One of the worst films ever!
-
Bilestoad17 — 12 years ago(July 22, 2013 02:41 AM)
Naturally most of us have a slew of oldies we've yet to see, and having them spoiled does not do any good. The fact it is being discussed here tells you that it is still relevant. It's easier to follow a rule not to spoil ANY movie than to declare spoilers fair game for old movies. There are so many movies much older even than this one that I intend to see. Warning people of spoilers is the decent thing to do regardless. There's even a Spoiler markup button, so it couldn't get much fricken easier.
-
-
bear022013-588-696101 — 15 years ago(July 04, 2010 03:31 PM)
GET CARTER WITH MICHAEL CAINE AND TERENCE RIGBY IS ONE OF MY 10 FINEST EVER.STALLONE'S WAS WEAK AND SHAFT OR WHATEVER THEY CALL IT IS RUBBISH.SAMUEL JACKSON IS A FARCE.
YOUNG AMERICANS,HARVEY KEITEL,THE LATE TERENCE RIGBY AND A FINE CAST IS EXCELLENT. -
defiant-10 — 15 years ago(October 24, 2010 04:22 AM)
Waitaminute. I thought all the other films on IMDB were the worst films ever made. I mean, they all say so somewhere in their message boards.
How about taking a hike until your hat floats?
What I had in mind was boxing the compass. -
sean_pak215 — 14 years ago(October 08, 2011 09:48 PM)
You're so right. Every great film ever made, there will be someone in the message boards saying it's one of the worst, or at least that it sucks and doesn't know what the fuss is about. Never fails. I even look for those posts now!
-
bear022013-588-696101 — 15 years ago(April 02, 2011 09:20 PM)
Jeremy you are one mixed up fool.MICHAEL CAINE AND THE ENTIRE CAST OF GET CARTER WERE OUTSTANDINGLY REALISTIC,A SLICE OF REAL LIFE,SHOT IN ENGLAND WITH EVERYTHING DONE WELLA CULT CLASSIC.
STALLONE RUINS EVERYTHING HE TOUCHES AND HE SHOULD NEVER BE PERMITTED TO MAKE A SEQUEL TO ANYTHING. -
mcsquare — 14 years ago(April 13, 2011 05:43 PM)
Thank you for your post, bear. I don't know what the original poster was thinking, but Get Carter is a great film. You're not supposed to love everyone - each character has their own flaws, but that's what makes the film so good. Not to mention the gritty backdrop of England and its perpetual rainy bleak weather. Maybe Jeremy3 (the 3 probably represents his IQ) needs to go see some films with REAL actors (not "Yo Adrian" Stallone), then give considerable thought before writing another moronic post. Maybe he only understands mainstream movies made in Hollywood, like an action film type where some has-been plays the hero, and that's the extent of his appreciation/comprehension. It's doubtful he has ever seen a movie with subtitles, or knows what a cult film is.
If Jeremy3 wants to slam a remake with Michael Caine in the original movie, he should watch both versions of The Italian Job. As a film buff who vehemently disagrees with remakes, this is one exception that definitely needed a makeover (in my opinion, anyway). -
fullxcircle — 14 years ago(April 21, 2011 01:06 PM)
I think Jack is totally a character you can have empathy for. to me the crucial line is when he's talking to Margaret on the bridge and he says "i'm supposed to be the villain of the family"
it's stated early on in the film that Frank isn't a gangster and that most of the gangsters in newcastle don't even know Frank and Jack are brothers. he died trying to protect his daughter.
back to the villain line, Jack knows he's a bad guy. he's accepted that fact but he also cares that his brother is not a criminal. the fact that his brother was killed by men like him for pointless reasons weighs heavily on him. and the motivation for his revenge gets deeper as the movie progresses. orginally its just revenge for the death of his brother, then it becomes revenge for the gansters exploitation of his niece and the fact that it resulted in his brother's death and eventually leads to him entirely destroying a criminal empire. he's a perfect anti hero, he's motivations are noble but his methods are not, because they are the only methods he knows.
naturally !