mature Britsh people have heard of Get Carter as it is a classic British movie, if not younger people. Get Carter (2000) will never attain the standing that the original has.
http://www.maverick-media.co.uk
[deleted]
"There have been excellent British films! That's for sure, but if "Get Carter" is one of Britain's film classics, then it was put on the list by mistake! I DON'T see this film as being any type of classic. Neither versions really have much of a standing"
British Film Inistitute top 100 #16. Get Carter (1971), mistake, I think not.
"Stallone's "Get Carter" did much better business at box-offices worldwide!"
That means nothing other than it had a wider cinema release because it's American.
http://www.maverick-media.co.uk
[deleted]
I saw the remake of Get Carter a few years ago and don't even remember the film. I recall thinking that it was an awful movie and I'm sure this is the reason it did not leave a lasting imprint. I viewed the original Get Carter quite recently and was left in a momentary state of shock. The film was brilliant. It was a revenge tragedy down to the last scene. Michael Caine's performance was key to the success of the film. His cool calmness, interuppted by quick shocking violence was too say the least unsettling. Mike Hodges, the director of the 1971 version, intended the film to be a realistic portrayal of the british underworld of the time. The predominate view of Britian was that the swinging sixties had led to a time of vast abundnance. The realities were quite different. With the rise of the British underworld and the subsequent trials of the Richardson mob and later the Kray twins a revival of the British Crime film was made possible. If you are interested in the genre you must see the film "Performance" which merges the mythology of the gangster with the pop star and is another edgy Crime film of the era. Get Carter focuses on the gritty, debilitating world of Newcastle. It is important to note that the film can also be seen as a document of an era long past. Most of the areas that were filmed have been completely re-born, soon after the filming, and the debilitated areas are presumably no more. I think the vote is out on wether or not the film is a classic. Yes, it indeed is. It is hailed as the greatest british crime film ever made. If you were left feeling bleak and empty at the end of the film I think that was the intention. However, in todays culture of the aggresive male, overcompensating over there own fears of masculinity, I am not suprised that there is an argument over wether or not Stallone is a better Carter. If you are interested in gangsters, I suggest that you do a brief investigation of the history of gangsters and I think you'll be surprised at what you find. The most threatening of all gangsters is the small, quiet, brooding type who knows he is part of a business, a business of violence. The sociopath scares the hell out of me. And Caine embodies that image in the film.
I find it almost sad that a discussion like this exists. It would be much more interesting to compare Get Carter to the Western Genre.
Thanks
I just wanted to point out that Get Carter did well in the British Box office. However, in America it didn't do quite so good. There are various reasons. One being the time it was released, two a vast heat wave was present at the release time, and the American release was plagued with awful dubbing at the opening.
Thanks
[deleted]
My guess that the original doesn't get apreciated as much as the remake in the States is the fact that there is no happy ending to it. For me the original is a classic of its time and should not have been remade as an American poor mans imitation. Just like it was a travasty to remake the italian job, why oh why can film makers leave the originals alone, can't they think of any original new ideas for films??.
shareIm from America and the original was way better
the original had more sex and violence
Caine was amazing scary as hell one of the biggest bad asses
of all time in this movie
Sly sucked, he was a pussy
the action was horrible
Army had half-day
Put simply, these are two entirely different films and the word "remake" should never have been used. For a certain audience, the Stallone film is decent entertainment, but MC's character in the Caine film is truly frightening and quite a departure from what he'd done before. It doesn't take physique or a growling voice to make a true hard-man - just attitude - and Caine's Jack Carter had that in spades. It's a difficult transition, but I feel that the stark NE England locations gave ".. Carter" the same gritty realism as the New York sets in "On the Waterfront" - now THAT was a seriously effective film!
There's real life ... and then there's films!
spaceace knows what hes talkin about.......caine was way cooler an more of a badass....stallone=pussy sh*t
sharepeople keep saying stallone had a better physique, since when is 5 foot 6 a great stature, caine might not have been mr universe but at least he had a height and presence that could intimidate people (remember that in the real world not everyone is a bodybuilder) and stallone cant act for sh!t
share[deleted]
He wrote Rocky!!! A good actor isnt only good in films he writes for himself!! Sylvester Stalone is an entertainer. as a huge action movie fan i love stalone, i think many of his films are the best in the genre. however he is NOT a good actor. he is just well cast. im an actor and try to take roles that i think are out of my range. a good actor challenges themself with every role they play. Gary Oldman that a F*c*i*g actor love.
sharebeing 5 foot 7 myself. i find it insulting that you think short people are less scary than tall people build has alot to with it. no stallone isnt a good actor. but seriously would you fight him? id take my chances with Caine personaly.
i must say ive only seen the original which i think is exlelant. however i think alot of people on this thread are missing the point it isnt about how scary you look or how much of a tough guy you are its what your capable of. that is makes a character truly frightening!
[deleted]
(holds head in hands and sighs deeply) I say, defend this and announce to the world that you have no clue about cinema.
shareyes and th u boat hae got be real
with all the new war planes. you have to be real.
got to be real if you want people in the armed forces to appreciate the work
The original kicks the ass of the remake x1000
shareWow I can't believe how far this debate has gone and yes the original is the definite version and just proves America can't touch Britain when it comes to making ground breaking movies.
Oh and the remake is utter *beep* in comparison and even if there hadn't been a far superior version made in the early 1970's, this film starring Sylvester Stallone would still stink anyway!
"You're Only Supposed To Blow The Bloody Doors Off!"