Please don't spend money on this.

Great Film overall

Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Better Late Then Never

"Get Carter" is one of the seminal British gangster films, as fresh today as when Mike Hodges made it back in 1971 despite looking every inch the period piece that it is. Michael Caine, (it is one of his most iconic roles), is Carter who travels up from London to Newcastle to find out who killed his brother and, naturally, to take his revenge. The film's greatness lies in Hodges' stylish direction, the brilliant screenplay which Hodges adapted from Ted Lewis' novel, the superb supporting cast which included playwright John Osborne and most of all to Wolfgang Suschitzky's cinematography, (he photographs faces and places with the same attention to detail). In 2000 someone had the not-too-bright idea of remaking the film in America as a vehicle for Sylvester Stallone. That one is best avoided.

Jack Carter is a tough London gangster who heads north to Newcastle for his brother's funeral. He is pretty certain that it wasn't an accident and he is sure it wasn't suicide so determines to find out who was behind it and why. As he starts to ask questions he comes up against some of the most dangerous men in the North East; they know what happened but have no intention of telling Carter and they want him gone but are happy to point him in the direction of their rivals first. When Carter eventually discovers the truth nobody involved will be safe.This film is almost the definition of 'gritty'; the '70s Newcastle setting has a cold feel with its rundown back-to-back housing and concrete tower blocks. None of the characters can really be considered nice; Jack Carter certainly isn't. He is one of cinema's less pleasant protagonists; brutal and amoral. Michael Caine is on top form; making Carter a believable character. As well as a fair amount of nasty violence there is quite a bit of nudity; this is more sleazy than sexy though… although it is once mildly comic as Carter threatens two heavies with a shotgun while completely naked; shocking the neighbour in the process! Overall I'd certainly recommend it; it is considered a classic with good reason, just don't expect any happy endings.

This film is an excellent of British cinema, let alone British gangster cinema. This film is about Jack Carter (Michael Caine), a mob enforcer from London who goes to Newcastle to attend his brother Frank's funeral. While there, he suspects that Frank's death was an assassination and seeks the truth.The main strengths of this film are its gritty realism and Caine's performance. The violence is brutal (as it should be, violence is never pleasant). The location of Newcastle is an unpleasant place to be, the perfect breeding ground for criminals. This also adds to the aesthetic of the film, its not attempting to glamorise the gangster lifestyle like Scorsese's films do (nothing against this movies - they're still great). Caine's character is angry throughout the film (and rightly so - his brother died). But in the scene when he realises why his brother was killed was well done. In this scene he watches a scene from a pornographic movie and discovers his niece was in it. Caine's performance in this scene is good: he went from happiness to sadness to anger in a short space of time.The ending is good, after getting his revenge Carter is killed by an assassin. The ending was to show Carter's actions were not justified and that violence only leads to more violence.While looking through the reviews here, someone criticised that this movie did not focus on the inner workings of the gangs. I think this is justifiable for two reasons. First, this film is a revenge story. Second, it is also Carter's story. Carter works for the London mob not the Newcastle mob. Gangster films that show the inner workings of gangs do so because they're told from the perspective of someone from the inside. Carter is an outsider. Another thing that is criticised is the lack of character development. This is true. The characters aren't very deep, but they don't need to be, their motivation is clear. The reason I gave this movie an 8/10 is because it's rough around the edges and is a little dated. This is understandable considering it was the director's first film as well as being low budget. I would still recommend the film.

I am somewhat mystified by the reputation of Get Carter as a cult classic. To me, this is a portrait of revenge and the self-destructive effect that it has upon the perpetrator, who basically transmogrifies into his enemy by deigning to conduct himself as he did--and worse. In this case, the angry Carter seeks to avenge his brother's murder, but ends up whacking everyone and his sister, girlfriend, and other random associates along the way. Pretty unsettling and more a statement of the killer's deranged mental state than anything else. Near the end, he was even starting to resemble Henry Lee Lucas a bit."He who lives by the gun dies by the gun" is essentially the moral of this story. Or, if you like: "What goes around comes around," or perhaps "violence breeds violence." There was nothing noble whatsoever in this killing spree. I do aver that Michael Caine did a pretty good job in the role of someone suffering from serious, big-time OCD with a major idée fixe expressed only in the medium of yet more homicide. Too bad he wasn't a poet instead.