Get Carter

Name: Get Carter
Genre: Action, Drama, Thriller, Crime
Released: October 6, 2000
Duration: 102 min
Rating: 24
Cast: Rachael Leigh Cook, Sylvester Stallone

2000

METASCORE

Generally unfavorable reviews based on 20 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Mixed or average reviews based on 52 Ratings

See All

5.6

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5.6	Your Score
5.6	User Score Mixed or average reviews based on 52 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

Get Carter

Now Playing: Get Carter

Movie Details & Credits

Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: October 6, 2000 | R

Starring: Rachael Leigh Cook, Sylvester Stallone

Summary: Hit man Jack Carter (Stallone), a mob enforcer in New York, returns to his hometown of Los Angeles for his brother's funeral. Realizing the death was not an accident, Carter seeks revenge.

Director: Stephen T. Kay

Genre(s): Action, Drama, Thriller, Crime

Rating: R

Runtime: 102 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

TNT RoughCut Andy Klein

Kay doesn't seem to know the meaning of moderation.

Kevin Thomas

It is not a terrible movie, and Stallone has appeared in far worse. It's just that, although diverting, it's too routine for its own good. Read full review

Owen Gleiberman

The only fun is in watching Stallone square off against Alan Cumming and Mickey Rourke. Read full review

Lisa Alspector

It's almost always night and almost always raining. Read full review

Lou Lumenick

Should you get Carter? Sure - but make it the Michael Caine classic Warner Bros. is releasing on video next week.

Film.com Sean Means

Sly, slick and slow. Read full review

A.O. Scott

So minimally plotted that not only does it lack subtext or context, but it also may be the world's first movie without even a text. Read full review

SEE ALL 20 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

stallonefan80

Jul 29, 2012

I dont understand the negative reviews i dont think people really gave this a chance.In no way is the Action movie like Cobra or Tango and Cash but Stallone is Excellent and is on his game,As is my other fav actor Mickey Rourke.Great story Great movie!

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

oust

Apr 26, 2021

Fyuginhnjuginknjookinbytfyftfrseaersfyginninioninniinuhihiihuyfgyuguhihinjgyyuytytyyutyt

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

Steven1981

Mar 20, 2020

Never saw the original Get Carter but this remake with Sylvester Stallone was okayish but not the best. I'm rating it 6 purely because some of the action was good and fight scenes and Rachael Leigh Cook is my kind of ideal woman or young girl in this, she's hot... Mickey Rourke was laughableNever saw the original Get Carter but this remake with Sylvester Stallone was okayish but not the best. I'm rating it 6 purely because some of the action was good and fight scenes and Rachael Leigh Cook is my kind of ideal woman or young girl in this, she's hot... Mickey Rourke was laughable and can't act if his life depended on it and we get so many annoying characters and Stallone isn't perfect either. The action scenes are done okay and Rachael Leigh Cook are the only reason this gets a 6… Expand

0 of 4 users found this helpful04

Leif

Oct 6, 2013

Good turns by Stallone and Rourke are wasted by Tony Kaye's over-stylized direction and poor pacing. Bad films are not near as bothersome as the ones with good source material and a good cast that frankly should have been more than merely watchable.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

Voodoo123

Oct 2, 2022

Forgettable remake lacks the bite of the original with a distracted bumbling Stallone mumbling his way through the plot which basically plays to the same tune but lacks much of the punch of 70's carter in spite of its far larger Hollywood budget. 2000's carter is less brutal and far lessForgettable remake lacks the bite of the original with a distracted bumbling Stallone mumbling his way through the plot which basically plays to the same tune but lacks much of the punch of 70's carter in spite of its far larger Hollywood budget. 2000's carter is less brutal and far less intimidating. There is some fantastic cinematography here wasted with some...distracting performances from the a-list cast. Rourke and Caine were excellent here though and it's a shame neither of them had been cast in the central role. Stil might bel worth a watch if you liked the original.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

KenR

Nov 17, 2019

Note: 1971 vers; After seeing a trailer I resisted seeing this downbeat British so-called ‘thriller’ for many years but recently gave in. Can’t say it was worth it, if anything, it simply shows that some audiences were over-indulging in the new ’freedoms’ within production codes of the 70s.Note: 1971 vers; After seeing a trailer I resisted seeing this downbeat British so-called ‘thriller’ for many years but recently gave in. Can’t say it was worth it, if anything, it simply shows that some audiences were over-indulging in the new ’freedoms’ within production codes of the 70s. This overly bleak, overly brutal, overly immoral product is a sign of its time and about as perverse as it could get. The main characters motivation is poorly developed and unconvincingly drawn – we have a trained killer who ruthlessly uses everyone, his friends included, to get his way. His totally soulless, uncaring nature makes him as unlikeable as the sordid characters he’s out to kill. So, unless you are a criminal lowlife there’s not one soul you can identify with in this painful story. His violent treatment of women is as sick as the very situations he’s supposed to be ‘defending’ them from, those being; sexual exploitation via pornography with murder thrown in - potty writing to be sure. The moviemakers are clearly enjoying inflicting the same level of grotesqueries on women as they hypocritically claim to be ‘combating’. Beautiful Brit Ekland is again reduced to the thankless and pitiful role of a sordid gangster’s moll – no help to her career whatsoever. The bad guys are all so obviously bad as to be borderline ‘caricatures’ - we are being manipulated into disliking them just so we can ‘enjoy’ their violent demises. This overworked story element can either be done well or end up as the silly sensationalism we see here. Michael Cain claims his ‘super’ cool killer was based on some of his own family and friends (nice!) claiming he may have ended up being the same if not for the movies. His violent tough guy fights are so poorly choreographed and edited as to make them rather unbelievable. ‘Carter’ gets raves from some but is essentially just another sordid seventies movie like ‘Villain’ (Burton) and others in the new age ‘R’ Certificate ilk.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

ElaineT.

Feb 13, 2001

We walked out and got our money back about 10 minutes into the movie. It was shot too close, Stalone looked awful. His eyeliner was too obvious. The acting was embarrassing. Was there a plot? As I said, we couldn't stay to find out. Besides, I had to rearrange my sock drawer.

1 of 1 users found this helpful

SEE ALL 7 REVIEWS