Stephen King's 'Carrie' remake

[Tanin]

I'm going to go watch and hopefully enjoy this soon for my birthday

 

[John Locke]

I've heard too many "this film was mediocre" comments for me to have any excitement to see it, it seems either most people didn't like it or just thought it was ok and complain it's too much of a shot for shot remake without even truly updating it with modern themes or ideas.

Yeah that's not really true. The tone is more realistic than the original's and its darker. This may just be me but I thought of the book more than the original film. And they do update it with modern ideas specifically the use of cellphones in bullying.

I thought it was a good movie, I did doubt a little in the beginning but I liked it. If you want to see a realistic teen drama about a girl with superpowers then you should see it. It gets very intense once the prom starts and it doesn't really let up until the end.

 

[redhawk23]

It seems to me that middle aged reviewers who have read the book, seen the original film and know the story back to front don't realize that they are squarely not the target audience.

 

[dark_b]

again this word realistic. everything has to be realistic even a movie where the f... girl is using her powers to move objects.

Noooooooooolan

 

[dark_b]

It seems to me that middle aged reviewers who have read the book, seen the original film and know the story back to front don't realize that they are squarely not the target audience.

i think since its a business its fair to make a movie for the target audience. but they are writting a review about what is inside the movie. not whats happening outisde .

 

[DarthSkywalker]

again this word realistic. everything has to be realistic even a movie where the f... girl is using her powers to move objects.

Noooooooooolan

I think realism in this sense is about the drama, not the supernatural.

 

[dark_b]

the original movie didnt have realisitc drama? yes the acting was sometimes ''artistic'' over the top. but the drama looked real.

i am not against the world realistic. i also use it. but i think i never use it to defend the purpose of a movies existence.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I've read some reviews and it only sounds like a Netflix movie to me. If they had cast a young lead actress I cared about I wouldn't have minded seeing it. Moretz never came off as the best choice for the role and I've seen nothing to convince me that my hesitation about her in this role is wrong. Maybe I'll eat my words in a few months and maybe I won't.

I'm not in love with the 1976 version of Carrie so I wasn't too offended by the idea of a remake but the film that was made looks "eh" to me. I guess eh would be better than un mitigated disasters like The Elm Street and Halloween remakes. I hope the people who are looking forward to Carrie-Make enjoy it though. I wouldn't want something you were looking forward to disappoint you.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

It seems to me that middle aged reviewers who have read the book, seen the original film and know the story back to front don't realize that they are squarely not the target audience.

See for this film I really stuck to horror film reviewers and almost every one actually did cite in their reviews that they are fully aware of a younger audience being the target with this remake. In my above post I mentioned that they didn't FULLY update the film with modern themes and ideas, of course they're going to include cell phones and facebook for the bullying but that isn't fully doing anything, it's just including a piece.

I will end up seeing this regardless causeI am a big fan of the original story and think the original is a fantastic film, it was very influential to the horror community in the era it was released, and in my eyes is a classic. I never expected this to be on par with the original but I did have hopes they could truly make it their own, it's just disappointing to hear that they haven't.

 

[John Locke]

the original movie didnt have realisitc drama? yes the acting was sometimes ''artistic'' over the top. but the drama looked real.

i am not against the world realistic. i also use it. but i think i never use it to defend the purpose of a movies existence.

I'm not defending the movie's existence I'm just sayin what it is and if you like that sort of thing and are on the edge of seeing it you should see it. I just said realistic because its the opposite of the original's surreal tone. There is no opening credits in a shower room or speeding up the film or split screen (So all the parts that made the first one great) and the characters and how they react to certain situations (Like not going to prom) feel like how people would react. However should this film exist, probably not I questioned why we needed this twenty minutes into the movie. But it's the only horror movie out in October and the entire prom scene is pretty suspenseful. Just don't go in thinking its as good as the De Palma's because its not but that doesn't make it a bad movie.

 

[terry78]

I enjoyed it for the most part. The bullying via social media makes sense in context as King would probably have used that had he written it today. That aside it was pretty accurate to the original novel in most aspects, which is what they seemed to be using as a template opposed to DePalma's flick. It gets pretty brutal at times as it should, and Moretz does good work, but Moore stood out as the psychotic matriarch. Not a big fan of the story itself, so I probably wouldn't clamor to watch it over and over but it was a faithful updating.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

I might check this out this weekend. I am ashamed to admit that I never see the original Carrie movies or the sequel and other remakes. I just know the story from the internet lol. But I think Chole Mortez is a decent actor and when she was in crappy movies, she was always the bright spot in them and Julie Moore seems to do a decent job in this and its rated R so yea, it seems like its worth seeing at like a early afternoon showing one day this weekend.

 

[Tequilla]

It seems to me that middle aged reviewers who have read the book, seen the original film and know the story back to front don't realize that they are squarely not the target audience.

So reviewers shouldn't give their opinions based on what they saw , but based on what other people might see in them ?

......what ?

 

[The Shape]

Not many people realize that trailers ruining the entire film is not a new phenomenon. Arguably, in some cases it was even worse in the past.

Retro film trailers did reveal too much, yes. Even the trailer for Batman 89 shows a good chunk of the film as well as several key scenes, but it was a different time. Marketing campaigns were entirely different, TV spots were less prominent if not nonexistent, and there was no internet. Films used to have one, big, long trailer that audiences would maybe see once in a theater.

Now that marketing campaigns have gotten much more clever, there are more ways to market a film without simply piecing together entire scenes from the film. With Carrie's trailers, it's not a matter of preventing people from knowing the story...since most people know it already. Rather, it's a matter of holding back some of the new imagery with which the material is being presented in this new remake. The new direction. The cinematography. The atmosphere, etc.

What's the point of showing us all of the most important and iconic sequences in the trailers and TV spots? If that's the only way they think they can sell the movie, it means that they're not bringing enough good **** to the table. The days of shot for shot remakes are thankfully winding down.

 

[Figs]

Retro film trailers did reveal too much, yes. Even the trailer for Batman 89 shows a good chunk of the film as well as several key scenes, but it was a different time. Marketing campaigns were entirely different, TV spots were less prominent if not nonexistent, and there was no internet. Films used to have one, big, long trailer that audiences would maybe see once in a theater.

Now that marketing campaigns have gotten much more clever, there are more ways to market a film without simply piecing together entire scenes from the film. With Carrie's trailers, it's not a matter of preventing people from knowing the story...since most people know it already. Rather, it's a matter of holding back some of the new imagery with which the material is being presented in this new remake. The new direction. The cinematography. The atmosphere, etc.

What's the point of showing us all of the most important and iconic sequences in the trailers and TV spots? If that's the only way they think they can sell the movie, it means that they're not bringing enough good **** to the table. The days of shot for shot remakes are thankfully winding down.

Well now days, they still ruin a huge chunk of the movie or at least action scenes by releasing dozens of clips the last few weeks leading up to the movie. I remember The Dark Knight had roughly 11 of them.

As for retro trailers showing too much, I definitely agree with you on Batman '89. I think the worst part was showing the Batwing in the trailer. That would have been so much cooler if they surprised the audience when that bad boy is in the sky.

 

[The Shape]

Well now days, they still ruin a huge chunk of the movie or at least action scenes by releasing dozens of clips the last few weeks leading up to the movie. I remember The Dark Knight had roughly 11 of them.
.

Yeah, but there's a difference between huge franchise tent poles (for which fans obsessively follow every aspect of production) wanting to showcase parts of their new, incredible/exciting action sequences...and a horror remake which builds up to suspenseful sequences of terror and destruction revealing some of the most important shots on trailers.

 

[Figs]

Yeah, but there's a difference between huge franchise tent poles (for which fans obsessively follow every aspect of production) wanting to showcase parts of their new, incredible/exciting action sequences...and a horror remake which builds up to suspenseful sequences of terror and destruction revealing some of the most important shots on trailers.

True.

A huge offender of this was that movie When a Stranger Calls, based on that tale/urban legend. The one where the babysitter is getting phone calls from some creep or psycho and it turns out they were calling from inside the house. The damn trailer shows the scene when she calls 911 and they tell her the call is coming from inside the house. That deserves not one but two

That was the entire creep and scare factor of that story that gave me goosebumps when I read it as a child and for the movie they basically took away any reason to see the film by spoiling the ending.

 

[DACrowe]

It was serviceable. It did the story "well" and Chloe Moretz was fine. Other than the final scene which was really a mediocre and half-hearted attempt to recreate De Palma's infamous jump, it told its story competently and Moore was fantastic.

The problem of course is that the 1976 film is fantastic. It is a masterpiece, really. This is not a shot-for-shot remake because it takes away all the nuance and poetry of it. Also, while Moretz was good, the irony is that she may be too young to play such an isolated part. It's a solid performance, but it is not a patch on what Sissy Spacek did. Moretz plays a lonely girl with a sad outcome in movie star fashion, while Spacek embodied this character who was truly pathetic, which made us root for her that much harder during the "Cinderella" prom story, and feel that much more cheated when it came crashing down. Plus, those eyes when she goes into "rage" mode. Those eyes!

Similarly, the film doesn't have the sense of breathless pacing toward ruin that the original had. It felt like a high school drama with a very, very unfortunate and supernatural outcome. The original felt like a thriller and a tragedy, this felt like an average horror movie. I guess that's the real difference.

But not to be all critical, I did like how they handled the death of Chris the main mean girl (that really should not be a spoiler to anyone). De Palma rushed over it, but Peirce at least made it satisfying. Similarly, she handled the death of [blackout]Tommy[/blackout] very well, giving Carrie one more reason to be pissed. However, by saving the "Collins" character (only a spoiler if you've seen the original film), she also makes the movie softer. Which is part of the problem, you never fear this Carrie nor desperately root for her. You just follow her to her logical conclusion in this story.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I liked it. It starts off a little shaky, but once it gets in its groove it works well imo. Moore is great, Moretz is quite good, and everyone else was appropriately likable or worth punching in the face. I really, really felt for Tommy, which I was not expecting.

 

[DACrowe]

I think Tommy is in his own kind of sad tale, because he is obviously coerced into taking Carrie out but they have a sweet story. I wouldn't say it's a love story (for him), but it is a "Scout/Boo Radley" moment and it seems like he would have been really good for getting her out of her shell. Unfortunately, it doesn't play out that way. And one of the few things I thought this one improved upon was Carrie's reaction to what happens to Tommy. That and her revenge on Chris are about it.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Tommy's intro scene is interesting. It starts out making him seem like a the typical high school jock, but his story about his bully really flipped the scene quickly. Stuff like that and the little tux buying scenes added quite a bit imo.

Agree on Carrie's reaction. I also liked his reaction to the famous scene moments before.

 

[dark_b]

i guess no cameo ?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

By the way, The Vampire Weekend followed by The Naked and the Famous, plus HAIM? The director has good taste.

 

[Spideyfan93]

[YT]DZdtvS9_92o[/YT]

I actually really enjoyed this remake and it will serve as a great predecessor for this generation to find out about the original with Spacek!

 

[ColumbChris]

actually be a 3rd remake

4th hmmss t: