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.
shareI thinks so, I liked it alot, everybody say it stinks but I like it. The Michael Caine version from -71 did stink though.
shareIn the original, Carter was played by Caine as a gangster really probably is - a psychotic individual who you really would not want to know. He kills people. Not heroically. He shoots, he stabs, he lethally injects. He subjects women and anyone who helps him out to horrible treatment, or he just doesn't care at their fate. Lookat what happens when Keith gets beaten senseless. He doesn't care. This is what a gangster is. There's no honour or any of that mysticism that people try to put around them.
In the remake, Carter is softened so that he can be a hero and that people will sympathise with him. But in doing so, they ruin the character. They crying scene for example... terrible. the best line in the original "You're a big man, but you're out of shape. For me... it's a full time job" is totally thrown away in the remake by Stallone (who by the way I do respect a great deal. One day I genuinely hope that he will be considered more an actor and writer than just a muscleman).
Basically, you can like either film. But to say the other is total crap, is just being base. The original is very realistic in it's depiction of that world. You wouldn't want to be a part of it. It's because of this that perhaps it never went down too well in America. That's fair enough. The Brits can't stand Independence Day for a similar reason. The remake is an action revenge thriller. And not a bad one. If you compare the two... it dosn't work.
Personally, I think no remake can ever be better than the original. It can offer new ideas maybe, but usurping it as a better film... I've yet to see one remake better than the original. Feel free to correct me if you want. I look forward to the debate :)
Please, no angry shouting or trolling though. We're all films fans here.
[deleted]
I didn't think much of the remake. Doesn't come close to the British film in terms of the actors, screenplay and most importantly the locations that you see in the original. You can't beat the dreary north of England for a good depressing scene of murder and revenge.
It's a shame this thread started off as battle of UK vs US, I don't think it boils down to that. I think British films are often remade in America because many people stateside might not be able to appreciate the times, places, music fashion and whatever else that occur in older British movies. That is not to say it was ever better than anything America has seen, just different thats all. Sometimes storys need updating for newer generations. I think it just so happened that this update lost much of the feeling and atmosphere of the original as remake's so often do because not enough care and attention is given to make up for the fact that the story is being relocated to a different time and place.
Another prime example of this is The Wicker Man. I have no objections to British films being remade by Americans or vice versa. Just for *beep* sake do a decent job of it and don't cast Nicholas (can't act for peanuts) Cage in them lol.
Then you have a wonderful choice of other great movies you'll also like
http://www.imdb.com/chart/bottom
>>I've yet to see one remake better than the original.<<
I can think of only one superior remake. 'The Maltese Falcon' with Bogart was better than the first try in the early 30's. Can't remember the leading man in that one, but is was hokey.
As a kid, I was lucky enough to see Caine's Carter in the big screen over and over. (I was an usher in a–mostly empty–Chicago movie house at the time) I gotta side with the Brits in this debate. The original was far superior. It was a more than just a revenge story, with a more convincing morality tale tied on. The original ending twisted me around completely. Feel sorry for Carter/not feel sorry for Carter.. which one these?!
I`m not gonna say anything about the original (I don`t think that we should go on and on comparing these two movies), but I liked the remake.
What are you talking about? He's a reed. You push him and... and he bends.
"City Hall"
You have no idea about films. Literally.
The original was worth making; this wasn't.
--------
Idea for a programme, Free Spirits. No actually, change that to Bad Attitude!
Um, no.
Old McDonald was dyslexic, eoioe.
Well like someone who reviewed the original 1971 classic said:-
They wanted a gangster film, but it's more than that, a whole lot more. Either way, whether you love it, like it or have never seen it before, it's always worth dusting off and taking a look at the film behind the myth. The myth is seductive. The film is better.
[deleted]
The original was better, the remake wasn't as horrible as everyone thinks.
Here's my rating:
1971 Original: 8.2
2000 Remake: 6.2
It's not a lie if you believe it.
If the 2000 version had come out with a different title and main character name - it would have been praised as Sly's return. It was very different from the original. Only a few plot lines and one line of dialogue link the two beside that.
It was just that this pissed on the original version - according to some people.
Note, though - Get Carter has been remade numerous times. The one official one is "Hit Man." Several others follow it - notably, The Limey, Four Brothers, a lot of the Donald Westlake "Parker novels" have been transformed into similar stories for film, and - distantly - Shiner.
Caine version is much better. Stallone though wasn't the thing that sucked in this film. Director and editor tried too hard to make it look "cool" and it had not the rhytm....Annoying, Screenwriting wasn't that good either.
shareEven Stallone admits it was a bad film on AICN just recently.
sharewhile i haven't seen the remake i can say that the original is excellent. however being a brit i find it just as irritating to read comments like: britian makes the best films, or americans are jealous of british films. As a few comments have noted, get carter is a genre film, the original uses it's unusual location to it's advantage, and the against-type casting of Caine to great affect.
is it really necessary to lower the debate/converstion/arguement into such meaningless xenophobia.
I liked both versions, true the Sly version was a much tamer hollywood version. But they both had there strengths. I thought the original was definitly more gritty and better acted, but that is because of the times. In the older films they had to be well acted to be any good because there were no special effects and the cinematography is'nt as good as todays standards. It was all up to the plot and acting to make a great movie. and the remake relied on the screen presence of Sly his $5,000 suits and muscles. They made him more of a good guy in that version so audiences would sympathize with him and make him a character worth rooting for. Which definitly tamed it down but thats what most Americans want to see in their movies. Now I'm American but I do tilt my hat to the Britians. Their acting abilities are far superior compared to most American actors and most of their movies rely on great plot. Which I wish more American films would pay more attention to. I would like more plot instead of just action and special effects in our films. That being said there are a few American movies with great plots. Lucky Number Slevin, Casino, and Inside Man to name a few. Which by the way Clive Owen kicks ass in. He is slowly becoming on of my favorite actors in cinema today I wish they could have gotten him to play James Bond instead of Daniel Craig although Craig did a decent job. Well any way I'm way off topic. I just don't see why Americans and Britians can't get along we each have our strengths and weaknesses in the world of cinema and we shouldn't fight about our differences we should embrace each other and learn from each other. Thats what I have to say about that.
shareThere have been special effects as long as there have been film making. Of course they were not computer generated. It was though harder to hide a mediocre movie under specisl effects.
shareI just don't see why Americans and Britians can't get along we each have our strengths and weaknesses in the world of cinema and we shouldn't fight about our differences we should embrace each other and learn from each other.
Yeah Taffy I think your right I really wish there would be more films coming out of Britian. Because I usually enjoy the majority of them. I also agree that Hollywood has come out with a lot of crap in the last decade. I seriously think Hollywood has run out of ideas and thats why we see so many remakes. There are very few fresh ideas coming out of Hollywood anymore. You usually have to watch indie films to get anything interesting. I just wish the Hollywood writers would pull their heads out of their fat a$$'s and come up with something original.
Mr. Goodkat: F#*K, S#*T, Jesus' is right.
The original Get Carter is a hard hitting gangster film about a cold, ruthless killer; it doesn't end happy. While the remake is a slick, flashy film about an amiable tough guy and has a happy ending.
Stallone was actually quite good in the remake, but the film simply wasn't as consistent as the original and he wasn't playing the same sort of character at all.
It was a mistake to link it to Mike Hodges' original since the two are polar opposites. With a few tweaks more the film might have stood on it's own as a solid if unremarkable crime film.
Alan Cumming is annoyingly terrible in the remake though; I wanted Stallone to knife his character and throw him off a car park! If only cumming had been in the original Caine would have surely finished him off; why Stallone spares him is beyond me as its cummings worst performance along with Goldeneye.
the film does not seem like a remake to me (thats right!) it seeems more like a movie with a similar plot. now im not gonna go getting all angry and say "americans remake everything ah-wah-wah!" no, im not but i will say that the overall tone of the movie is different, the remake being more "flashy" but i feel that the original is a film that i can really get into, and caine was amazing to watch, IMO. we have thiis same sort of argumen, me and my friends, about "the godfather" and "the sopranos" and some of them insist that "just because something is the original of its kind, dosent mean its the better one" and i say "that isnt my point, although the godfather is clearly infinately greater than the sopranos (IMO) but hey thats just what i think, and i also prefer the original get carter because of the overall tone of the movie.
whats worse than biting into an apple and seeing a maggot?? getting raped - jimmy carr
Both had their own merits in their own time. Caine rules in the original and is a by-product in the remake. But there Sly rules. George Sewall and John C McGinley as Con? Total equality. I enjoyed both but being born in 1963, the 2000 remake was the version I prefer simply because it was more modern. But I went back and saw the original and was stunned at it's tenacity.
shareThe original 'Get Carter' was a landmark film in many ways. It gave Michael Caine one of his best roles and a chance to toy with a character totally different to the laddish charmers he played in 'Alfie' and 'The Italian Job'. It was dark, stylish, savage and so tightly plotted and played that it has, to this day, lost none of it's power. The cast, especially Caine, Ian Hendry and John Osbourne were all superb. Carter was a total bastard and should have been played as such. To make him a redemptive character removed any kind of realism and really showed how sickeningly sentimental and unreal American films can be.
Stallone's remake was the usual souless, pedestrian, pointless *beep* we expect from Hollywood. Like 'The Italian Job' and 'The Wicker Man', it was made by half-wits who had NO idea what made the original so good. To argue that the remake made more money is irrelevant (but a typically American argument; however for your info the remake of Get Carter was considered SO BAD that is was never released in Britain or many other countries).
The fact that Stallone's *beep* re-make has pretty much disappeared without trace, while the brilliant original has had cinema re-releases, DVD special editions and rides high in many a 'Best Films' list is the proof in the pudding. If you don't like that fact, tough *beep* Caine rules, Stallone sucks. That's the way things always have been and thats the way things always will be.
[deleted]
It was pretty damn lame. By no means the worst movie I've ever seen, and it probably gets some extra hate by comparison to the original, but all in all it's pretty forgettable.
origanal is better but i like the new one to
shareThe 1971 "Get Carter,"was a masterpiece!What in the world are you talking about?
As much as I love Stallone and Rourke,I must say that the young virile Michael Caine's version is a classic.
[deleted]
please go die
shareOh dear touched a raw nerve have I, why don't you go and reach puberty and then grow up!
"You're Only Supposed To Blow The Bloody Doors Off!"
I never dared to think that such a comparison thread would ever open in this place.
Comparing the original masterpiece with Michael Caine with this joke remake featuring Stallone is as serious as comparing the Godfather trilogy with the X Men and Spiderman series.
Hope Michael Caine doesnt visit this website otherwise he will commit suicide after reading all this.
I'm sure old Cainey has got used to 10th rate remakes of his originals. I mean, if The Italian Job and Alfie didn't push him over the edge I doubt this would.
'Culture, sophistication, a little bit more than an 'ot dog' You said it Bob!
The mere thought that this glossy american excuse of a remake could possibly be better than the groundbreaking original is nothing short of ridiculous. As many have pointed out, the 1971 version stands today as a classic, and is regularly voted by critics and the public as one of the greatest movies of all time, whereas the Hollywood version has almost already been forgotten. It removes the subtlety, tension and class that made Caine's version so great and replaces it with predictable American "action"(that idiots can relate to), thereby completely taking away the essence of the film.
I'm 17, and all of my friends and i are firmly against the notion that young people should prefer 'modern' films. A film should be rated on merit and quality - and when the two are compared on these grounds there is literally no comparison.
The original told the story first, but what film entertains me more? The remake
Why
Because I like Stallone
I like the soundtrack
I like alot of scenes in the film, it may not be groundbreaking, but I don't watch films to look for groundbreaking material, if it entertains me, then job done.
I love the remake.
Lol! Joke topic!
sharehow did anyone think that the remake is better.
I read some people thought Caine didn't look terrifying enough. BOLLOCKS! This is the best performance I've seen him give. He personifies brutality and captured the violent English gangster perfectly.
I read in a review (someone else agreed, I think Empire) that in 1971 3 classic films were released 1) Dirty Harry
2) The French Connection
3) Get Carter
THIS TOPIC SHOULDN'T EXIST
[deleted]
i both the orginal verions of get carter
i like them both as they both good