Movie Review: Get Carter (1971, 2000)
As I mentioned in my review of Le Samourai, with some films, you kind of just had to be there. Not all films age equally well. The lone tough guy seeking revenge is a well-worn trope with plenty of mediocre iterations. Happily both the original 1971 Get Carter and its 2000 remake rise above the competition albeit for very different reasons. While the Michael Caine version is universally regarded as a classic British gangster film, the 2000 Stallone version was not well-received. My hot take is that the remake is actually better in some ways. I think fans expecting a beat-for-beat remake of the original with identical characterizations have a right to be disappointed. However if you accept that the films have very different themes and priorities I think you can recognize the virtues of the updated version.
Both movies have the same basic plot. The protagonist Jack Carter is a mob enforcer. The film starts with him learning of his younger brother’s death. He returns to his home town to investigate the truth about a supposed drunk driving crash and ultimately learns of a conspiracy that led to his brother’s murder. While investigating Jack gets into altercations with local gangsters and has some fun fist fights and shootouts. He learns that his brother’s daughter Doreen was drugged and raped as part of an underground amateur porn production operation. Jack ultimately gets revenge on the people responsible for his brother’s murder and his niece’s rape though it plays out very differently in the two films. In the original Jack is assassinated by a sniper at the very end while in the remake he says goodbye to Doreen at his brother’s grave and drives off to an unknown fate.
At a high level both films have similar core ideas. Both are about fraternal loyalty. Both are about the hollowness of revenge and the nihilism of the gangster lifestyle. In both films we see the criminals all try to blame one another to dodge Jack’s righteous fury culminating in the reveal that everyone is guilty, including Jack’s brother, who, it turns out, had a mistress who is involved in the scheme that led to Doreen’s victimization. As a Christian I appreciated that both films are staunchly anti-pornography, exposing the exploitive underbelly of an industry built upon human suffering. I also appreciate that neither film glamorizes the gangster lifestyle. None of the criminals are portrayed as virtuous or even particularly successful. The meanness and pettiness of their world is evident throughout both films.
The 1971 original is definitely better directed and better written. Michael Caine is much more charismatic than Stallone. He just looks better in the suit. In another timeline he would have been a fantastic James Bond. He brings some 007 energy to this role as Jack Carter sleeps with multiple women during his investigation as a calculated means to get information from them. Caine’s Carter smiles more with a delightful edge of malice. Unlike Stallone’s take, this Carter is a proper villain. He doesn’t actually seem to care very much about his brother’s death and rather just enjoys having it as a pretext for satisfying his violent urges. Stallone’s Carter chooses to spare one of the crooked businessmen involved in his brother’s death. Caine’s Carter spares no one, allowing one of the porn actresses to drown in his car, coldly murdering his brother’s mistress with drugs, and killing several men via stabbing, shooting, beating, and even throwing one off a building.
Get Carter is the first feature film of director Mike Hodges and almost certainly his best (Flash Gordon is the only other film of his I have seen, to be fair). I give a lot of credit to his direction because of the use of the setting. I love how it is shot. It starts with that amazing opening on the train with that brilliant theme song. From the ending scenes on the coasts to the townhouses and commercial districts we see earlier on, Newcastle itself adds a lot of personality to the film. Newcastle is Jack’s hometown yet his accent and demeanor betray him as an outsider from London right from the start. This sort of culture clash adds even more depth to the interactions that I’m sure older British folks can appreciate more than I.
One super interesting detail I only learned later is that the assassin who kills Jack at the end is actually on the train with him in the opening. This will be missed by 99% of watchers and yet it completely undoes everything we understand about the story and its theme. You see, Michael Caine’s Jack Carter, was not this cool competent badass in control at all times. Actually he was a patsy set up by his superiors. His London boss Fletcher had a relationship with the bosses in Newcastle, likely already knew about the conspiracy to kill Jack’s brother, and knew exactly what Jack would do. This is another example of the film making gangsters look like fools. In fact even the bosses are losers, one of them ending up dead, another in prison, and another (Fletcher) a cuckold. More importantly the spiritual meaning of the assassin being on the train with Carter right at the start during the opening credits is quite deep. From the moment he set out on the path of vengeance his doom was literally right there following him.
The remake in 2000 had an uphill battle from the start for the simple reason that no one asked for it. The 1971 Get Carter absolutely holds up great. Stallone and director Stephen Kay clearly thought they could take the character in a fresh direction while keeping the spirit of the original. They succeeded on the first point. Get Carter (2000) is tonally and thematically very different from the original. Yet for me those differences are actually what make it worth watching.
The first important difference is the tone. While there is humor, it is overall a much more serious film. This is partly exemplified in the film’s color palette and cinematography. It takes seriously the darkness of its world and the consequences of Jack’s choices. Stallone’s Jack is a much more reflective character. We see that he carries real guilt about not being there for his brother. His quest for revenge is far better motivated. It has real teeth. Each violent moment of revenge feels more personal and visceral. Jack here is a fully rounded character who makes choices. He doesn’t kill his brother’s mistress here (or any women) like in the original and he spares another guy for only being indirectly involved in his brother’s death.
The remake also gives a lot more development to the female characters. They aren’t just sexpots to fill Jack’s bed and then be unceremoniously murdered. Jack takes the time to meet with his brother’s widow and we experience her grief and resentment toward Jack. Doreen, played wonderfully by Rachel Leigh Cook, also is a fully realized young lady. The scene where she breaks down upon revealing to Jack that she was drugged, sexually assaulted, and filmed really got to me. She blames herself, and Jack, awkwardly with no experience as a father, does his best to comfort her. This investment in making the female characters complete flesh and blood human beings pays off by making Jack’s revenge all the more satisfying.
The biggest weakness of the remake is in its poor directing and sloppier execution. On the first point, we get far less out of the setting than in the 1971 film. The remake begins in Las Vegas and is mostly set in Seattle, Jack’s hometown. Seattle is far less charming than Newcastle. Jack being an outsider is a non-factor and the film is shot in such a way that the city has zero atmosphere or impact. There are a number of overly stylized shots that are distracting. Occasionally it works, such as a fun elevator fight scene that plays with our perception a bit. Mostly it just feels like the director trying too hard. The performances are also a mixed bag. Stallone’s Carter requires a lot more range than Caine’s and he isn’t always up to the challenge. Alan Cumming, John C. McGinley, and Mickey Rourke do some solid supporting work. However I didn’t love the use of Michael Caine playing Brumby (one of the gangsters he kills in the original). It felt out of place like goofy fan service.
The remake is also thematically weaker in some areas. In both stories revenge has a heavy cost for Jack. In both, Jack eventually loses his job with the mob and his girlfriend (who in both movies is also involved with his boss Fletcher). In the original revenge also costs Jack his life. Live by the sword, die by the sword. The remake implies that Jack will be on the run for killing high level gang bosses, however this is less powerful. Stallone’s Jack is far less villainous so it kind of makes sense the story goes soft on him in the end. Nevertheless Stallone’s movie is for me more emotionally memorable than the original at the expense of being less clever and less entertaining.
Watching the 2000 Get Carter again I was surprised by how much I liked it. Sure the original didn’t need a remake, sure the directing is obnoxious, and sure it fails to recreate the same atmosphere and great characters of the original. However taken as a kind of ‘elseworld’ spinoff, the remake does its own thing really well. If it were not a remake of a classic I think it would have been better appreciated. The 1971 original is in my mind a must-see while the remake is a should-see, especially if you are a fan of Stallone or Rourke.
Grade: A- (original) // B+ (remake)
