When discussing Hollywood flops, it's important to emphasize that the term "flop" has nothing to do with the quality of the film. It is strictly about the extreme financial failure of the film. Francis Ford Coppola's One Heart was a colossal flop, but, more than 40 years later, it's now seen by many as an artistic triumph (something to keep in mind as we move away from the Megalopolis erasure of 2024). Brian De Palma's Casualties of War was an expensive bombshell for the legendary director, but the film received rave reviews at the time and still stands as one of the greatest Vietnam War films ever made. And while Michael Lehman's Hudson Hawk Perhaps putting a dent in Bruce Willis' commercial reputation, people of exquisite taste recognized his anarchic genius.

When a non-franchise movie flops, my initial instinct is to find a way to hang on to it, even if it comes across as a bit arty. The world is a better place for such fiascos as Town and Country, Cutroat Island, and Jupiter Ascending in it. So when I learned that Sylvester Stallone recently called one of his underrated "gangster" flops a prequel to his role as Dwight Manfredi in the Taylor Sheridan-created film. Paramount+ Series The King of Tulsa I got excited. It's by no means a perfect movie, but John Landis' Oscar has a nice spirit and plenty of great performances from the likes of Tim Curry, Don Ameche, and Marisa Tomei. I didn't quite see the connection, but Stallone has been making all sorts of questionable associations lately; at least this one would shine a spotlight on a mostly forgotten film.

Unfortunately, he didn't mean the Oscar.

Another term that is too often used as a condemnation is "remake". Whenever a proposed remake of any movie, hit or flop, is announced, people who want to bemoan Hollywood's lack of originality unfurl their broadswords. How quickly they forget that some of the greatest films of all time - e.g. "His Girl Friday" by Howard Hawks, "The Thing" by John Carpenter and David Cronenberg's The Fly similar - are remakes. Granted, there is occasionally good reason for knee-jerk skepticism, if not outright vitriol, about some remakes. When accused sex harasser (and famously no-talent) Brett Ratner signed on to take a second crack at Thomas Harris' Red Dragon, which had already been turned into a classic thriller by Michael Mann as Manhunter, it was just right. suppose there was a completely worthless film on the way.

As for when first-time feature director Stephen Kay teamed up with Sylvester Stallone to remake Mike Hodges' British gangster classic Get Carter, it was kind of awkward.

Right off the bat, we knew better than to expect a down-and-dirty revenge yarn on par with the original, which boasts a memorable scene where a shotgun-wielding, completely naked Michael Caine stalks a would-be assailant on the street ahead. from his apartment. Hodges' film was a joint sandwich of gritty 70s crime cinema. It's unlikely that the Hollywood remake will be that heavy (although the script by "American History X" writer David McKenna showed some promise).

There was also the work of the film's production company. Owning dry cleaners to stars Eli Samaha, Franchise Pictures was notorious for financing the vanity projects of fading stars. When Get Carter was released, the company was already a joke because it had sunk a lot of money into John Travolta's Scientology project, an adaptation of the sci-fi novel by L. ). Samaha was in love with Stallone and therefore likely to support him in any creative disputes. (Sly is an amazing scenario player, and not always for the better.)

So how did it turn out, and in what way is it a prequel to The King of Tulsa?

The best that can be said about Kaye's Get Carter is that it is literally awash in atmosphere. Set in Seattle, Washington, you feel the rain and cold of the city in a way that few films capture. That's something. Also worth noting is Mickey Rourke's menacing portrayal of a gangster who comes out on top in a brawl with Stallone.

Unfortunately, Kay decides to pay homage to the original directly by casting Michael Caine as a loan shark and having composer Tyler Bates mimic Roy Budd's idiosyncratic score. These elements only serve to remind the viewer that they are not watching Hodges' film and, as a result, detract from the new film's efforts to differentiate itself. Worst of all, it has a happy ending that clashes with the story's essential nihilism.

Budgeted at a reported $63.6 million, Get Carter fell hard with $19.4 million worldwide. The poor non-domestic showing was a huge blow to Stallone's rep because it could pay off internationally. Although James Mangold Copland revived critical interest in Sly's career three years earlier, they largely wrote off the remake as a pale, pointless imitation of a much better film.

Where does "The King of Tulsa" factor in here? According to Stallone on his Instagram:

"It's interesting that 25 years ago I starred in one of my BEST movies, the underrated Get Carter, and now that I look back on it, it's like I was subconsciously preparing to play Dwight Manfredi in Tulsa King. 25 years later, let's call it a prequel!

The obvious similarity is that Carter and Manfredi are fish out of water who shake up towns they don't know with their brutal, unrelenting way of doing illegal business. But while Manfredi seeks to put down roots and build in Tulsa, Carter simply wants to avenge his brother's murder and skip town (even if it leaves him a marked man for the rest of his life). If you haven't seen Kay's Get Carter, the best I can say is that it's not Rhinestone or Stop! or My Mom Will Shoot". You won't regret watching it, but I doubt it will deepen your appreciation for "The King of Tulsa."