appsbad.blogg.se

The main reason is the way in which the character of Jack Carter has been changed. Despite this, however, it is a far inferior film when compared with the original. It has a much more star-studded cast than the original, with at least one reasonably good performance from a convincingly thuggish Mickey Rourke. Stephen Kay's film attempts to establish a similar sense of place to the original the Seattle we see has a bleak, forbidding atmosphere, always shrouded in rain or mist. Its view of the underworld acted as a necessary antidote to the tendency, very prevalent in the late sixties and early seventies, to glamorise criminals ("The Thomas Crown Affair), sentimentalise them ("The Italian Job") or mythologise them ("The Godfather").

Its fidelity to a real time and place was not a weakness but a strength, helping to establish it firmly in the realm of reality and to convey its major theme, the sterility and futility of the criminal lifestyle.

Like many of the best British films, it had a strong sense of place. This was a time of rapid social change in Britain, marked by increasing social mobility, growing permissiveness and relative prosperity, elements all reflected in the film. That film was one that grew out of, and yet at the same time transcended, a particular place and time, the North-East of England in the early seventies. It is a remake of Mike Hodges's classic from 1971, one of the few great British gangster films.

This is, of course, a good example of Hollywood's cannibalising of the British and European film industries in its endless search for a good story. The film charts Jack's attempts to find out the truth and to take revenge.

This was officially reported as an accident, but Jack suspects that his brother may have been murdered by members of the local criminal underworld. The central figure of this film, Jack Carter, is a Las Vegas gangster who returns to his roots in Seattle following the death of his brother.