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: 7.4
Director: Mike Hodges
Stars: Michael Caine, Ian Hendry
Length: 112 Minutes
PG Rating: R
Reviews: 31 out of 208 found boring (14.9%)

One-line Reviews (98)

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

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

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.

I kept hoping it would get better, but it was empty; indeed, it was a waste of my precious time.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Boring, tedious and poorly acted .

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.

A subtle, thrilling story, a definite 10 + .

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

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

Intense and Well-Knit .

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

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

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

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).

Patchy but worth watching .

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

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.

Dirty, Nasty and Riveting .

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

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

One of the worst movies ever made.

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?!

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.

Masterpiece of intense drama, with hidden depths .

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

An Unwatchable Exercise in Art Deco Filmmaking .

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).

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Shot in drab 70s style and color, and dark in nature, it is slow paced as we slowly watch Carter pursue his own vengeance with loosey-goosey hanky-panky mixed in while Mobsters try to 'get' Carter.

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

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

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

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

It was damn slow.

This is the worst movie I have ever seen.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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;.

I found it slow, uninteresting and even laughable.

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

Just plain boring.

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.

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.

Maybe I like Carter because his mission is so compelling.

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

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.

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.

On the whole the movie is superb and entertaining.

A waste of time and talent.

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

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

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

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.

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

Made it thru 35 very dull minutes.

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

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