At 09:31 PM 22/04/2007, Channing wrote:
>And yes, I was disappointed that no publishers felt
the need to
>reprint the Get Carter books. But when the movie was
so terrible and
>grossed like $6 mil maybe the publishers made the
right financial
>decision.
I rented videos of both movies the same weekend some years
back. Yes, the Hollywood Treatment spoiled a lot of the
narrative and yes Caine is the superior actor, but some
interesting things came out of the comparison.
First, Get Carter2 used a similar opening with the same music
and that was effective in both, as I recall. Very
effective.
Second, Cain was largely expressionless throughout the movie,
and that was the style of acting that had been effective in
the Harry Palmer series and even much of Alfie. He acted that
way. Critical opinion of Stallone is mostly that lack of
expression is evidence of his lack of acting skill. While
he's not Caine, I don't think that's the case. Stallone's
lack of expression in this film was deliberately copied from
Get Carter1.
Third, Stallone's Carter was focused on style and fashion,
fitted suits and shot cuffs. It reminded me after years of
his playing older, more rumpled characters, what a clothes
horse Caine was in his early career. I particularly recall
the shortened London Fog top coats of the time. Both movies
were very much about time, place and style. Is that true of
the book as well?
Best, Kerry
------------------------------------------------------
Literary events Calendar (South Ont.) http://www.lit-electric.com
The evil men do lives after them http://www.murderoutthere.com
------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 23 Apr 2007 EDT