juneebuggy I really liked this movie, I know, I'm surprised too because the reviews were not too kind. But its sort of stuck with me over the last couple of days.Sylvester Stallone takes over the role Michael Caine played in the original 1971 British version as Jack Carter, a shiny suit wearing debt collector from Las Vegas who returns to Seattle for his estranged brother's funeral and is soon investigating the events that led to his death. He's a character I instantly felt sorry for, he's alone, lonely, obviously hates his life and everyone treats him like sh!t.The mood throughout is dark, violent and gritty with some interesting cinematography thrown in; jump cuts, strange angles and colour filters but there's also some good car chases, shoot outs and fight scenes. Stallone gets beat up real bad here by strip club owner Mickey Rourke.As a whole this film is pretty average but Stallone has a couple of moments where he amazes and makes you realize that he can really act when he wants to. He has several scenes with his niece (Rachael Leigh Cook) which are all quite strong but the one on the rooftop where she tells him what happened to her and he reacts is just astounding, probably one of the most powerful moments I've ever seen from Stallone as an actor.Alan Cummings also shines, Michael Caine has a cameo and randomly the soundtrack by (Tyler Bates) is quite decent as I watched this on the treadmill. *Vancouver as Seattle 4/6/16

Python Hyena Get Carter (2000): Dir: Stephen Kay / Cast: Sylvester Stallone, Mickey Rourke, Rachel Leigh Cook, Michael Caine, Alan Cumming: Heavy advertizing showcases mindless violence and complete idiocy. Forget Carter and find something of worth to watch. Sylvester Stallone plays a bad man named Jack Carter who slaps people around. That in itself must have taken extreme thought from the screenwriter. He is back in town to attend his brother's funeral whose wife wonders why he cares at all. He doesn't buy it as an accident and gets the real deal on a surveillance camera where a disc is passed. Scenes involving Carter's other job are a distraction and only serve for violence. Director Stephen Kay handles the action with fine locations but this is just a bigger budget and more violent version of the 1971 original starring Michael Caine, which likely had a more detailed screenplay. Story is almost entirely smash, boom, bang, pow, blam, yank, ka-boom! Stallone sounds less intelligent with each spoken word. He is there to fight and nothing more. Mickey Rourke plays Stallone's punching bag. Rachel Leigh Cook plays a confused teenager. She must be really confused to agree to be part of this garbage. Cameo by Michael Caine who really should have declined seeing that this is an insult. Forget Carter and leave the theatre with dignity. Score: 2 / 10

Scarecrow-88 A Las Vegas "fixer" (Sylvester Stallone; those who don't pay their debts when expected are greeted by this enforcer) returns home to Seattle after a considerable absence upon the knowledge of his brother's death. While on its face, the brother seemed to have been drunk behind the wheel and hit a tree, it turns out after some investigation that the crash could have been a ruse to cover up shady activities.A bartender, a porn "businessman" (Mickey O'Rourke; a real sleaze in this film) perhaps hooking girls out of a club he runs, a Harvard-educated computer whiz (Alan Cumming, in a rare straight role; he's a real weasel, always whining and pee-in-his-pants scared), and a pub owner (Michael Caine, who deserved a bit better than this underwhelmingly limited supporting part, considering he was the star of the original this film was inspired by) all factor into the results of Stallone's investigation. Meanwhile, Stallone's Vegas boss wants him back regardless of the investigation into his brother's murder. Gretchen Moll, the boss' mol, had been having an affair with Stallone, while the always-awesome John C. McGinley (making the most of a small role; most couldn't take the scraps he's given and make them a full course meal like John does here) shows up in Seattle to inform Stallone that the boss insists he returns no questions asked. Of course, Stallone isn't about to leave Seattle until those responsible for his demise are brought to justice (his brand of justice, of course). There's always somebody trying to thwart the investigation, and Stallone remains determined to see the course, with lots of car chases (and, especially, crashes), leveled faces from heavy punches landed, and quivering punks about to crap their pants. Personally, despite a lot of flak this remake has endured, I think it isn't too shabby actually. Stallone, when inspired, can deliver a good performance. He could always crack wise and look all muscled in Demolition Man or Tango & Cash (both of which are pleasures I can enjoy all the time), sending up his action star image, but when required, he had the pathos and wherewithal to apply his acting skills when the right role came along. Like something totally critically maligned (and less regarded) such as Eye See You, or even critically lauded by not as popular with the public (Cop Land), Stallone seemed on his A-game. Even the disaster film, Daylight (which I think should be re-evaluated by all of Stallone's fans; I think this is a good one that could find its audience), was an outlet for Stallone to flex his acting muscles. In Get Carter, this part asks him to portray a damaged character with a not-so-glamorous rep. In fact, his brother's wife, played by a rather wasted Miranda Richardson (her caliber of an actress seems miscast in an action thriller), doesn't even want him around while a young Rachel Leigh Cook (you know, I rather like her the more I watch her; some of the teen stuff she wasn't that challenged, but here is a part that is tough, playing such a girl surrounded by corruption and evil) confides in him because there's no one else around to listen. I think the best acting bits are between Stallone and Cook; here, the vulnerable side of the roughly-hewn, stewing, anger-seething Stallone is visible, while Cook can let down her guard and speak openly with him. A CD containing recordings of a drug-induced rape of a minor and a hooker (Rhona Mitra, simply stunning, even as she's glammed down into trampy dresses and make-up) the dead brother was involved in an affair with both could shed light on the false car crash and its purpose. With intense exchanges between O'Rourke and Stallone, which soon lead to fisticuffs (first, O'Rourke gets the better of Stallone, but later the results are reversed), and a shifty Caine who seems to be hiding something (he just has that way about him that can't be trusted) provide some intrigue in the film. I wasn't a fan of the photography (a lot of close proximity, in-your-face shots, and the camera rarely holds still very long) in the film, nor was the editing style much to my liking (I prefer compositions to last past two seconds), but Stallone's star appeal (and charisma), as well as, his sincerity in the developing storyline held my interest. If he cares in the part, it shows. It sure as hell did in Cop Land; I think, while his career was starting to decline as the 90s made its way into the early 2000s, he had some of the best performances since the early days when Rocky announced him as a major star.

Dark Jedi This movie is a good example of why, in my opinion, the official ratings by on Rotten Tomatoes, made by the so called (professional) critics, are generally worthless. Currently this movie has a rating of 12% according to Rotten Tomatoes which, of course, will lead everyone not aware of how crappy their system actually is to believe that the film is utter crap and that is really utter crap.This movie is nothing fantastic. It would even qualify as a B-flick, but it is not really bad. It is a nice enough action/thriller flick to kill an evening with without really getting disappointed. I have not seen the original one so I am not pre-conditioned against this movie which perhaps helps.Sylvester Stallone does a quite acceptable performance in the role of the silent and threatening mob enforcer. He plays as you would expect him to do and if you do not like Stallone, well then there is not much to do about it. Personally I think he has his style and I like it and do not really want him to change it just because some critics find it "lacking".The movie itself and the story is also fairly okay. Again nothing fantastic or particularly innovative but good enough. It has its ups and downs though. Especially in terms of pacing which is a bit uneven. Sure, not everything can be car chases or fist fights but when it slows down it really slows down. Even though it is a gangster/action/thriller movie it is not overly violent. As a matter of fact it is fairly tame in the sense that, as soon as someone actually gets killed this happens off the scene and is left to the viewer's imagination. A bit silly if you ask me but it did not really bother me too much either so.Close to the end the director indulges himself in some very annoying psychedelic flickering scenes, presumably to hide some of the violence in the final fighting between Stallone and the bad guy. That did bother me. I really do not like such epilepsy inducing nonsense. Not that I have epilepsy but it still strains my eyes and really bother me.Anyway, it was a decent enough movie and certainly good enough to get, at least, an average rating.