Editing Get Carter (section)

===Critical response===
[[File:Get-carter-trailer-two.jpg|thumb|Jack's pursuit of Eric as seen in the film's trailer]]

On [[Rotten Tomatoes]], the film has an approval rating of 87% based on 38 reviews, with an average rating of 7.50/10; the site's critical consensus reads "Darkly entertaining and tightly wound, ''Get Carter'' is a gritty revenge story done right".<ref name="rotten-tomatoes">{{cite web|title=Get Carter (1971)|url=https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1076721-get_carter/|work=Rotten Tomatoes|access-date=5 August 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120228182453/http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1076721-get_carter/|archive-date=28 February 2012|url-status=live|df=dmy-all}}</ref> In 2003, Steve Chibnall observed a large gender imbalance in voting on the film up to April 2002, with less than 6% of votes cast (where the voters gave their gender) by women (53 out of 947). He also noticed a substantial increase in women voting on the film in the eight months leading up to April 2002.<ref name="Chibnall, p. 92"/>

Describing the initial critical response to the film, Steve Chibnall wrote "Initial critical vilification or indifference establishes the conditions in which a cult can flourish. ''Get Carter'' had to make do with ambivalence".<ref>Chibnall, p. 91</ref> He thought the general stance of British critics "was to admire the film's power and professionalism while condemning its amorality and excessive violence".<ref name="Chibnall, p. 92">Chibnall, p. 92</ref> Geoff Mayer observed that "Mainstream critics at the time were dismayed by the film's complex plotting and Carter's lack of remorse".<ref name="mayer195">{{cite book|last=Mayer|first=Geoff|title=Encyclopedia of Film Noir|year=2007|publisher=Greenwood Press|location=England|isbn=978-0-313-33306-4|page=195|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RsBHnZoyO4kC&q=get+carter+budget+mgm&pg=PA195 |author2=McDonnell, Brian|access-date=20 February 2012}}</ref> In ''[[Sight and Sound]]'', [[Tom Milne]] said the film was well-constructed and had good characterisation, but lacked the mystery and charisma of the earlier American crime films it attempted to emulate. He found Carter's motivations were inconsistent, either being an avenging angel or an "authentic post-permissive anti-hero, revelling in the casual sadism".<ref name="BFI-gangsters">{{cite web|title=Gangsters: Get Carter|url=http://www.bfi.org.uk/filmtvinfo/publications/16+/pdf/gangsters.pdf|work=16+ source guides: Gangsters (2002)|publisher=BFI|access-date=24 February 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120105175543/http://www.bfi.org.uk/filmtvinfo/publications/16+/pdf/gangsters.pdf|archive-date=5 January 2012|url-status=dead|df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref name="tom milne">{{cite journal|last=Milne|first=Tom|title=Get Carter|journal=Sight & Sound|date=Spring 1971|volume=40|issue=2|page=107}}</ref>

In contrast, [[Nigel Andrews]] found the characters to be clichéd archetypes of the criminal underworld, such as the "homosexual chauffeur, bloated tycoon, glamorous mistress", describing the film as "perfunctory".<ref name="Andrews-1971">{{cite journal |last=Andrews |first=Nigel |title=Get Carter |journal=Monthly Film Bulletin |date=April 1971 |volume=38 |issue=447 |page=73}}</ref>
Richard Weaver in ''[[Films and Filming]]'' praised the realism of the film, describing it as "crime at its most blatant",<ref name="BFI-gangsters" /><ref name="Weaver-05-1971">{{cite journal|last=Weaver|first=Richard|journal=Films and Filming|title=Get Carter|date=May 1971|volume=17|issue=8|page=88}}</ref> while [[George Melly]] writing in ''[[The Observer]]'' confessed to vicarious enjoyment of it, but admitted it was "like a bottle of neat gin swallowed before breakfast. It's intoxicating all right, but it'll do you no good".<ref name="Murphy">{{cite book |last1=Murphy |first1=Robert |title=British Crime Cinema |year=1999 |publisher=Routledge |location=England |isbn=0-415-16870-8 |page=132 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_--Ebdp6mwAC&q=get%20carter%20drive-in%20mgm&pg=RA1-PA132 |edition=2nd |last2=Chibnall |first2=Steve |access-date=6 March 2012}}</ref>

Steve Chibnall writes that "America was rather more used to hard-boiled storytelling" and that reviewers there were "more prepared than British criticism to treat ''Get Carter'' as a serious work",<ref name="Ch93">Chibnall, p. 93</ref> [[Pauline Kael]] admiring its "calculated soullessness"<ref name="Quart-XXXVII">{{cite journal|last=Quart|first=Leonard|title=FROM THE ARCHIVES: Get Carter|journal=Cineaste|year=2011|volume=XXXVII|issue=1|url=http://www.cineaste.com/articles/from-the-archives-emget-carterem|access-date=20 February 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120204200859/http://www.cineaste.com/articles/from-the-archives-emget-carterem|archive-date=4 February 2012|url-status=dead|df=dmy-all}}</ref> and wondering if it signalled a "new genre of virtuoso viciousness".<ref name=Kael>{{cite web|last=Kael|first=Pauline|title=Get Carter 1971|url=http://www.geocities.ws/paulinekaelreviews/g2.html|work=Pauline Kael film reviews|access-date=23 February 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120225154115/http://www.geocities.ws/paulinekaelreviews/g2.html|archive-date=25 February 2012|url-status=live|df=dmy-all}}</ref> US publication ''[[Box Office (magazine)|Box Office]]'' gave a cautiously approving review, describing the film as "nasty, violent and sexy all at once". It predicted that "It should please in the action market, but won't win any laurels for Caine although his portrayal of the vicious anti-hero impresses".<ref>{{cite journal|title=Get Carter (1971)|journal=BoxOffice|date=18 March 1971|url=http://www.boxofficemagazine.com/reviews/2008-08-get-carter-1971|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130121020409/http://www.boxofficemagazine.com/reviews/2008-08-get-carter-1971|url-status=dead|archive-date=21 January 2013|author=Box Office Staff}}</ref> The reviewer also opined that "Tighter editing would help considerably". [[Roger Ebert]] was less reserved in his praise, writing that "the movie has a sure touch". He noted the "proletarian detail" of the film which is "unusual in a British detective movie. Usually we get all flash and no humanity, lots of fancy camera tricks but no feel for the criminal strata of society".<ref name=Ebert>{{cite news|last=Ebert|first=Roger|title=Get Carter|date=March 15, 1971|url=http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19710315/REVIEWS/103150301|work=Roger Ebert.com|publisher=Chicago Sun Times|access-date=23 February 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120204180240/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F19710315%2FREVIEWS%2F103150301|archive-date=4 February 2012|url-status=live|df=dmy-all}}</ref> Of Caine's performance he wrote, "The character created by Caine is particularly interesting. He's tough and ruthless, but very quiet and charged with a terrible irony". [[Judith Crist]] in ''[[New York (magazine)|New York]]'' magazine gave a glowing review, saying "Michael Caine is superb, suave and sexy" and describing the film as "a hard, mean and satisfying zinger of the old tough-tec school done in frank contemporary terms".<ref>{{cite journal |last=Crist |first=Judith |title=Movies Around Town |journal=New York Magazine |volume=10 |issue=4 |page=11 |date=8 March 1971 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6-ICAAAAMBAJ&q=get%20carter%20jack%20hawkins&pg=PA11 |access-date=28 February 2012 |editor1-first=Ruth |editor1-last=Gilbert}}</ref> ''[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]'' also praised the film, saying it "not only maintains interest but conveys with rare artistry, restraint and clarity the many brutal, sordid and gamy plot turns".<ref name=Variety>{{cite journal|author=Variety Staff|title=Get Carter|journal=Variety|date=31 December 1970|url=https://www.variety.com/review/VE1117791235?refcatid=31|access-date=23 February 2012}}</ref> However, [[Jay Cocks]] writing in ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' was disparaging, calling the film "a doggedly nasty piece of business" and comparing it unfavourably to ''[[Point Blank (1967 film)|Point Blank]]''.<ref name="Cocks-time">{{cite magazine|last=Cocks|first=Jay|title=Cinema: North Toward Homicide|magazine=Time|date=22 March 1971|url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,904945,00.html|access-date=23 February 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120303095008/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,904945,00.html|archive-date=3 March 2012|url-status=dead|df=dmy-all}}</ref> The film appeared on several US critics' lists of best films of the year.<ref name="uwe-klinger"/>

In Michael Klinger's ''[[The Guardian]]'' obituary in 1989, [[Derek Malcolm]] remembered the film as "one of the most formidable British thrillers of its time".<ref name="Malcolm-1989">{{cite news|last=Malcolm|first=Derek|title=Michael Klinger: Always his own man|url=http://michaelklingerpapers.uwe.ac.uk/docs1/obit3.pdf|access-date=20 February 2012|newspaper=The Guardian|date=20 September 1989|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130908205440/http://michaelklingerpapers.uwe.ac.uk/docs1/obit3.pdf|archive-date=8 September 2013|url-status=live|df=dmy-all}}</ref>