WARNING: This Review May Contain Spoilers
Based on the book Jack Returns Home, I bring you another battle of the revenge story. This time it’s English versus American, brother avenging brother and it’s time to find out who did it better.
Different Setting
Typical of remakes, where the film is set seems to depend on the director. Of course, the first rule of writing is to do it about what you know. So, typically, an Englishman will set his film in England and an American would set his in America and that’s exactly the case with these two versions of Get Carter. From London and Newcastle to Las Vegas and Seattle, someone clearly decided to switch the dial to cool.
Caine vs Stallone
I’m going to start off by saying I actually don’t rate Michael Caine as an actor. I know he’s supposed to be this legend of English film but I just don’t see it and that’s no different when it comes to Get Carter. He’s supposed to be this ‘villian’ of a man but there’s nothing terrifying or dark about his portrayal of the character, definitely not what you expect of a London gangster. However, I’m not sure what it is about Sylvester Stallone but he actually looks the part of an American mobster – big, brooding, definitely someone you would not want to mess with. Not so sure about the monogrammed cufflinks though.
Simplicity
I’ll say this for the 1971 version of Get Carter, for what is meant to be a revenge film, the subtlety of the violence is quite endearing. Yes, there is quite a bit of shooting as we get closer to the climax of the film and Jack throws a man off a building but there’s barely any blood. The remake on the other hand, opens with violence. Practically the opening scene sees Carter beating someone up for information regarding the death of his brother. Something I will say though is that for a 2000s film, the fight scenes are pretty bad.
Sign of the Times
OK, I won’t pretend there aren’t any scenes that people may consider lude in the original Get Carter film but there’s no ‘in your face’ nudity. Yes, there’s a few flashes of bare breasts here and there (and I’m not talking about Michael Caine’s) but there’s no sex scenes where the viewer ends up seeing EVERYTHING. What surprised me more however, is that there actually aren’t any sex scenes in the 2000 version of Get Carter. Yes, we see parts of the film that Eddie makes of Carter’s niece Doreen but there nothing gratuitous about it.
Confusing Cameo
This is something that needs explaining. Why in the world would you cast the lead of the original Get Carter film in the remake as someone who turns out to be the bad guy? He stars as the character from the original film that Carter throws from the building, Cliff Brumby. They could have cast anyone, so what enticed them to pick Michael Caine? More importantly, why say yes?
Unexpected Ending
Obviously if the remake ended the same way then the ending would suddenly become expected – however, I was really surprised that the original Get Carter actually ended with our lead character being shot in the head. Truthfully, I was actually disappointed that the 2000 version didn’t follow suit because if I’m honest, I’m not a happy endings person.
In Conclusion
I have to admit, neither of the two films are that great. The original really struggled to hold my attention while the remake tried to be cool but with an emotional undertone at the same time. In my opinion, pick one! You either make Carter the cool, heartless mobster out for revenge for his brother and the raping of his niece, or he’s the heart-warming uncle – both together doesn’t really work. However, I will never say not to watch a film so please remember that everything you have read here is my opinion. So watch the films and decide for yourselves.
