Get Carter (1971) - Crime, Thriller

Hohum Score



When his brother dies under mysterious circumstances in a car accident, London gangster Jack Carter travels to Newcastle to investigate.

IMDB: 7.5
Director: Mike Hodges
Stars: Michael Caine, Ian Hendry
Length: 112 Minutes
PG Rating: R
Reviews: 27 out of 194 found boring (13.91%)

One-line Reviews (94)

One of the worst movies ever made.

There is also a gripping chase along a black industrial shoreline littered with piles of coal.

An Unwatchable Exercise in Art Deco Filmmaking .

Patchy but worth watching .

The aspect that really lets Get Carter down though is the fact that it's really slow moving and immensely bleak.

The direction is functional and the location shooting successfully evokes a dreary, grimy, industrial town in the North.

Bleak and disturbing, tight and gripping, "Get Carter" has achieved a cult status and became a classic of the British Action / Crime / Drama / Thriller genre.

Caine movies (I like them all and expexcted more) but one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

A waste of time and talent.

With a bit of a slow start, this movie speeds up fast when Jack Carter starts to kill off the people who killed his brother.

Caine has one of his best ever roles and is compelling to watch as he dispenses his brand of justice.

The other players are good too, including Osborne whose face, except for its pretentious little beard, has all the interest of a hard-boiled egg.

It's a far more compelling and haunting movie than most, and ultimately hits like a bullet between the eyes.

Set against the bleak semi-urban backdrop of Northern England, the film tackles violence and crime in an intense manner.

Fascinating film for those in the mood for something very solid and skillful.

Intense and Well-Knit .

I thought it was simply so dark and repulsive, so slow and dry that the people who raved about it were just hopelessly in love with crummy movies (I have my own "sinful pleasures," but mine are at least entertaining; "McQ" comes to mind).

Overall, there's an unremitting bleakness that permeates all the action and is well complemented by some of the grim-looking outside locations and the action that takes place in the drab bingo hall, a smoke-filled pub and the grubby betting shop.

In the middle we have mundane dramas, unsolved family issues, which matter very little.

I was in total shock when I first saw the final reels of this film, and it must remain as one of the most unexpected endings of all-time.

Every performance here is first rate, but Michael Caine's Jack Carter - deadly cold and malevolent even when he is at his most charming - is a stunning creation.

A slow paced film that really delivers on plot with gentle building tension.

Combined with the minimal acting style (pretty standard for these kinds of films--Melville's Le Samourai, for example), the setting seems to poetically express what's in Jack Carter's soul, ending in a stunning finale.

On the whole the movie is superb and entertaining.

) Quality: 10/10 Replayable: 9/10 Entertaining: 10/10

Also early in the movie when there is a sex scene, before the audience gets a chance to let their heart slow down, bad guys show up to menace Jack - with the timing of the arrival of bad guys quickly converging precisely on the moment of intercourse.

In addition to its raw grittiness, the film is also very intense.

Often his film will feel a little slow-going (never too boring, but of a time period, the 70's, when a story could take a little more time in establishing mood), but when action and violence come up it's genuinely shocking and thrilling.

The spare, stationary camera-work is first-rate, capturing whole scenes in single unobtrusive let stylishly done takes, and Jack Carter's vicious and merciless revenge plays out against the backdrop of smoke-filled pubs, private social clubs and derelict urban housing, shot on location, a very clever approach as it includes intriguing spots like an apparently well-known raw concrete multi-storey parking garage with a rooftop café and a level in the process of being developed into a restaurant.

Just plain boring.

This film has a stunning Michael Caine play cold-blooded gangster Jack Carter on a quest for vengeance.

I would agree with many of the previous reviewers that the locations and action are highly realistic (with the exception of Caine's pathetic jabs to the stomach of his villains), but who cares about realistic portrayals when the movie is BORING?!

It is not a masterpiece of the British Cinema,it's not even the best British Gangster movie (try the aforementioned "Brighton Rock"),but it is taut ,exciting and entertaining if over the top violence between non - consenting nasty adults is your thing.

With no lighthearted moments , the movie can get to you with its dark tone , all the more magnified by the dreary climatic conditions of the locations.

There are quite a few dull patches throughout and it is only so interesting to follow a character with relatively few positive qualities.

I also found the first hour completely boring--it picks up a lot in its second half.

I left this film behind feeling that it was too half-heartedly conceptualised/made and undeliberately empty to really be that respectively quite overrated top classic some consider it to be.

The film's cinematography uses a lot of interesting camera angles to keep this aged gangster flick from getting boring.

If the original was this dull, I await to see the remake on the Bottom 100 list.

The movie is slow; a lot of panning and a lot of re-tread over the same areas.

The industrial northern locations are as bleak as the story, and the final sequence, with Jack pursuing Ian Hendry's Eric, is as gripping as anything in cinema right up until its last shocking moment.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

I just saw this movie and have to say I enjoyed it.

One might say that his subsequent path of rampage is an agonized attempt to exorcise his guilt—at not being there, at being so slow to uncover the motive, at being a voyeur to the crime—and as such there's no valor in his vengeance, only a meaningless quest to mollify his soul.

Overall, what makes Get Carter so absurdly effective is the awe inspiring Michael Caine acting masterclass at the centre, the realistic, chilling and gritty direction and the haunting atmosphere of it.

Michael Caine gives a stunning performance as one of his most famous characters, Jack Carter, and Mike Hodges direction is well paced and perfect for this film.

This is intriguing because the violence in the film is actually very understated graphically, especially by todays standards.

I really thought the setting of the film is one of the most enjoyable parts of it, and alongside the haunting music really captures your interest more than it would in another location.

If you didn't or find yourself bored watching most 70's films, I think you'll find this film slow and not involving.

It's not the easiest watch out there, but Get Carter is also blackly humorous and thrilling.

I thought it dull and long-winded (I know, like my writing--hah, hah, hah!

Violence breeds violence, which breeds more violence in this enjoyable British gangster picture, a seminal film for Michael Caine, who sharpened his ability in his string of crime films in the 1960s, particularly in this one, to give such a charismatic and arresting performance as a character who has no intention---and neither do the filmmakers---of making us like him.

It informs the mood, it evokes the shape that we need for this story: close-minds, unsophisticated gangsters, but a light world where it is apparently enjoyable to live; that's why it was so believable that Caine's brother might have died by accident;.

Though it may now be feted as a quintessential "lads movie", it's actually far more intelligent than that; and well worth watching, even after four decades.

It was damn slow.

Amongst the usual British "rent-a-hood" characters we have an unexpected appearance by the playwright, John Osbourne who portrays a camp, creamily well-spoken Northern gang leader.

Masterpiece of intense drama, with hidden depths .

A subtle, thrilling story, a definite 10 + .

It is intentionally trite and shallow, like that of a bad working-mens' club comedian.

Long, slow, dreary, moody gangster film about mob thug killer Jack Carter (Michael Caine) hunting down his brother's killers, unaware of his own impending doom.

Some real nice shots, especially during the action scenes, but Hodges can be rather bland at times.

The bits of chasing and exciting action hit us like a punch in the dark; we do not expect anything, and the effect is marvelous.

This is the worst movie I have ever seen.

I haven't read the book, so I don't know how true it stays to the story, but worth watching if you get a chance.

Maybe I like Carter because his mission is so compelling.

Despite a slow start (spent establishing the characters and place), the film rushes towards a glorious, violent climax as Caine, as the title character, discovers how and why his brother was murdered, and exacts a chilling revenge on those responsible.

However, if you don't mind all the sleazy nastiness, it IS awfully entertaining.

Also all the settings are drab and grim which just add to the feeling of the story.

Not a bad film, just a little hard to follow once in a while.

Dirty, Nasty and Riveting .

Boring, tedious and poorly acted .

This gritty, exciting, cult crime classic has three great things going for it - firstly, it's a bonafide top-notch British gangster film, of which there are almost none (The Long Good Friday is about the only other one), secondly, the setting in the murky grey north-eastern town of Newcastle, all drab concrete eyesores and crumbling Victorian terraces, and thirdly, an unforgettably steely-eyed, no-nonsense, indefatigable performance by Caine as Jack.

Anyway, Carter decides to have an enjoyable day with his rifle at the beach.

It is an unusual, fascinating, and very powerful depiction.

Not a lot of plot, but highly entertaining and Caine does a dandy job.

The no-nonsense uber-violent tone, and the accompanying sexual frankness can make for disturbing viewing, but it is this overwhelming sense of 'reality' which makes the film so intense and beguiling.

Some will say it is too slow, to British, too laddish, too bleak, outdated scenery etc etc. Minor drawbacks that prevent a perfect 10.

I saw Mr. Hodges' recent bore-fest I'LL SLEEP WHEN I'M DEAD and was supremely disappointed since GET CARTER was one of the great crime flicks of the 70's (Didn't see the remake - no way).

It's a bit confusing and muddies up the tension.

It lacks narrative as well as character, and Caine's performance is shamefully dull and embarrassing.

Such attention to tiny, subtle, realistic and seemingly pointless little things add so much more to a passage of action as well as overall character.

The film is violent and uncompromising but also very entertaining with a neat line in black humour.

The scene where Carter engages in phone sex in front of his landlady alone is worth the price of admission: outrageous, dark, funny, brilliantly written, and chilling, it reminds you there was a time when the movies were as dangerous and exciting as off-Broadway theatre.

The most enjoyable aspect of the film has to be Caine's character.

Having said that, I really do admire the movie's slow pace and time it takes to set the scene visually.

I don't need to explain how great the acting is, with Caine on usual top form and bringing much needed personality to a fairly weak character, and all of the other acting being very enjoyable in their roles.

A great central performance, brilliant location and compelling story combine to make this a true classic .

A truly intriguing movie in many ways and certainly much deeper than one might expect from a film of this genre.

The character's all seem over-confident and as mentioned before, dull.

The story is well developed and has an intriguing message about what finding the truth to something leads to.

While I do agree that those things are good about the film, there isn't much besides that, as there is a lack of likable characters or a really engaging story being displayed here.

I am not against sex and violence, it is just that this particular movie is pointless.

If nothing else, it's worth watching just to see Alf from Coronation Street get slapped around.

While the beginning is a little slow, just remind yourself that it was made in 1971, and all movies were practically required to have slow starts back then.