I was expecting a great film. I had seen the Stallone version. It was okay. Boy, was I wrong. This movie is awful. You have no empathy for Carter. He has been away for years from his brother, he is a womanizer, and we are supposed to like him? This movie was awful. There was a much better film made that year - Shaft. You liked Shaft. This movie was one of the worst films I have ever seen. What an eyesore.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
You're not supposed to like him. :-) You're supposed to think a little deeper about the character and what makes him tick and why he behaves the way he does. He's merely avenging his brothers death even though he too is a killer himself
share[deleted]
Colm, Strichley you guys hit the nail on the head, Carter is unlikable but I think he knows it. He knows he was not a good brother, he knows he is a d!ck, but he is on a mission, this original poster should just enjoy the ride Caine takes you on.
shareI think the original poster is trying to get a rise out of people. I hope anyway otherwise they're a bit of an idiot.
shareThere's always one, eh?!
--------------------
The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime
Not a fan of either movie myself, but I can understand why someone would not like the first movie compared to the remake. Not that either had a character you really cared about... I think it was simply that the original was made in a different time when the typical movie wasn't shot like a music video, where scenes were longer and people hadn't been programmed to watch movies like an ADHA kid on speed.
I grew up on older movies, and I have to say that after years of watching the quicker paced movies of today many of the old ones seem slower and that can cause people to be bored if they aren't in the mood... and being in the mood for a movie will dictate if you enjoy it or not to some large degree.
Ha ha ha.... Yes indeed! I was trying to think of a response to probably THE most ridiculous posting I've ever read on IMDB, (maybe even the internet!) Then I read yours! Which is perfect!
One of the main themes of the film is being 'on the ride' WITH the 'monster'! That and the horrific, 'of the time' back drop. And this clown missed them both!!!!!
Best stick to Disney........ or Shaft! ROTFL!!!
Agreed!!! I was just thinking about what a brilliant and badass film this is. Carter does nothing but kick ass, *beep*, and drink in Newcastle all the while investigating his brothers un natural death. Great ultraviolent film from the same period of time as Dirty Harry and Death Wish. I can empathize. I like his style. "Worst movie ever" ??? Do me a favor...
shareI think that that was obvious once he nominated "Shaft" as the benchmark film of 1971.
shareYou are not supposed to give away spoilers without warning. Thanks a lot for letting me know how it ends.
share^The movie has been out for 41 years. A little late to worry about spoilers, no?
shareNaturally most of us have a slew of oldies we've yet to see, and having them spoiled does not do any good. The fact it is being discussed here tells you that it is still relevant. It's easier to follow a rule not to spoil ANY movie than to declare spoilers fair game for old movies. There are so many movies much older even than this one that I intend to see. Warning people of spoilers is the decent thing to do regardless. There's even a Spoiler markup button, so it couldn't get much fricken easier.
shareYou`re talking rubbish! it was a grrreat film and made in my part of the country, not Newcastle,I come from S.Shields. Michael Caine has not made a bad movie yet.Thats my opinion and I`m right ;) naturally !
share[deleted]
It was made in various Tyneside locations and both Newcastle and South Shields are there.
share
GET CARTER WITH MICHAEL CAINE AND TERENCE RIGBY IS ONE OF MY 10 FINEST EVER.STALLONE'S WAS WEAK AND SHAFT OR WHATEVER THEY CALL IT IS RUBBISH.SAMUEL JACKSON IS A FARCE.
YOUNG AMERICANS,HARVEY KEITEL,THE LATE TERENCE RIGBY AND A FINE CAST IS EXCELLENT.
Sam Jackson has nothing to do with the version of Shaft the OP was talking about, it starred Richard Roundtree.
share
Waitaminute. I thought all the other films on IMDB were the worst films ever made. I mean, they all say so somewhere in their message boards.
How about taking a hike until your hat floats?
What I had in mind was boxing the compass.share
You're so right. Every great film ever made, there will be someone in the message boards saying it's one of the worst, or at least that it sucks and doesn't know what the fuss is about. Never fails. I even look for those posts now!
shareObviously you know nothing about Movies...
Anybody who uses the phrase "the Stallone version...was okay" has to be a troll.
Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
Jeremy you are one mixed up fool.MICHAEL CAINE AND THE ENTIRE CAST OF GET CARTER WERE OUTSTANDINGLY REALISTIC,A SLICE OF REAL LIFE,SHOT IN ENGLAND WITH EVERYTHING DONE WELL...A CULT CLASSIC.
STALLONE RUINS EVERYTHING HE TOUCHES AND HE SHOULD NEVER BE PERMITTED TO MAKE A SEQUEL TO ANYTHING.
Thank you for your post, bear. I don't know what the original poster was thinking, but Get Carter is a great film. You're not supposed to love everyone - each character has their own flaws, but that's what makes the film so good. Not to mention the gritty backdrop of England and its perpetual rainy bleak weather. Maybe Jeremy3 (the 3 probably represents his IQ) needs to go see some films with REAL actors (not "Yo Adrian" Stallone), then give considerable thought before writing another moronic post. Maybe he only understands mainstream movies made in Hollywood, like an action film type where some has-been plays the hero, and that's the extent of his appreciation/comprehension. It's doubtful he has ever seen a movie with subtitles, or knows what a cult film is.
If Jeremy3 wants to slam a remake with Michael Caine in the original movie, he should watch both versions of The Italian Job. As a film buff who vehemently disagrees with remakes, this is one exception that definitely needed a makeover (in my opinion, anyway).
I think Jack is totally a character you can have empathy for. to me the crucial line is when he's talking to Margaret on the bridge and he says "i'm supposed to be the villain of the family"
it's stated early on in the film that Frank isn't a gangster and that most of the gangsters in newcastle don't even know Frank and Jack are brothers. he died trying to protect his daughter.
back to the villain line, Jack knows he's a bad guy. he's accepted that fact but he also cares that his brother is not a criminal. the fact that his brother was killed by men like him for pointless reasons weighs heavily on him. and the motivation for his revenge gets deeper as the movie progresses. orginally its just revenge for the death of his brother, then it becomes revenge for the gansters exploitation of his niece and the fact that it resulted in his brother's death and eventually leads to him entirely destroying a criminal empire. he's a perfect anti hero, he's motivations are noble but his methods are not, because they are the only methods he knows.
Very well said, I agree totally.
shareSPOILERS
8 year later, I say: Yes, well said.
Get Carter benefits from these things (not necessarily in any order):
Its gritty, realistic 1971 look(we will never get that back; movies are "pieces of time" as James Stewart once said.)
The funny realism of certain scenes, particularly early on: Carter jousting with Eric at the race track("Doing well for yourself, Eric? Making out all right, Eric? Got a pension...) Carter easily penetrating mob kingpin Kinnear's home and watching his measly but expensive poker game ("I told you it wouldn't be long," he tells a sucker who loses his dough.)
The Newcastle locations -- every scene resonates in a kind of bleak sad way(such as the dance club where one supposes that depressed, downtrodden people can dress up and dance one night a week and forget about things; Brumby's house seems very real and just right for a man of his local stature; the parking garage where he dies is a nifty piece of modern scenery amidst the aged crumbling rest of the town, etc.
A plot that plays out as a matter of inevitability, as "villain" Carter moves from detective work to basic vengeance to ultra-vengeance(after he finds out about his niece, things get VERY violent from him) to bringing it all down to...his own death. A perfect story.
Michael Caine as the star. In his younger years. Believable sexy and sexual; believably tough; and believably psychopathic.
Well said (btw, that modern car park was demolished a few years ago because it was crumbling).
I think the OP lost any credibility when they said they had seen the Stallone remake and thought it was OK.
The Stallone remake had a little "novelty"(Caine as Brumby; the re-use of the film's tres 1971 synthesizer theme song; and a terrific fight between Sly and Mickey Rourke set to a truly great and exotic rock instrumental) but...
...it rather threw out ALL the elements that make the original a classic. Made American, in Seattle, with full-on glossy 2000 expensiveness, but most of all: Sly's total unwillingness to play the kind of psychopathic savagery towards men AND women that Caine demonstrated. And a cop-out ending, of course.
You know, I'm old enough to have actually seen Get Carter first run, as a young teenager at the drive-in with young friends. I remember feeling "titillated" by the film's "phone sex scene" and some of the nudity, and that's about it.
It took several MORE viewings, over the decades as I aged, for "Get Carter" to worm its bleak, cynical and satisfying way into my heart. Its one of my favorite movies of all time in that it captures a time, a place and a very grim FEELING...refuses to pull any punches or to get sentimental(beyond Caine's real grief and self-loathing)...and gets better every year that we pull away from it.
Truly a classic.
Well said (btw, that modern car park was demolished a few years ago because it was crumbling).
---
Wow. It took less than fifty years for it to crumble? Pretty bad worksmanship, you ask me -- good thing those architects in the movie didn't build anything more in it!
But this is another great role of the movies -- to capture, for all time, structures (and cars, and people) that are gone forever.
Yeah, built in 1967
Demolished in 2010.
There's a supermarket there now.