And once again, Hollywood decides to destroy yet another foreign film with a shittier adaptation.

Good review, FB.

when you say "nineties" i hear "naughties". weird

That's because he _was_ saying "naughties", as in the '00's.

The worst remake of all time.....I love the original, its Badass! but this movie? pure shit.

Why does Hollywood so often insist on tramping the legacy of good film with horrid remakes? :pinch:

$$$

For the money, of course!
And I fear for the 'Let the Right One In' American remake. *shivers*

Thank you Film Brain, this made me want to check out the original. It looks all kinds of badass.

Come on this was a decent movie and it had great actors aside from Sly.The movie itself is okay, I gotta disagree that this is a bad movie. It seems you cant look past the remake part and keep comparing it to the original.

But this movie completely misses the point of the original, is poorly acted by all involved and directed by a guy seemingly under instruction to edit the thing like a late 90's music video. It's dreck, and is the very definition of a pointless remake.

I also enjoyed this movie. I do not like action movies in which the action revolves around big international terrorist plots or $100 000 000 rob jobs, etc.

This movie struck me as having a less flashy plot, which I liked.

After a while I even forgot it was Stallone playing the main character...

I guess it's easy to pick any movie and tear it apart...

If you like the remake, watch the original. Its dated, yes (and a remake could have improved on it if it had been done right), but its much better told and not full of with filler action scenes.

It was also voted worst remake ever in 2004: [url]http://uk.imdb.com/ news/ni0062005/[/url]

God damnit, why does McGinley always have to be cast as a jerk-off villain who gets his ass handed to him? No wonder he was a fantastic bully in Scrubs, he was letting off steam.

Either way, I haven't heard of this movie, but I want to see the original after watching this review.

[color=green]I've gone to the point where I am getting so sick of movie remakes when all they do is alter everything, and the big spit in the face is when they cast the original actor of that original movie as a different role, I mean come on guys!!!! that's just not right, and Michael Cane is awesome.[/color]

With that goatee he looks a lot like Robert Downey Jr. Which is ironic cause they both had movies with Mickey Rourke this year.

[color=green]That's not ironic, it's coincidental![/color]

One of the few times I've heard my dad swear in anger was when he saw this film in a shop.

He was right to do it.

I avoided this version because I love the Caine original. Looks like I made the right choice.

Thanks, Matthew.

Off the top of your head, can anyone out there think of a remake that was actually worth making?

[b]The Fly[/b] and [b]The Thing[/b] spring to mind.

Ocean's 11 - The original is supposed to be utter garbage, the remake was great fun.
Remakes are fine if done properly, this one absolutely wasn't as it was a neutered, dumber and pointlessly flashy mess.

Romero's remake of Night of the Living Dead.

Another thing just occurred to me, I watched this version of Get Carter first and later tracked down the original. While the original 70's version is superior how can it be over looked that a whole new generation was able to findit thanks to this remake everyone's dumping on. True the remake isn't as good but the key points are there and it doesn't have the dark ending but may make someone want to seek out the original. Hell the original's trailer is on the remakes DVD.

Unfortunately, the majority of the general audience probably weren't even aware it was a remake of anything. Those that were may have seen this crap and decided not to bother with the older one.

Incidentally, in the UK, where the original is not only well known but had a cinema re-release in 1998/99, this remake went straight-to-video.

The UK DVD does not include a trailer for the original.

Well its remake so what did you expect.

I don't understand why people think remakes are a good idea.

Anyway, never miss FilmBrain's updates. He seems to enjoy his work even if his character doesn't!

[size=large][color=red]I didn't need to see FB with his shirt off!!![/color][/size]

Why Film Brain. I don't know if we're intimate enough to exchange nipples yet. :confused:

Lol. :lol:

British people should take pride in their nipples! :D

Great Vid, FB.

Might even be worth checking out the Original Get Carter. That Lovefilm place is starting to look better and better...

Great assessment FB. This is one of the WORST films of all time, let alone one of the worst remakes. Sadly Sir Michael seems to have lent his talents to a few to many bastardisations of his work.

Michael Caine has stated many times that he isn't above slumming it in order to pick up a nice pay cheque...Jaws 4 springs to mind.
Cynical? Maybe, but it is a business after all this business of show.

Does anyone realize that the link on the main page says "Get [u]Cater[/u]"? I for one never tire of Sly's thrilling food service films.

The sad thing is, I can imagine Stallone being pretty good in a movie that stayed true to the original depiction of the character.

I'm afraid to ask, but will there a Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer month because of their new "masterpiece"? Or just a one off bashing?

I think the only movie I remember Alan Cumming from is Titus. Anthony Hopking was great in that movie, but Cumming is always akward.

Damn. I knew this day would come. Get Carter is one of the most awful works I've ever seen, but I have fondness for this movie. I saw it before the original (which does whip more ass than anything else Michael Caine has been in), and with that mindset, it wasn't bad.

In the context of the show, it does kind of work, even if it's not the best acted movie. It's Stallone playing a big dumb bruiser trying to better himself, so it's not like he doesn't have the chops for it. Mickey Rourke is a scumbag but a credible physical threat. Alan Cumming plays a character that wants to sound tough but ends up sounding wormy. While the techno does end up hurting a bit, the stylized production isn't so bad, and in fact it partly covers for Stallone's blank pauses. The new Carter does smack of Hollywood, but taken independently of the better original again, it tries to work the angle of the redeemed Carter, hands still bloodstained with the blood of evil bastards. Besides, Stallone does the part of the warrior walking home over the bodies of the bad guys in a ton of his action movies. Throwing the guy off the building in slow-mo with the thundering music actually kinda reminded me of "The Departed", looking back on it. Also...Michael Bay style tricks? You are a cruel bastard, Buck.

Damnit. Okay. You're right. It's terrible as a remake. It's not even that great as a Stallone movie, but it's still fun in my opinion. Not smart. Not well acted. Enjoyable though.

Sadly I have seen this. Even though I haven't seen the original, I found myself to be very bored throughout the movie, it was so un-involving.

[quote=kapmando]Throwing the guy off the building in slow-mo with the thundering music actually kinda reminded me of "The Departed", looking back on it.[/quote]
In my version, you never see him get thrown off.

Great review Film Brain. Stallone has done yet another turkey. My dad said that aside from the Rocky and Rambo films that Stallone has never done a good movie.

for another stalone and alan cummings movie, why not tackle spy kids 3. see how that goes. :evil:

My bf says the original is alot better. Now I have to go find the original.

I really liked this review, it leans more to a fair and honest comparison between the remake and the original, instead of having jokes and humour of the movie itself. Now, while focusing on the bad points, you do indeed mention the highlight of this poorly executed film, which in my eyes say that you gave it a fair chance atleast :-)

What I would like to mention is that the audio balance in this (and reviews before this one) isn't the best. The footage of you is in good standard, but far too often I have difficulty hearing the movie's audio, as it's much lower in comparison. So a slight audio boost on it should do the trick and I'll wouldn't have to turn up and down my volume between clips :D

(But if I'm alone with this issue, ignore it - as it may be my speakers!)

Yeah, the master audio on the movie is sadly quite low. I boosted the film clips, for the most part, the highest they could go (the audio has been raised 7dB ).

You are not alone with the audio issue. Great review as always FB ;)

Is it me, or did your symbolisms sound much more bloodthirsty than usual? Lol

"He supposed to be a Harvard graduate, but he acts like a 10 year old with ADD."

I guess then he actually graduated from MIT then.

[i][b]*ducks and runs*[/b][/i] :silly:

It's PISSHOLES IN THE SNOW. AAARGH!!!
That was one of my favourite lines from the original...you don't use it again and you certainly don't change it to catpiss.... :angry:

That and the violence in the original Carter was "realistic". Punch a normal guy in the face two or three times and he's had enough. The beatings in this one are just out of place...

Queenie was in this?