The picture above doesn't appear with the review
of "Get Carter" in US Weekly's Oct. 23,
2000 issue (instead a small shot of SLY and MICHAEL CAINE appears).
The movie received a rating
of 2 1/2 stars (out of four possible)
with the reviewer saying that:
"...Get Carter isn't really half bad..."
"...(Get) Carter is fairly atmospheric and introspective..."
"... director Stephen Kay's artsy touches provide a strong
sense of place..."
The reviewer further compliments the "subtlety and poignancy
of the scenes between Carter (STALLONE) and his niece (RACHEL
LEIGH COOK)..."
"... this is one STALLONE movie that's interesting
because of, and not despite, its star."
Let's consider this for a minute now... "Get
Carter" wasn't given to critics for pre-release reviews...
the implication being that they would only hurt "GC"
at the box office. Had
the review in US run the opening week, potential "GC"
audience members would have read that "GC":
* received an overall 2 1/2 stars rating
which is ABOVE AVERAGE
* that it was praised for being introspective and
poignant
* that the director had been singled out for praise
* that STALLONE and RACHEL LEIGH COOK were singled
out for praise
* that STALLONE was given special praise indicating
that his performance really helped to carry the movie.
Don't you think that these two factors would have
been enough to convince more fans to give it a try?
I do.
Also consider that since "Get Carter"
opened last week not as much space was given to the review this
week. It received about
1/3 or 1/4 of a page with a small picture. "Dr. T and the Women," which
opened this week received the same 2 1/2 star review BUT got
a FULL page (including a 1/2 page picture).
Same rating but which movie will benefit most?
BTW - There's a small picture of SLY as Rocky which
also appears in the issue in a section called "Heavy Hitters"
which features 8 pictures of actors/actresses who've played boxers
in movies.
- Craig Zablo (October 14, 2000) |