Mr-Fusion It's been a few years, but as I remember it, the original "Get Carter" was a plunge into a despicable underworld with a brutal - yet captivating - Michael Caine in the lead role. Sadly, none of that appeal made the jump to this dreary, washed-out remake, with London swapped out for Seattle and chock full of jump cuts and bizarre angles. It's not easy on the eyes.Stallone, for his part, is there mostly to issue threats and invitations to the hurt locker. But he also comes off very uncomfortable and fronts a decent cast, pretty much none of whom look like they want to be there.Carter should've been left alone.5/10

zkonedog As I sat down to watch this film, I expected very little based on previous "recommendations" and reviews. Remarkably, it still managed to bore, confuse, and altogether turn me off.For a basic plot summary, the movie focuses on Jack Carter (Sylvester Stallone), who returns to Seattle (after spending years as a mob-enforcer in Vegas) for the funeral of his brother Richie. After discovering that Richie was "into something" at the time of his death, and also may have involved his daughter Doreen (Rachael Leigh Cook), Jack goes on a revenge streak that leads him into a dangerous business cover-up.This film fails on so many different levels that it is difficult to even remember them all (but I'll try):-The plot is so confusing that you almost have to "Wiki" the film after viewing to know exactly what transpired. -Besides Stallone's Carter, none of the auxiliary characters stand out whatsoever, thus they tend to blend into each other and only add to the confusion. -Director Stephen T. Kay tries to be a visionary with the camera, but all we get are scenes that don't make much sense, along with scenes so frenetic that it is impossible to even know what is going on. -Try as they might, the writers/producers cannot make Jack Carter an interesting character whatsoever. For the majority of the film, he ruthlessly pursues a gang of business thugs, taking them down one by one. Then, with hardly an emotional scene to swing public opinion, we are supposed to believe he has changed. Not quite.Really, only Cook's Doreen is an interesting character in the film, and she isn't given enough screen time to upgrade the overall plot much, if at all.This "Get Carter" was a remake of the 1971 version starring Michael Caine, and I would recommend the original if only because there is no way it could be as boring, bland, or confusing as this 2000 reboot.

Elad BN This movie is just not worth watching...It starts slowly with a stupid scene, the whole movie goes from one scene to another within seconds, even the fighting and the killing are shorten and you find yourself watch half a fight and then the result of the fight...There is a plot... but while watching you just get lost, details are moving too fast and the only long shots are the important clues (so you immediately know it's a clue) and the drama talks.The editing and sound mixing is super bad, in order to fill it all in 102 minutes you can hear talks starting from the scene before and only a few seconds later you can sea the real scene. The video editing is not a hit either, a lot of flashbacks and other trite scenes.Shortly, not a recommended movie.

zjerunk A bad film made worse. Why on earth do that. Michael Caine, who I love, did the original for the money. He was riding the crest of the wave after Ipcress File, etc. Nevertheless, a good actor can't change a bad script, plot or idea. In his early days he was, like most, a mediocre actor with marketable looks, but he got better with age.Sylvester Stallone plays his alter egos, either Rambo or Rocky. Putting him in a bad story, poorly scripted, with worse casting you get Rambo in a suit and a bad movie. Sly never really improved. He endured. Mickey Rourke was was more notable, but he too always plays Mickey.They should have burned the script for Get Carter after the original and put everyone associated with it in a witness relocation program so things like this don't happen again.