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 soap opera hugs and tinkly piano. Not quite right, again.
reply
share
19 years ago
[deleted]
ray-irnhorn
19 years ago
Just saw the movie for the first time, being a big stallone fan I can't believe I hadn't seen it before - probably cause of all the negative press it got - did everyone jump on the band wagon to rip this film to shreads or what!? Very cool movie. Both films may have been based on the same source material, the book "Jack's Return Home" but they are so so different, you can hardly compare them! I actually wish they had called the Stallone version something else to avoid the inevitable comparisons. Nothing wrong with a remake if its a different interpetation of a story and not just a lazy by the numbers attempt to score a hit.
reply
share
AngryAfghan
19 years ago
Correction: the ORIGINAL is underrated, the stallone version doesnt deserve all the praise its had. Ray-irnhorn; you are correct in saying that they are both from the same book, but the original was a more honest, straigh forward film, i really enjoyed the perfomance by Caine whereas Stallone was just dissapointing, he couldnt hold the role together, he got all emotional where the real Jack Carter would have been angry and ruthless.
I have nothing against it as an american film, had it been gene hackman in the role of carter, similar to his french connection performance i would have enjoyed the film.
reply
share
flatbushtiger
19 years ago
While I agree the 2000 version is not as bad as some like to make out, the original is a 9/10.
Stalone had me convinced, rourke had me convinced, and the Con character was fantastic. The script just sucked my ass. You had a great crew for Get C (2000) and it just didn't work as a dramatic, gangster, thriller. But it was what it was. And I enjoyed it. In fact I have it on the way from Netflix.
On a side note. Stalone was definately on steroids. HE IS HUGE IN THIS FILM. I was blown away. From what I hear though I guess he's a little guy. Probably easy for him to put on weight.
If you havn't seen either, see'em both.
reply
share
imbluzclooby
19 years ago
The 2000 Get Carter made Jack more likeable and you understood his actions more. I was even more charmed by the moments he had with his neice as compared to the dour portrayal in 1971. Jack should be a nice guy with a tough background. Not a psychopathic killer. The Caine version had you doubting this guy's actions. Why would a known gangster go on a rampage without any discretion and indiscriminately bully anyone he thought knew about his brother's death. It was a revege tale that lost control and got swept up in the "hate formula". Caine's Carter was so despicable and hateful that you couldn't wait for him to get crushed. Stallone's Carter had us liking and rooting for him.
reply
share
SarcasticSatire
19 years ago
Agreed on all accounts. Absolutely loved the 2000 GC. What I loved most about the 2000 GC is how relatable the characters are (as opposed to the 71' original). The characters are all very believeable & are very easy to relate to. This is one of Stallone's better (but highly underappreciated) roles/films.
The Michael Caine GC was alright (though, I prefer the Stallone remake over it). What's with all the hate? I suppose those who adored the original & despise the remake, were expecting some "action" (plenty in which the original had) & I'm not referring to "action" in the sense of fighting.
reply
share
Bonifacij
19 years ago
Thats the point of the original, i think. He was a gangster doing terrible things to people and when someone hurt his family, being the violent person that he is, he wants revenge. He even fights his own co-workers on the boat. His boss told him not to do anything up north, and Carter knew that he was as good as dead the second he started his killing spree. I think thats why "he got swept up in the hate". He knows there is no turning back. His boss finds out about Carter's relationship with his girl (the mobsters even make a comment about it i think). So when you said "you couldnt wait for him to get crushed" you were right. Everybody wanted him dead.
The 2000 version is just so unreal. Its not that i dont like Sly, he is ok in the role. Its the whole H-wood feel of the movie. The car chase is one thing. The softened scenes of violence. You cant soften up violence! Its a horrible thing and it should make you feel horrible. Sly's Carter is just as violent as Caine's, its just not shown (for rating purposes i guess). And the most disappointing part was the ending.
I would understand if he had Canada circled on his map, or Alaska maybe. All he does is shaves his beard and goes back to LA. No punishment, nothing. Caine's line: "you kill me and you'll be running for the rest of your life" turns out to be as hollow as the whole remake.
I apologize for my english, im doing my best...
reply
share
SarcasticSatire
19 years ago
There were two different endings to the 2000 Get Carter. BTW, 2000 version is much more believable than the 71' version. Guess all of the 71' GC enthusiasts are bummed out that their man (Michael Caine 71' Jack)once again, dies near the end of the film to Stallone's Jack.
reply
share
Darkone25
19 years ago
I agre very underated and in my opion one of the best remakes there has been. I mean lets face it most of the remakes done have been horrible films. This one is way better than alot of them. I liked it alot more than i did Gone in 60 seconds, Dukes of Hazard, Planet of the Apes and some others.
www.horrorgate.com
reply
share
nicos_way
19 years ago
quite frankly this is one of the best remakes ever made
--
you doubt my velocity?
that...pains me...NOT.
reply
share
devilside
19 years ago
I agree with the previus posters, it's true, besides it's easily one of the very best Sly's films, much better than very mediocre Copland or Assassins, Get Carter gets back to his 70's beginnings in style and coolness of the 80's, it's a brilliant nostalgic combination of bith those eras.
reply
share
orsonlovespeas
19 years ago
i def agree that this is a very under rated film. Just saw the original the other day. It was good... but not great. I think the writing was the downfall of the original, the script just isn't that good. The acting was fine and such, but writing goes a long way.
reply
share