Plot Details: This opinion reveals major details about the movie's plot.

“My name is Jack Carter, and you don’t want to know me.”

These words introduce us to the world of Jack Carter (Sylvester Stallone), a Las Vegas mob enforcer. Carter’s a professional tough guy, specializing in “helping people remember their promises,” and he is very good at what he does. But when his estranged brother dies in an odd “accident,” Jack turns his back on his work and returns to his home town. It’s too late for him to be a brother, as many people tell him in the course of the film. But if he can’t do some good, then at least he can find out what happened and do some bad to the people responsible.

“Get Carter” is a remake of the lean, nasty 1971 thriller starring Michael Caine. The 1971 film is rightly considered a classic, and commonly cited as one of Caine’s finest performances. This modernized version does not fare so well. The basic plot is still good, and there is no reason why the story shouldn’t be as effective as ever. But in the hands of director Stephen Kay (also responsible for the abysmal “Mod Squad” movie), it turns into a misfire.

Slick editing cannot hide poor pacing and an unorganized story structure, as what should be a simple revenge story gets bogged down in unnecessary convolutions. The simplest of stories becomes indescribably confusing as the screenwriters see fit to involve: a sleazy pornographer (Mickey Rourke), a bratty dot-com millionaire (Alan Cumming), a shady bar owner (Michael Caine, star of the original film), and a bunch of Vegas mobsters. I still cannot say which of these was meant to be the main villain. They all seem to exist in different movies, with little connection between them. They don’t interact at all, and with the exception of a single two-second exchange between Rourke and Cumming, none of them are ever even on screen together. The filmmakers really needed to pick one villain and stick with him.

Meanwhile, the character of Jack Carter ends up getting lost in the mess. In the 1971 film, Carter was as cold-blooded as a snake. A man with few redeeming qualities, Caine’s Carter was as ruthless and amoral as the men he was hunting. Stallone’s Carter talks tough and glowers a lot. But at the film’s defining moment, he kidnaps one of the men responsible for his brother’s death. He drives him out into the woods, shoves him down into the dirt, pulls out his gun . . .

. . . and fires over the man’s head, growling at him: “I’m giving you a second chance. Don’t make me come back for you.”

I guess this is good for Sylvester Stallone. His star image is kept safe and comfy, and his fans don’t have to see their hero callously murder a man who is begging for his life. But at the same moment, one of the movie’s only compelling scenes ends in a ludicrous anticlimax; and the last shreds of the Jack Carter character crumble under the weight of this cop-out.

But this is merely the last of the film’s many disappointments. As I mentioned earlier, the plot is made needlessly confusing and hard to follow. Most of the events of the first seventy minutes are nothing more than an extended prologue for the last half-hour, when Sylvester Stallone Gets Really Mad and goes off to kill some bad guys. Which would be fine, if the film really took off at this point. But it doesn’t. This last section of the story, in particular, should crackle with tension and excitement. But what happens? Stallone kills a minor bad guy whose name the audience can barely remember. Then he gets involved in a rather poorly-staged car chase with a couple of peripheral bad guys who have nothing to do with the actual plot. Then he goes to a party where all the other bad guys are, and ends up taking one of them for a ride that ends with him shooting some trees. None of it ends up being very exciting or suspenseful. There are no surprises, and not much conflict. A single fistfight is about all the resistance Carter ends up encountering. Not only doesn’t he have to pay for his revenge; he doesn’t even have to try very hard to get it.

In fairness, the movie is not a complete disaster. It comes very close, mind you, it is defintely a bad picture, but I have seen worse. There are actually a few good scenes sprinkled about. The first encounter between Carter and the dot-com millionaire stands out. Both Stallone and Cumming are very good in this scene, and there is some genuinely sharp dialogue as the two men threaten each other with the tools of their trade: Carter with the brute force at his disposal, and the millionaire with his money and influence.

There are other good performances, as well. Mickey Rourke is spot-on as Cyrus, the slimy snake-eyed thug from Jack’s past who has “made good” as a pornographer. Rourke is genuinely menacing in his all-too-brief scenes. And the fistfight between himself and Stallone shows off his boxing background to good effect. He is entirely too convincing when beating Stallone. He seems leaner, quicker, and far more dangerous. Were this anything but a movie, Stallone wouldn’t have stood a chance.

Also worth mentioning is Rachel Leigh Cook, who brings a human center to the film as Carter’s rebellious niece. Battling some occasionally awful dialogue and a nose-ring that is there in some scenes and mysteriously absent in others, she manages to turn a cliched “bad girl with a soft heart” character into a sympathetic, three-dimensional creation. A mid-film revelation about her role in the events leading to her father’s death carries genuine emotion with it, and most of the credit lies squarely with the actress’ portrayal.

As for Caine, the original Jack Carter? Well, he’s on hand in this version. But don’t get too excited. His role is a very small one, and his scenes exist in a vacuum from the rest of the film. I strongly suspect you could remove his entire part without affecting the rest of the story at all. It’s far too obvious that Caine is just here for the paycheck. He showed up on the set and learned his lines, but he didn’t bother even pretending to act. He’s on autopilot, clearly as bored with the material as I was.

It is easy to see what Stallone was aiming for with “Get Carter.” This was meant to be his “Payback,” allowing him to break away from his good-guy image by playing a darker role. But in “Payback,” Mel Gibson’s Parker was genuinely ruthless. Stallone’s Carter is a tough guy with a soft center. Parker had no soft center. He was callous and mean, and the only thing that set him apart from his enemies was a code of honor that insisted he get what was owed to him: Not a penny more, and not a penny less. That is why Gibson’s film succeeded on its own terms, while Stallone’s similar venture fails. That, and a good script.

And also the fact that in “Payback,” when it came time for Mel Gibson to prove he was a bad guy, he was willing to pull the trigger. And it wasn’t the trees he was aiming at.


Rating: ** out of *****

Directed by: Stephen T. Kay. Starring: Sylvester Stallone, Miranda Richardson, Rachel Leigh Cook, Alan Cumming, Mickey Rourke, Michael Caine, John C. McGinley, Rhona Mitra, Gretchen Mol.


Year Released: 2000
Running Time: 103 minutes.
Rated: R (Contains Sex, Profanity, Violence)


Available on VHS Home Video and DVD.



Recommended: No

Viewing Format: VHS
Video Occasion: None of the Above
Suitability For Children: Not suitable for Children of any age