Directed by Stephen T. Kay.
Written by David McKenna. Based on the 1971 film of the
same name, which is based on a novel by Ted Lewis.
Starring Sylvester Stallone, Rachel Leigh Cook and Mickey Rourke.
Release Year: 2000
Review Date: 10/6/00
(WARNING: Profanity will be used throughout this review.)
This fucking piece of shit is the worst
fucking movie that Sly has ever made.
Don't worry. There's more than that!
Gordon, Amanda Dewitt and I came out of the
theater following our showing of "Get Carter", and we were trying to
think if we had ever seen a worse Sly Stallone movie. There were a
few that came to mind, and I would love to get your opinion on which
one of the following is the worst:
Now, my vote BEFORE going to see "Get
Carter" was "Judge Dredd." But, after tonight, Sly has a new worst
film. "Get Carter" is absolutely awful, shameful considering its
impressive cast of actors--Michael Caine, Mickey Rourke, Miranda
Richardson and even John C. McGinley have all done good work
before. And, this movie is a remake of the Michael Caine movie "Get
Carter" from years ago!
So, where does it go wrong? Everywhere.
Its biggest problem (beyond the fact this it is a piece of shit) is
that, although it is marketed as an action/drama, there is almost no
action...and, almost no drama! The setup is this: Jack Carter
(Stallone), professional tough guy who seems to be half repo-man,
half hitman, works in Vegas but finds out that his brother has been
found dead as a result of a drunk driving accident back in their
hometown of Seattle. So, Jack heads up to Seattle to figure out
what happened and who is really responsible for his brother's death
(you guessed it, it isn't just drinking and driving!). Who could it
be? A shady $900-million internet honcho (Alan Cummings)? A
nightclub owner (Caine)? Maybe it is Jack's old nemesis who now
owns a "legitimate business" (Rourke, owner of a porn website)?
But, before we can get to figuring out who
actually is responsible, we have to sit through some of the worst
sappy-shit acting in the history of time and space. Rachel Leigh
Cook ("She's All That", much more her cup of tea) plays Doreen, the
dead brother's daughter, and she is all distraught over her father's
death but she's got a secret that's much worse than drinking and
driving. But, we spend way too much time with the Jack & Doreen
relationship and about 45 minutes into the movie, things got so
boring and so quiet in my theater that the four Spanish-speaking
folks sitting behind us got up and left; I don't know Spanish, but
the word "punta" was used so many times that I got a headache from
It is amazing that 50-something-year-old Sly
is still playing this super-tough guy role; he is believable to be
sure, but why not play against type like he did in the
underappreciated "Copland" from a couple of years ago? He doesn't
have many good lines here and many of them come from the
Schwarzenegger One-Liner School, which is to say, the lines get more
laughter from an audience than "ooh, you go, tough guy!" Hmm.
Caine is wasted here in this role and Richardson's part must have
been purely to pay the rent last month. She is useless and
stereotyped in this part and someone of her stature could do
better. Cummings is so whiny that every time he said a line this
one guy in the back just started busting out in laughter because it
sounded so pitiful...and annoying.
The biggest problem with this? The horrible
MTV-style editing that is hampering almost all films these days;
"Get Carter" is so overedited that by the time the final club
sequence comes about, you can't watch the screen because of the
hyper-cutting that is taking place in front of you. This
overediting is necessary in scenes where Sly is whooping somebody's
ass, because you can't believe he can move so quickly otherwise.
But, the whole movie is shot like that when it is not shamelessly
using slow motion. This trend is not just "Get Carter" and I am
hoping that it ends in the reasonably near future.
Avoid this film at all costs...EVEN IF YOU
CAN SEE IT FOR FREE!
Rating: Hard Vice
Comments? Drop me a line at
Bellview Rating System:
"Opening Weekend": This is
the highest rating a movie can receive. Reserved for movies that
exhibit the highest level of acting, plot, character development,
setting...or Salma Hayek. Not necessarily in that order.
"$X.XX Show": This price
changes each year due to the inflation of movie prices; currently,
it is the $9.50 Show. While not technically perfect, this is a
movie that will still entertain you at a very high level.
"Undercover Brother" falls into this category; it's no "Casablanca",
but you'll have a great time watching. The $9.50 Show won't win any
Oscars, but you'll be quoting lines from the thing for ages (see
"Matinee": An average movie
that merits no more than a $6.50 viewing at your local theater.
Seeing it for less than $9.50 will make you feel a lot better about
yourself. A movie like "Blue Crush" fits this category; you leave
the theater saying "That wasn't too bad...man, did you see that
Lakers game last night?"
"Rental": This rating
indicates a movie that you see in the previews and say to your
friend, "I'll be sure to miss that one." Mostly forgettable, you
couldn't lose too much by going to Hollywood Video and paying $3 to
watch it with your sig other, but you would only do that if the
video store was out of copies of "Ronin." If you can, see this
movie for free. This is what your TV Guide would give "one and a
"Hard Vice": This rating is
the bottom of the barrel. A movie that only six other human beings
have witnessed, this is the worst movie I have ever seen. A Shannon
Tweed "thriller," it is so bad as to be funny during almost every
one of its 84 minutes, and includes the worst ending ever put into a
movie. Marginally worse than "Cabin Boy", "The Avengers" or
"Leonard, Part 6", this rating means that you should avoid this
movie at all costs, or no costs, EVEN IF YOU CAN SEE IT FOR FREE!
(Warning: strong profanity will be used in all reviews of "Hard