Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: October 6, 2000
5.6
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 52 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
20
Mixed:
18
Negative:
14
Watch Now
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
0
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. 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. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
10
stallonefan80Jul 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 storyI 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! Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
5
LeifOct 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
All this user's reviews
2
KenRNov 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 theNote: 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
All this user's reviews
6
Steven1981Mar 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 girlNever 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
All this user's reviews
8
oustApr 26, 2021
Fyuginhnjuginknjookinbytfyftfrseaersfyginninioninniinuhihiihuyfgyuguhihinjgyyuytytyyutyt
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
Voodoo123Oct 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 HollywoodForgettable 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
All this user's reviews