MovieChat Forums > Get Carter (2000) Discussion > Remake V Original

Remake V Original

posted 21 years ago by markymarky
27 replies | jump to latest

I must say two things before I start this thread :
1. I saw Stallone's version BEFORE the original
2. I am a Stallone fan and not a Caine fan.

However - I will try to be fair to all.

Remake - I thought it was okay. Nothing great, nothing terrible. The story was a little muddled at times and the pacing a tad slow. But I thought Sly did well with what he had to do and some of the camerawork etc. was nice and fresh. Rourke is always worth a watch too, as is McGinley. It is by no means a classic but better than the 4.7 rating it has received also.

Original - I watched the 1971 original last night for the first time and it was this that prompted me to write on this message board. The first few minutes of the film were good and once I got into the pacing and style of the movie - I expected great things to follow. But in my opinion, nothing followed. The movie for me got bogged down in tedious scenes which never moved me as it thought it should. Maybe my expectations were too high going into this as I expected it to be far greater in substance and style than the remake. But to me - it simply didn't measure up. Caine's smug, stoic style just bored me after a while and I admit to turning the film off after an hour.

I know this may not go down well with other reviewers here on this site but how the original was ever considered a classic is beyond me.

[–] Shempz 21 years ago

I bet you enjoyed Daylight & The Specialist as well!!!!!

[–] ninfilms 21 years ago

The original is the best, what I like about the original Get Carter you see something in the film. It was well acted, well directed and well written. What was brilliant about the original is Jack Carter was a psychopath and he knew it.

The problem with the remake is getting Stallone to play Carter, he was the wrong actor for the film. It like getting Michael Caine to play Rocky with a Cockney accent. Also Stallone made his character more subtle, which didn't work.

As I said the original kicks ass. Anybody who thinks the remake is better must go and watch decent films.

[–] Ramden 21 years ago

There's no doubt that the original is far better than the remake. The remake is descent, but what really bothers me about the movie is haw nice Stallone is. In the original Caine never really cared about anyone. He just slipped his orphaned niece a couple of pounds, and never saw her again. Unlike Stallone who becomes somewhat of a father figure for her.
Also the remake seems to be more about style than story. The original has sort af a documentary feel to it. The Stallone version just looks like a music video.

Anyway... that's just one guys opinion.

[–] ivanziv-1 20 years ago

" I admit to turning the film off after an hour " ( !!! )
" How the original was ever considered a classic is beyond me " ( !!!!!!!!!! )

Watch the WHOLE original first and only THEN post your opinion, dummy .

Anyway, it's official now, as stated on IMDB news section : " The worst remake ever made - Get Carter " .

Michael Caine forever !!!

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mercury4 20 years ago

I think they're both good movies. In the remake he's a hero and a likable guy. But when you get into the original it's a whole different ball game. In the original he is a cold-blooded killer. He also kills a lot more people then in the remake. In the remake Jack's brother's girl on the side is killed with something in a needle and it's done by one of the bad guys. In the original Carter does it. In the original Carter brutally stabbs Thorpey, but in the remake he lets him live. When you watch them they basically have the same dialogue. People made fun of the cat piss in the snow line spoken by Stallone, but it was taken from the original. The characters are changed around a lot too. Instead of throwing Brumby off a building he throws Eddie off. Mickey Rourke's character is Cyrus instead of Eric. In the remake Kinear is a little loser, but in the original he is the head honcho of the bad guys and way worse. In the original we have a cold-blooded killer that kills a lot more people. In the remake we have a more sympathetic Jack Carter that feels remorse. What do you expect when Sylvester Stallone is in the lead? He'll never play a hateful character. Has he ever?

[–] The_Troublemaker 20 years ago

It was after long time i saw Stallone in a really good role. I have seen both and for the first time i love this remake. Stallone was more of a human then Caine. I´m a fan of both and I did hope that Stallone never did the remake. I hate remake´s. But Get Carter 2000 was surprisly good act and direct.

Get Carter Stallone 9/10
Cet Carter Caine 6/10

Box office figures:
Domestic($M)_Worldwide($M)
M:I1____181______286
M:I2____215______330

[–] funkysatchmo 19 years ago

You idiot, have you ever heard of inflation in 30 years!?

The original is far superior and the remake is just yet another typical example of something classic spoilt by Americanization.. AGAIN.

[–] sundodger-1 19 years ago

Those box office figures are for Mission Impossible I & II. Stallone's Get Carter was a bomb. It only made $15 million against a budget of $40 million.

[–] Go_Team_Burton 19 years ago

I don't know how Mission Impossible plays into Get Carter exactly, but the reason the second one made more money was because it didn't piss off as many people as the first one. I mean, let's face it, Jim Phelps would have NEVER gone bad. It was a typical Tom Cruise-ism where he wanted his own character because he was too good to play the original. Why do you think Peter Graves wasn't asked to reprise his role? Because they knew he'd never do this bastardization.

As for that, the second one was awesome. The third one looks like it'll be hella-cool too.

[–] cosmicly 19 years ago

Two big differences between the original version of Get Carter and the remake:

1) Stallone is a very good action hero, but Michael Caine is a great actor.

2) The ending of the original is extremely powerful, and reinforces the theme that "If you live by the sword, you die by the sword." But Stallone's macho image would never have allowed the same ending. He may not have to win them all, but the worst he can accept is a draw. There is too much "Rocky" in him to accept a loss, even from Death which always has the last word.

The remake is okay for Stallone fans, and action movie fans, but the original is a much, much better movie.

Not to mention that the music in the original is hauntingly lyrical, while the music in the remake is just plain annoying.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MrMacBeth 19 years ago

The original is a cult classic because the story unfolds from a man returning to his hometown to attend a funeral suddenly becoming a remorseless pyscopathic gangster determined to enact revenge. This has a very different ending to Slys version.
I liked Stallones version - it definately doesn't merit a 4.7 more like a 7.

[–] Hornsmith 19 years ago

I’ve just made a point of watching the remake on TV. I like a lot of Stallone’s films; he’s quite an honest performer compared to later idiots like Affleck. I sat down determined to enjoy it, grabbed a beer... what a travesty!
Judged on its own, not a wholly bad film; but it chose to be measured against a great one. It therefore is an irrelevance; there are so many things wrong with it.
It chose to take certain areas from the original story- character names such as Doreen and Thorpey- neither very American-sounding; yet Eric becomes ‘Cyrus’. Cliff Brumby becomes a completely different person. The hinted dropping of Eddie (rather than Brumby) over the balcony (was this edited for TV?) is another bottling out- the original dumping (of a tubby, believable, soon-to-be soap opera stalwart) from the multi-storey car park is by far stronger.
The Cyrus character seems to be a vanity part, for poor Mickey Rourke to do his “I’m a boxer, really” thing. It was also pointless to have a ‘Kinnear’ character that bore no relation to the John Osborne original.
The remake’s flashy editing and jump cuts work quite well- but the original had a raw power and imagination, never needing to resort to tricks. At least, perhaps, the brilliant Roy Budd sountrack should have earned a few pennies for his estate.
I gather some new viewers didn’t bother to stay with the original until the end- that says so much, I won’t bother to comment, beyond saying, do try again, the subtle revenge Jack takes with the real Kinnear and with Eric are worth it.
The remake’s ending might as well be from Kramer vs Kramer- all hugs and tinkly piano. Not quite right, again.

[–] ixnay-7 19 years ago

Yes, I watched it last night on TV. Well, I didnt actually finish watching it - it was so dull and pointless. There was no compulsion to the film - none of the characters had any presence and I just didnt care about any of them, nor even know who they were half the time. The plot and the people had been messed with to a point where it just seemed like a bad episode of a cruddy TV cop program. It had no class, no grit, no intelligence.
I really dont understand why it was made at all. Why take a perfectly good film - a classic in fact, and change it? Why keep some of the charecter names and then totally change their vibe and role? Its just nonsense. If you have seen and like the original just dont bother.

[–] etepdissonus 19 years ago

"The remake is descent..." - The irony of this spelling mistake says it all. ;)

[–] neil_mc 19 years ago

The remake's not fit to wipe the original's arse.

Stallone = pathetic and I had my head in my hands when he and Rourke were fighting in a Rocky-esque manner at the end. I am embarassed for the filmmakers. Dreadful stuff.

"Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try."

[–] Reilly_4 19 years ago

if you changed the name of the film and that of the characters, in could be a half decent american revenge drama. but compared to the 71 version, its a bogey on the tissue of the original! god knows why caine wanted to appear in this version though.

What's that? You just called me a bastard didn't you!

[–] rms6859 19 years ago

I think this remake of a movie is kinda being viewed like when a music band dose a cover of an old classic. I think they both fall in the same catagories. Sometimes a person will love an old classic song so much where it has so much sentimental value to them, that no matter how good the cover is, to them nothing will ever superseade the original.

I have obserd alot of the same things everyone else has. Caines Carter is more trigger happy and dose kill more people. Whilst Stallones Carter at the end is somewhat becoming repentent. But on the other side of the coin, i think stallone is better at playing a hardman than Caine is. And the director of the remake certainly beats socks of the original director.

Now someone said Caines Carter is more emotionless than Stallones one. But Stallones Carter dosent lustfully get his end away on 2 occasions like Caines did. Also i thought Caines Carter joked about a bit more. So it swings about in both ways. I think the main motive for Caines Carter killing Margret was because she tried to set him up, more than anything else. I dont think Frank Carters woman in the remake ever tried to set Stallones Carter up.

I found the storyline harder to follow in the original. If i hadent seen the remake first, i might not of had a clue what was going on most of the time when i watched the original

[–] plonkman 19 years ago

Then perhaps you should switch back to sesame street and the teletubbies. Its easier for you.

[–] tkd_master 19 years ago

I remember the 1971 version had tons of nudity. Is this true in the 2000 version?

[–] mannishboi 19 years ago

original is way better....no doubt, caine was a badass.

[–] nicos_way 19 years ago

i actually think that this is one of stallone's best. with all due respect to the original which i haven't seen, i liked Get Carter 2000. i mean, stallone doesn't play the invincible über-action hero but a human with emotions who kicks some serious booty. there is no doubt that caine is the better actor, but stallone isn't bad either (proof: rocky, copland)

--
nothing is real if you don't believe in who you are

[–] taffy_turner 19 years ago

Well for nudity you do see a few shots of the back of Stallone's hand and that's about it really, so ere no!

"You're Only Supposed To Blow The Bloody Doors Off!"

[–] umma-ohz 18 years ago

Caine's smug, stoic style just bored me after a while and I admit to turning the film off after an hour.

Caine himself does not come across as smug, but Jack Carter is supposed to be a nasty piece of work, and I think he pulls him off nicely with realism.

Also, its pretty hard to have a solid opinion of a film like 'Get Carter' without actually watching all of it. You really should go back and watch it again throughout, plus the closing scenes are pretty striking.

-----------
Now, a question of etiquette - as I pass, do I give you the ass or the crotch?

[–] taffy_turner 18 years ago

Yes I agree with that, you can't really comment until you've watched it all!

"You're Only Supposed To Blow The Bloody Doors Off!"