In the early 2000s, Sylvester Stallone was struggling to rebuild himself from some of his cheesy action movies of the 90s, and these efforts didn’t all meet with much success. Get Carter is a remake of a 1971 film of the same name starring Michael Caine in the title role, and this remake was received with negative criticism and a poor box office take. However, I saw this film on opening weekend, and I have very much liked it ever since. Having still not seen the original movie, I imagine I have the ability to view it much more objectively. Still, almost any movie promising Sylvester Stallone in a fist fight with Mickey Rourke and a hilarious John C. McGinley is pretty cool to begin with, but I honestly feel the film has a lot of worthwhile merit in many regards.
His name is Jack Carter, and you don’t want to know him. When it’s your time to settle your debts, you pay what you owe, or Carter will make you pay. While working for the mob in Las Vegas, Carter (Sylvester Stallone) learns that his brother has died, and returns home to Seattle in order to learns the how’s and why’s. His brother left behind a wife, Gloria (Miranda Richardson), and a teenage daughter, Doreen (Rachel Leigh Cook), which Jack feels he must now take care of since he was not around when it mattered most. Though, when digging into the death of his brother, Jack comes to suspect that is was no accident, and that someone has to pay up.
Now, what even some of the middle of the road reviews gave credit to was that Stallone is solid as Jack Carter, and I enthusiastically agree. I really like that Jack is a guy who carries a weight of regret with him to where he has this post-facto sense of responsibility. He might be a guy who beats people up for a crime syndicate, but there’s a certain moral compass to Jack which Stallone grasps onto perfectly. There’s a lot of subtlety to his performance showing the superb reversal on the over-the-top action hero roles of Judge Dredd or Demolition Man. He brings with him a low key presence of intimidation, but still finds those moments of clever signature Stallone charm and wit. Jack Carter has a warm heart and compassion for those he cares about, and this comes so very naturally to Stallone. There’s such a great depth of dimension to what he does here. Sly gives us a complex character who intensifies the emotional drive of the film. It’s also amazing seeing how bulked up Stallone got for this movie. He’s larger than ever, and it really works for Jack’s tough, bad ass presence. Yet, it is that softer side of Jack Carter that really impresses as he shows a lot of pain after a certain point really hitting you deep in the heart, and that translates into a venomous vengeful determination in the film’s third act. It’s an awesome, compelling performance by Sylvester Stallone that amazingly reminds you that he can be a stunning, complex actor. I think it’s one of his best performances since First Blood.
A lot of the depth of heart and substance is carried on through Miranda Richardson and Rachel Leigh Cook. Richardson is great as Gloria who is in this constant uncertainty about Jack. At times she can confide in him about her problems with Doreen, but at other times, can condemn Jack for bringing further trouble upon them and being absent from their lives until Richie died. Richardson has pitch perfect chemistry with Stallone standing strong on her own while showing the emotional turmoil inside. Meanwhile, Cook very easily endears herself to Jack and an audience with some sad sweetness and sympathetic charm. As certain things are revealed, and far more tragic layers are peeled back from Doreen, Cook is really able to demonstrate the soul of her heartbreaking talent. It really ends up being the pulsating emotional core of this film.
I really like the scenes between Stallone and Mickey Rourke. These are two actors who genuinely seem like they enjoyed working off each other. They’ve got the right rhythm and chemistry that these two characters should have being old acquaintances and all. Rourke has the right charisma and air of sleaze as Cyrus Paice which makes him very entertaining to watch, but also, a real piece of scum that you want to see get busted up by the end. Rourke and Stallone are two buffed up bulls ready to lock horns regularly, and when they do finally trade punches, it’s a straight up bad ass brawl.
Anyone who loves John C. McGinley’s comedy work would also love him here. He plays Con McCarty, an associate of Jack’s in the Las Vegas syndicate, and I swear he ad-libbed the majority of his dialogue. It is just so brilliantly quick witted, off the cuff, and hilarious that he’s an utter, endless joy. It’s a performance like this which shows that this is a film that is interested in balancing the heavyweight drama with sharp beats of levity. And Alan Cumming is quite good as the geeky wet rag dot-com millionaire of Jeremy Kinnear who has gotten in way too damn deep with seedy individuals. He is a pleasure to watch in this role as Stallone looms over him with his brute intimidation. Of course, Michael Caine does a fine job in a somewhat small role as Richie’s now former employer, and Caine and Stallone have some solid scenes together. Apparently, even Caine endorsed Stallone as a respectable successor to his original role, and including him in this cast was a really nice touch.
I really adore the look of this film from director of photography Mauro Fiore. It’s soaked in this somber tone of overcast gloom of blues and greens that really absorb you into the tone of the movie. Director Stephen Kay really pushed hard to have this filmed in Seattle, and the beauty of the rain soaked city makes the film feel a little more unique. There’s also some unconventional style to Get Carter that might not work for many films, but all of the artistic flourishes really meld together beautifully, in my opinion. The strategic slow motion beats add a sense of grace to the photography, and Fiore moves the camera extremely competently with plenty of steadicam. I like that when Jack’s whole world turns upside down so does the camera accentuating a particularly unique filmmaking style that I really like here. There is some stylish editing with a few jumpy cuts, flash frames, and speed changes. I could see how some would find that irritating, but I really got absorbed into the mindset of this movie. Stephen Kay uses these stylistic choices to slip you into a character’s perception such as Jack’s world fracturing. Get Carter was edited by Academy Award winner Jerry Greenberg who also edited The French Connection, Apocalypse Now, Kramer vs. Kramer, and Scarface. Here, he superbly executes Stephen Kay’s vision right from the opening credits sequence onward.
There is a great, moody collection of music here in addition to Tyler Bates’ unique and stylish score. The original theme for the 1971 film by Roy Budd is utilized and remixed for this remake, and it is a beautiful composition that just tingles my senses. There are some techno tracks infusing some dance club style vibes into the movie. I particularly love the ethereal Moby track during the funeral scene. All of this music creates a very soulful or energized originality to this film that melds well with its visual stylings.
There is some really well put together action including a couple of very smart, tense car chases. Action directors who love their shaky cam could learn something from this film. Stephen Kay does make use of some unsteady photography and tight framing, but the editing is properly paced so to not confuse an audience. There are quick cuts, but because the lighting is clear, the compositions are just right using good angles, it all works. The latter car chase is really great, and it has a really cool stunt crash at the end. Yet, while there is exciting action, this film maintains that emotional and character based focus as Jack Carter delves further into the seedy underbelly of Seattle.
When Jack goes into full-on revenge mode, this movie gets dead-on bad ass. The grit really surfaces in the visual style and Stallone’s performance. Everything gets pretty dark and intense as Jack deals out his sense of personal justice in violent, sometimes lethal ways. This is a revenge movie driven by a lot of emotional depth and substance. Jack is going to clean out the trash, but the mending of emotional wounds is just as important to him, if not more so. It’s all wrapped up in his personal sense of obligation to the extended family he’s neglected, and a need to prove to himself and others that he can be a better man than his history has shown. There’s also a subplot where Jack Carter is involved with the syndicate boss’ woman back in Vegas, and this runs through the film a little. It’s another emotional tether that puts stress upon Jack especially when Con is sent to “take care of business” with much intended finality. Most revenge movies are just about the violent retribution, but this movie really delves you deeply into the hearts and souls of its sympathetic characters.
Get Carter is damn good, in my opinion, because it does take the time to develop its character and give you a dimensionality to connect with. You feel Jack’s pain and his need to put things right, and your sympathy easily flows for Doreen as the film progresses. Stephen Kay did do a really exceptional job with making these characters feel poignant, and have the consequences of everyone’s actions feel like they carry the weight of the world. This is really the kind of revenge thriller that truly captivates me because it’s not just gunning people down for ninety minutes, which does have its satisfying qualities. The substance of everything here saturates the film, and Stallone carries it all so amazingly well. The ending might have used a little more weight and veracity, but the payoff is satisfying regardless. I highly recommend this remake of Get Carter. If you’re a Stallone fan, like me, you should definitely give this a watch.
I do like this sequel. I’ve never vocalized any criticism of it because it is fun and enjoyable, but yeah, it does have some problems that should be pointed out. Probably its biggest is a few too many plot threads running through it. They never make the film incomprehensible, just a little bloated, but there is the fact that the film constantly veers off track by following the wrong story after not too long. It had promise at the start, but let’s see how exactly they dash that.
Now that Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) has revealed to the world that he is Iron Man, the entire world is now eager to get their hands on his hot technology – whether it’s the United States government, weapons contractors, or an unknown enemy. That enemy happens to be Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) – the son of now deceased Anton Vanko, Howard Stark’s former partner. Stark had Vanko banished to Russia for conspiring to commit treason against the US, and now Ivan wants revenge against Tony – and he’s willing to get it at any cost. But after being humiliated in front of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, rival weapons contractor Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) sees Ivan as the key to upping his status against Stark Industries after an attack on the Monaco 500. All the while, an ailing Tony has to figure out a way to save himself, stop Vanko, and get Hammer before the government shows up and takes his beloved suits away.
Simply said, I think Iron Man 2 could have been a better movie if it didn’t overload itself with so many plots. The story we get with Tony dealing with a self-destructive mentality has some great stuff in it. Instead of dealing with alcoholism, which has been a major issue for Stark in the comics, it deals with his failing health due to issues with his arc reactor. What’s saving his life is also killing him is a fine idea. I do like that this ties into Ivan Vanko and Howard Stark, creating something that appears cohesive in concept. Yet, adding in all the unneeded machinations of Justin Hammer and the S.H.I.E.L.D. plot elements convolutes things, taking away the focus and poignancy of the core story.
I feel that everything directly involving Tony dealing with his father’s legacy, and rebuilding himself is excellent. It creates the weight and gravity of the film, and it is what I love about Iron Man 2. While it does seem like the filmmakers kind of took Tony back a step from the more altruistic and compassionate guy he became in the last film, I can see how Tony’s deteriorating health could alter his personality and disposition. Once Tony’s health is on the upswing, and he becomes inspired by his father’s legacy, he rises back up to being that hero we knew. Still, that kicks in for the third act, and so, for the majority of the picture, we have the more self-absorbed, self-destructive Tony Stark. Downey continues to do a fantastic job in the role bringing his charm and charisma into the fold to maintain Tony as likeable even if he’s being a belligerent ass. You know there’s a better guy underneath and he just needs a kick in the back side to open his eyes and mind again.
Obviously, I really liked Terrence Howard as Rhodey, but after a disagreement over money, Marvel replaced him with the equally talented Don Cheadle. He does a fine job following up on what Howard did, but admittedly, I can’t help but constantly think how Howard might’ve played things a little differently. That’s not a knock on Cheadle, who I love, just the unfortunate fact of having to re-cast a role. Regardless, Don Cheadle is a strong fit for this role focusing more on a character of serious candor and conviction with a few touches of humor. We still get moments of compassion from Rhodey, but he’s forced into a more conflicted role of trying to help Tony, even went it turns adversarial, while maintaining loyalty to the U.S. military. Cheadle takes the role and runs with it adding his own vibe and depth to it while not betraying what was done previously.
Scarlet Johansen is amazingly sexy and killer as Black Widow. She’s got some sharp, alluring chemistry with Downey. Natasha Romanov is able to lead Stark on while also never giving into his advances, making her a very smart and assertive character. When it comes time to kick ass, she is immensely impressive handling all the agile fighting skills beautifully. She’s a wonderful and vibrant fit for this role.
On initial viewings, I found Sam Rockwell’s Justin Hammer to be nearly insufferable and obnoxious. He came off like the lame guy at the party trying to act like the coolest guy at the party and failing. I understand that this is sort of the intention with the character. Make him seem like a second rate Tony Stark who is more lame by trying to be cool, but annoying is sort of what I got out of the performance. The film sets him up as this inferior and incompetent competitor to Stark, and he never becomes anything but incompetent and egotistical. No one in the film is really buying any of the bull he’s selling, especially Vanko, and you can see that even he views Hammer as a foolish, abrasive joke. Rockwell is a highly talented actor with many various talents, but I think this character is too much. He eats up so much scenery and screentime while being one of the least consequential characters in the movie. At times, I can enjoy him more now, finding some humor in what Hammer is doing, especially during his weapons presentation to Rhodey, but the film really would have been far better off without this character.
It’s almost sad that Hammer has so much screentime compared to Mickey Rourke. While Ivan Vanko’s story is simply revenge, it has more potential substance than Hammer’s purely ego-driven scheme. It would’ve pushed the more internal conflicts with Tony into the foreground, and have Vanko represent everything wrong and twisted with his family’s legacy. Rourke can be a fantastic actor, or in the least, a very entertaining one. There are scenes here where Rourke does very solid dramatic work, especially when Vanko and Stark meet after the Monaco incident. Rourke makes this a great, intimidating, and menacing villain that should have been the main threat throughout the movie. Yet, he quickly becomes relegated to be a minor character after he joins up with Hammer, and even the conclusion to his part of the film is very dismissive as a generic “villain in a suit” throwaway action sequence. With so many plot threads weaving through this film, it seems the filmmakers lost sight partway through of what was pertinent to the core story and what was just entertaining fluff.
The scene between Vanko and Stark after the race track incident is the best scene of the film, and it is terribly wasted. The thematic material Vanko brings up in it and the questions about the Stark family legacy are barely followed through on in the remainder of the film. This scene establishes a serious, dramatic tone that is not really revisited. Even in the trailers, this was the dramatic hook for me. If this set the tone for the remainder of the film, it would have been a tremendously solid film, but alas, that was not to be.
Again, the film is a little over bloated and a bit indulgent. Stuff about Vanko obsessing over his bird is entirely frivolous, but thankfully, doesn’t take up more than a few minutes of screentime. Yet, the film has little moments like this where it indulges in extraneous junk, such as in the Senate Committee meeting. The film gets cluttered with too much junk that it can’t see the track to stay on it. The main plot of this film deals with Tony Stark falling apart and having to rebuild himself by rediscovering his father’s legacy. That’s apparent right from the beginning, and it would have flowed very well if the film dealt mainly with Ivan Vanko’s intentions of revenge. It would all thematically tie in solidly, but again, it is the Justin Hammer aspect that disrupts that plotline of the film. The first part of the film through Vanko’s incarceration is great to me. It felt like the film was on-track, for the most part, towards a meaty story filled with emotional resonance. Unfortunately, it doesn’t maintain that because the filmmakers felt it was necessary to add a second, frivolous villain who overshadows the more superior and relevant villain. This really is my main gripe with the movie, and it is why I keep harping on it. Vanko has strong motivations based in bitter emotions that make him a formidable adversary. Hammer just has ego going for him, and that is just not very interesting. Beyond that, he’s just a lame character good merely for small jokes, not a forefront storyline.
Now, people say that this film being a setup for The Avengers is its biggest problem. Frankly, that is barely part of the movie. Yes, there are ways you could have written Nick Fury and Black Widow out of this for a tighter, less crowded movie, but let’s look at what they contribute to the film. They provide Tony with an injection that curbs the symptoms of his ailment, provide him with further knowledge into his father which leads to Tony discovering the new element to power his Arc reactor, and Black Widow helps to stop Vanko’s assault with the Hammer Drones. They don’t actually impede upon the plot, or wedge their own plot into the film, they are part of the on-going plot of the movie. They assist Stark with various aspects of it, and while they are there in order for there to be a segue into The Avengers and more concretely establish S.H.I.E.L.D., they don’t hijack the movie from Iron Man. It’s still his movie, and they just happen to be in it.
On the upside, Iron Man 2 does feature some excellent action sequences. They are all different and exciting from Vanko’s attack on the race track, which creates a sense of grave peril, to the fast-paced finale teaming Iron Man and War Machine together against the Hammer Drones. It does have less action than the first film, but what Jon Favreau and his creative team of filmmakers achieved with these sequences is still excellent. There’s enough plot going on to maintain a rhythm and pace in the film for it to survive and mostly thrive without the aid of additional action sequences. I do feel that the Hammer Drone attack is far more satisfying than when Vanko shows up in his Whiplash suit. This is mainly because the Hammer Drone segment is just an action scene with the sole intent of delivering excitement in a smart and slick fashion. Vanko’s conclusion, again, feels flat and secondary, at best.
Regardless of its problems, I still do find Iron Man 2 quite an enjoyable film with plenty of excitement, charisma, mostly great performances, and some very smart ideas for evolving Tony’s character. I do think that Marvel Studios had all the right talent and elements, but weren’t able to either trim them down for a leaner story or arrange them in the most effective order. You could have Justin Hammer be in the film without him dominating so much of the plot. He could easily be a more minor character enabling Vanko, who remains in the forefront enhancing the thematic elements of the story. In any case, many do see this film as a stumbling block in just the Iron Man franchise, but I’m far from thinking it’s terrible. I know others disagree. It’s a film that still had substance and evident talent behind it which still manages to be entertaining, in my view.
Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dennis Rodman. Far too strange of a pairing to ignore. You throw Mickey Rourke into the mix as the villain, and how can you really say no? Okay, so this wasn’t a blockbuster, and even plans for a sequel never materialized. I was not allowed to see the film in theatres at the time, punishment for getting poor progress reports in high school that week. So, I discovered it on VHS, and now, re-discovered it on a decent widescreen DVD. I can understand why this got negative reviews, but the fact is, Double Team wasn’t trying to be anything more than what it was – a fun, exciting, and highly entertaining action film.
Van Damme portrays CIA counter-terrorist operative Jack Quinn who runs one final mission before retirement to start a family with his lovely wife Kathryn. Years later, with his pregnant wife in the South of France, Quinn is paid a visit by an old colleague to rope him back into action to help bring down his old nemesis Stavros (Mickey Rourke). A man who once worked for the good guys when they needed someone with the stomach for dirtier work to be done, but has long since worked for the other side supplying arms and other contraband. In prepping this operation in Antwerp, Jack taps eccentric arms dealer Yaz (Dennis Rodman) who himself “doesn’t play with the bad boys anymore, just the good guys.” They strike a fun chord with one another, making a memorable impression. However, Quinn misses the target, and the mission is a failure. Stavros loses both his son and girlfriend in this violent encounter. In the aftermath, Quinn is sent to an island called “The Colony” where former intelligence agents and assassins work together to counteract terrorist plots around the world. Jack is ushered through this new environment by former operative Goldsmyth (Paul Freeman). However, Jack seeks escape from the seemingly inescapable island after he receives a message from Stavros stating the he has abducted his pregnant wife who is about to give birth to their son. A daring and dangerous escape brings Jack back to Antwerp seeking Yaz’s arsenal and savvy. What ensues beyond this is an unlikely partnership that evolves, through adrenalin fueled danger, into a trusted friendship as Quinn attempts to save his wife and child while trying to burn down Stavros once and for all.
What would make or break this film was clearly going to be how Van Damme and Rodman meshed. The eccentric NBA star was hot news at the time easily coined a bad boy for his antics on and off the court. Here, he is surprisingly funny and likeable without being crass. I found him nicely charming generating a lot of the film’s clean sense of fun and humor. Van Damme holds down the more serious end of things nicely. It’s not anything exceptional, but he inhabits Jack Quinn very well. You can feel his determination and love for his wife and child throughout the film. JCVD has a lot of heart to offer in these roles which I think gets overlooked by the sensational aspects of his movies. As Quinn, it really shows through. And while Rodman handles the bulk of the humor, Jean-Claude dishes out a few quips here and there as banter with Yaz. As a team, they may not be 100% pitch perfect, but their performances balance out the film well. Van Damme and Rodman seem to be enjoying themselves, and their chemistry works out to surprising success to make them a fine, if unlikely team. Of course, there are numerous basketball jokes throughout the movie, but they are handled with a bit of charm. And frankly, would you expect otherwise? A film of this sort with many plot, humor, and character throwbacks to the cliché 1980s action film couldn’t possibly deny those ripe opportunities. Don’t take that as a knock at all. Double Team takes that style and formula, and gives it a nice splash of fresh paint with a late 90s style. A sharper, sleeker design that I thoroughly enjoyed.
Mickey Rourke could play a heavy without even trying, but as we’ve seen in recent years, he has a wide range of acting talents. Here, he doesn’t need to stretch far, but Stavros is a solid villain with a fine array of henchmen and assassins. He has a clear plan of revenge that he handles calmly and confidently. He keeps his cool throughout because he’s got the game nicely strategized for Quinn to follow his lead. Mickey has a smooth coolness wrapped up with a tough bad ass edge which suits Stavros perfectly, and gives Quinn a hell of an enemy to combat.
Rounding out the meat of the cast is Paul Freeman as Goldsmyth. The role has some nice British charm mixed with a touch of humor and shadiness. He’s both ally and adversary to Quinn, and he shifts from one to the other with a bit of grace without losing his likeability. Goldsmyth would rather not have to be an adversary, but circumstances deem it necessary for him to be as such. In the end, Goldsmyth is given an upbeat final note to go out on. Freeman handles the role smoothly.
The action, of course, is very well handled. Competently shot with a dash of style, and nicely edited to maintain energy and pace without sacrificing the clarity of the visual storytelling. I have not seen even most of Van Damme’s movies, but this has a nice mix of action sequences that should satisfy his fans. He does plenty of hard hitting martial arts fights mixed with shootouts and explosions to keep the film exciting and varied. The climactic action sequence is flat out AMAZING with a tiger set loose on Quinn in the Roman Coliseum with a field of hidden landmines, and some daring motorcycle antics by Yaz. It’s an explosive, rather original double edged ending that also gives Rourke the chance to show off his impressive physique. Mickey Rourke trained rigorously to be up to Van Damme’s level for their fight scenes, and certainly holds up his end providing a formidable adversary. This being a film from the late 1990s, there’s some splashes of John Woo style action, but in general, it’s solid work. The European setting is a very nice touch giving a different style to the film in many ways. It helps the movie to stand out a bit more with a fresh flavor.
Other elements of fun definitely come from Rodman’s character. He handles some brief, but enjoyable and entertaining action sequences. Being an athlete already, I’m sure it was an easy fit for him, and the role is written in such a way to maintain a sense of sly humor. It all fits for his character’s style, and supplements the more hard hitting action that Van Damme offers. Another fun bit are Yaz’s “cyber monks.” A group of monks in Rome that Yaz has befriended with the gift of modern technology. They are an endearing bunch which provide some additional smiles and chuckles for a brief period late in the film. The humor present in the film really does help balance out the heavier dramatic and action aspects, and gives Double Team its endearing charm. There’s some cheesy dialogue, but it’s all handled in good fun.
Again, the cinematography offers up some style that is very telling of the time it was made. Dutched angles here and there are used more to add a stylistic composition to a few shots than create an artistic off-kilter perception. Unlike in Thor when it was used to no purposeful effect, here, it just feels like a sign of the times. Dutch angles in action films were used as a stamp of “cool.” You would shoot a subject with an awkward angle, and they take on a more skewed “cool” look in combination with the sleek, shadowy lighting. It’s nothing I take issue with, but it is indeed a trademark of late 90s action films that a modern audience wouldn’t be so used to.
The plot is pretty standard fare that was practically a decade old by this time. That was brightly highlighted in the Nostalgia Critic’s review of the movie, which is what sparked me to check it out, again. However, as I’ve said, I think the storyline is handled well with doses of humor, Van Damme’s unique action stylings, and the European setting. While the film does have its humor, it’s never used at the expense of the drama. It’s very nicely balanced for both to co-exist without clashing. The movie is well cast with actors who bring distinctive personality to their characters, and make the ride one worth taking. There are certainly gaps in logic with the screenplay, and some things on-screen are a bit ridiculous. Still, like I said, this was meant to be a fun thrill ride. It never takes these elements are serious, and are usually brief gaps.
I watch Double Team again now, and I just wish they made a sequel. It’s so much fun with enjoyable, colorful characters, and nicely energetic and slightly over the top action sequences. Plans were considered for a sequel, and while its box office take did exceed its production budget, it wasn’t a huge success. Every film, generally, should be judged on its own merits, and based on the genre and style of film this is, I think it’s definitely worthwhile. Plenty of big action to be had along with some solid laughs.