O Implacável

A mob enforcer goes back to his native Seattle to sort out the suspicious death of his brother.

The original film is one of the best English thrillers of all time and despite being made nearly thirty years ago still packs a punch. Sadly this film is not really in its league, despite a bigger budget and more ground coverage.

The main problem is that the authors clearly love the original and this leaves so much of what happens as a question mark to the new viewer. Characters are thrown in from nowhere and Carters involvement with his bosses' girl is almost in another movie. Micheal Caine's small role (as a barman) is funny in that he was the original Jack Carter, here reprised by Sly Stallone.

While quick to admit this is mediocre stuff you have to say that you get your share of car chases (well done too), fights, creeps, sleaze, family bonding, shoot outs and even the odd bit of light humour. The fight between Stallone and Mickey Rouke (here playing a buisnessman-stroke-creep) for example.

This film features interesting cinematography, with strange forward jump cuts (ripped off from The Limey), odd angles and the use of colour filters. In short, the producers trying to make more out of the material than is in the script. The choice of a wet Seattle is also curious and different. Presumably the nearest to Newcastle-Upon-Tyne (the setting of the original) that the producers could think of.

So it is only an average product, but will see much worse than this in our lifetime and it does move along at a fair and steady clip. People are getting to knock Stallone for being Stallone, but he doesn't do bad a job here, a stonefaced enforcer that is prepared to shed a tear when needs be! Not great acting, but he looks the part.

Don't be put off by the low IMDB ratings, plenty of worthy films are two or three points higher but are far more boring. Popcorn fodder it may be, but I thought it was worth seeing through and even declared myself modestly entertained at the end of it. Not as good as the original but not a lot is.

Footnote: This is actually not the first remake of Get Carter. A blackspolitation version was made in the 1970's called "Hitman."

I simply do not get what certain people have against this movie. Sure, it's not a cinematic breakthrough, but it is very sharp, smart and focused. Jack Carter's brother, Richie, dies under mysterious circumstances. Jack goes back to his home town to check things out and perhaps find out the truth. What he finds is not all that easy to get to grips with.

This is not your usual run of the mill revenge movie. The story has some layers to it and I am surprised to see that people did not appreciate that. Jack Carter is not a good guy. He is a bad man working in bad town doing bad things. Always was a bad guy. But he reaches a moment in his life when the things that take place between him and his boss's girl Audrey, the things that he finds out about his brother and his brother's family, all of them act as a catalyst. For once in his life he tries to set things right. How does he do that? By doing what he knows to do. He does bad things. The guys he goes up against are a little a out of the reach of the law. To wait for justice to set things right is not a concept Jack is familiar with. The only things he knows is to take care of his own dirty laundry. And at the moment his life is his dirty laundry. He was not there for his brother, for his niece and he missed some oportunities... Time to set things right. But he does only bad things in this movie. He kills people by shooting them, by throwing them out of the balcony, by beating them up in the elevator. WHY? Because these are the same things that would happen to him if he let his guard down.

Great acting performances form most guys in the movie. Stallone seems to have found some serious acting genes within himself. This is some of his best work and his best is very good. Not only for the genre. Although when looking back at Oscar (his 1991 comedy), D-Tox (a very underrated movie) and Copland I have to say that this is not a one off. No sir. When the script, the director and the rest of the cast are good he can act big time. Michael Caine made a very good movie called get Carter back in 1971. I love that movie and is always one of my favorites to watch on Turner Classic Movies. The remake, I felt, is just as good. Sure it has the sort of usual happy ending, but that is just the American Way of ending action movies. They love a hero. Mickey Rourke, Alan Cummings, Michael Caine and Rachael Leigh-Cook are very good in this one. Somehow Miranda Richardson seemed a little over the top in her angry widow/mother scenes.

Michael Caine acted in this one simply because he knew it was good. The movie could have been done without him, without a doubt. But he did it because unlike other remakes, this one is just as good as the original. It has it's own style, a somewhat different story and a happier ending. Otherwise, they are two very similar movies. And even if some consider the original as better, they should not write this one off. The layers are there, you just have to dig. And this only because the producers did not get this movie. The director, the cast, everybody got this movie and knew what they were making except for the producers who seem to have been thinking of another movie. Michael Caine seems to have given his seal off approval to Stallone's acting in this one. The producers wanted a classic 80's action movie. At least that's what I feel. So, this is a very good movie. Just as good (or almost as good, depending on how you look at it) as the original. It has great acting, sharp directing, nice car chase scenes, nice action scenes, some great moments, some wonderful music, a simple yet effective storyline that keeps you guessing and wanting to see more. And as someone put it, crap like XXX, The Fast and The Furious (+sequel, at least is has some cars), Charlie's Angels (+sequel. could not even watch) and other such teen-hormone-slang-flash-driven movies have a higher rating, IT SIMPLY ISN'T RIGHT!!!!!! 7.5/10

The central figure of this film, Jack Carter, is a Las Vegas gangster who returns to his roots in Seattle following the death of his brother. This was officially reported as an accident, but Jack suspects that his brother may have been murdered by members of the local criminal underworld. The film charts Jack's attempts to find out the truth and to take revenge.

This is, of course, a good example of Hollywood's cannibalising of the British and European film industries in its endless search for a good story. It is a remake of Mike Hodges's classic from 1971, one of the few great British gangster films. That film was one that grew out of, and yet at the same time transcended, a particular place and time, the North-East of England in the early seventies. This was a time of rapid social change in Britain, marked by increasing social mobility, growing permissiveness and relative prosperity, elements all reflected in the film. Like many of the best British films, it had a strong sense of place. Its fidelity to a real time and place was not a weakness but a strength, helping to establish it firmly in the realm of reality and to convey its major theme, the sterility and futility of the criminal lifestyle. Its view of the underworld acted as a necessary antidote to the tendency, very prevalent in the late sixties and early seventies, to glamorise criminals ("The Thomas Crown Affair), sentimentalise them ("The Italian Job") or mythologise them ("The Godfather").

Stephen Kay's film attempts to establish a similar sense of place to the original; the Seattle we see has a bleak, forbidding atmosphere, always shrouded in rain or mist. It has a much more star-studded cast than the original, with at least one reasonably good performance from a convincingly thuggish Mickey Rourke. Despite this, however, it is a far inferior film when compared with the original. The main reason is the way in which the character of Jack Carter has been changed. Michael Caine's Carter was, for all his sharp suits and fast cars, no more than a ruthless street thug, a poor boy made bad at a time when other poor boys were making good. Sylvester Stallone's character, by contrast, may have a rough exterior (Stallone plays him as outwardly impassive, with a gruff, emotionless voice) but beneath it he is one of the good guys. The plot has been rewritten to make Carter less brutal and ruthless and to allow him to survive at the end. The original was a morality play on (as another reviewer has pointed out) the theme of "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword". The remake is simply a revenge thriller with a hero whom the audience can root for.

This illustrates one of the perils of the remake. Kay's film has kept the title, the bare outlines of the plot and even some of the names of the characters, but completely fails to capture the spirit of the original. Moreover, it is unable to replace that spirit with anything new. If the film-makers had wanted to make an exciting goodie-versus-baddies revenge thriller, they could have chosen a better starting-point than the plot of a film made some thirty years earlier with a very different aim in mind.

It has become something of a tradition for remakes to feature cameo appearances by the stars of the original films. Martin Scorsese's "Cape Fear", for example, featured no fewer than three actors who had appeared in the earlier J. Lee Thompson version, Gregory Peck, Robert Mitchum and Martin Balsam. That, however, was a rare example of a remake that we as good as, or even better than, the original. Kay's "Get Carter", however, is not in the same class as Hodges's. It was, therefore, rather disappointing to see Michael Caine appearing in a remake that can only diminish one of his best films. 4/10

STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All Costs

Stallone's remake of the 1971 classic of the same title finally arrives over on British shores.Only it arrives straight to video.This probably isn't very surprising anyway.The Michael Caine (who also appears here,albeit not in the title role again!) original is seen as an untouchable classic by our movie-going public,and an American re-make would probably be interpreted as the ultimate kick-in-the-teeth.

But for those not bothered about cultural rivalry or who weren't alive when the original was released,this really isn't that bad a film.It has a really involving camera style and the mystery of Stallone's brothers death is intriguing.There are some interesting characters,with Caine as a mysterious promoter type,Mickey Rourke as an old rival of Stallone's and Miranda Richardson as his deceased brother's wife.

This is sadly though,however,a real case of style over substance,all of these things are really well thought out but for some weird reason,they don't really blend that well together.

Still,considering Stallone's recent turkeys,this is quite likely his best in a long while and really not a bad effort.***

I can't believe the critics this movie gets here. I hated Stallone as Rambo, as Rocky and I love him in this role. And even if you have seen the 1971 original, not everyone can remember all the details - at least I couldn't. (I think there is just about two or three movies about Jesus, and nobody cares about the remakes). Stallone is out to take vengance on the murderers of his brother, a decent barman working to support his family. The story takes place in seattle, and as you can imagine, there are a couple of shootings, car chases and so on. But that's not the movie. The movie is the fight from a bad guy against the bad guys to get justice for someone who didn't do anything wrong. The movie has an extraordinary visual quality, the titles and the music are worth seeing and hearing this movie. And one very seldom quality at the end: This movie is not to long. Get Carter! 7 of 10!