yo come on this movie aint so bad i think it actually a good one by Stallone he waz in good shape the shooting parts were good him fighting . The driving in the movie waz excellent so any one agree with me the movie was Betta than what people think
shareAbsolutely, I didn't think this was a bad movie at all, and I'm not a fan of remakes. The film had good action and I thought Stallone was actually pretty good. The main reason I think a lot of people dislike this movie is because it failed to live up to the original and the ending is completely different.
share[deleted]
Stallone is brilliant and every movie with Stallone is brilliant. End of story.
shareAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEN TO THAT!!!
shareAt the time the movie came out, Stallone's career was on a downslide, so people avoided it. Unfortunately, momentum plays a huge part in the success, or non-success of a movie
shareI agree with the OP. Not to mention the 4.6 rating is ridiculous.
Now take the weapons where I told you and wait for the god d*mn signal this time! Good byyye!!!
Yes, 'Stop or my Mom will Shoot' is an undisputed classic.
shareI agree with most of your comments. But the long distant love triangle was in the original movie. By the way I feel that the love triangle was was the reason for the ending in the orginal.
I completely agree with some of the camera shots throughout the entire movie. The original movie made it clear who the bad guy was also.
In my opinion, this movies was better than the original in some ways. In others the original was better. And I rarely like remakes.
in places this movie got my adrenaline going.and sly looked awsome!
This film is an abomination. Stallone should rot in hell forever for remaking what is one of the greatest films ever.
shareAll I Gotta Say Is That This Movie Is Crap, It Is A Typical Hollywood Remake Of A Classic British Film, Which Had A Great Cast And Didn't Nedd To Rely On A Ton Of Guns Fights And Actually Had Meaning, Everyone Go Watch The 1971 Original Mike Hodges Film With Michael Caine !!!! It Is Awesome !!!!!
And Erm Sorry To Say This But ..... Apart From People Like Tom Hanks And John Travolta (Especially As Chilli Palmer) You Yanks Have Really *beep* Actors, I Mean Brad Pitt How Does That Guy Even Get Work !!!!
And I'm Not Gonna Take Someone Seriously You Starts His Comment With "yo" And Uses Words Like "Betta" And "waz", It's Called The ENGLISH Language If You Can't Say It, You Can't Use It !!!! So I Guess That Screw George Bush Out Of NUCLEAR (NOT NUCALEUR) WEAPONS !!!!!
THE US SUCKS COMPARED TO BRITAIN !!!!!
RULE BRITAINNNA !!!!!
It has to be said. People hate this film simply because it was a very poor re-make of one of the most (rightly) acclaimed British films of all time. In all fairness, this wasn't the worst ever remake but it comes close and speaking as an Englishman, I am getting sick of seeing some of my nation's finest films ripped off (badly) by Hollywood. Not only GC, but The Wicker Man, The Italian Job, Alfie and soon to be The Long Good Friday, have all been made by people with no idea what made the originals special.
The strength of the original Get Carter was that Jack carter was such an evil, cold-blooded character. A true anti-hero. The fact that it was the greatest performance Caine ever gave only added to it. To make Carter the redemptive killer in the remake was a typical Hollywood cop-out. Hollywood hasn't come close to this kind of quality since the 70's (although Scorsese can still come very very close) and Stallone simply doesn't have the skills to cope with such a complex, dark character.
Get Carter (1971) was a true original. If the remake stood on it's own, it might not seem so bad. But it doesn't and it is!!
'Culture, sophistication, a little bit more than an 'ot dog' You said it Bob!
[deleted]
There's been plenty of remakes in history.
However I prefer the remake to the original, Stallone did a good job, but he isn't always going to get respect, I thought he was great in Copland as well, I think Stallone became a bullseye target for critics, they must of loved kicking a superstar, even on decent efforts.
True, Stallone was good in Copland. However, this ain't a decent effort. It's not even a mildly acceptable effort. Stallone got a kicking for this because he took on an iconic role and made a complete and utter hash of it. Mind you, he was aided and abetted by an incompetant writer and a clueless director so he shouldn't take all the blame but he was still *beep* in it.
'Culture, sophistication, a little bit more than an 'ot dog' You said it Bob!
Personally, I think this movie is criminally underrated.
I did have the benefit of watching it before I saw the 1971 original.
But after watching both, I don't see why people stomp on the Stallone remake for any reason other than that it came out at a time when it became trendy to bash Stallone. Oh and it's a remake.
Remakes deservedly have a bad rep as of late, but I think it's gotten to the point where people blindly criticize remakes for simply being remakes. Magnificent Seven, Affair to Remember, and Fistful of Dollars are three movies often cited as "great films", yet all three are remakes.
Not that Get Carter is on the level of the aforementioned films, but it's certainly not a bad remake on the level of Nicolas Cage's Wicker Man.
Honestly, I think Sly had one of his best roles in Jack Carter and it was a fun performance.
"Stallone simply doesn't have the skills to cope with such a complex, dark character."
I'll have to disagree with that. He was actually pretty effective in this movie and I'm far from thinking that Sly is outstanding in every movies, but here, he did an amazing job.