Stephen King's 'Carrie' remake

[bullets]

Every time I see a TV spot or trailer for this new Carrie film, I cringe because it feels like I'm watching the entire movie in abbreviated form.

And before anyone says "Well, everyone already knows the story of Carrie"...that's BS. Then what's the point of the remake or "re-imagining"? I mean, the trailers and even some of the TV spots I've seen show Carrie as a weird loner, Carrie's crazy mother doing evil **** to her, Carrie slowly developing her powers, Carrie getting asked to the prom, Carrie getting a slight makeover and coming out of her shell a bit...then they give away that the whole prom date thing is a cruel prank...they show Carrie "winning" prom queen...they show the iconic moment of her getting pig's blood (or whatever it is in this version) dumped all over her while she's on stage...and they even show her unleashing her powers on her fellow students and even some of the ensuing chaos in the streets afterwards (the friggin' car flip, for God's sake)!!

I mean, what's left to see? A little bit of extra chaos after the prom? A few more buildings being blown up? A couple of elements from King's novel that weren't in the original film? This has to be one of the worst "blow your load early" marketing campaigns in recent years. Aside from the initial teaser which was solid, there has been no suspense or creativity in the marketing of this film.

I think it would be pointless for anyone whose seen the original to go. Unless they don't like the original and might gravitate towards the new version. However I suspect it will be a big hit with younger crowds. At least to them the explosions look like a guaranteed payoff.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I think it would be pointless for anyone whose seen the original to go. Unless they don't like the original and might gravitate towards the new version. However I suspect it will be a big hit with younger crowds. At least to them the explosions look like a guaranteed payoff.

I have seen the original. Went to see it. Didn't feel pointless to me.

This really isn't a horror film and I feel it is safe to say that the "gore" and "explosions" were the "low point". There because they had to be. Far more character and actor driven then these movies usually are. Probably why it was originally scheduled for earlier this year as opposed to Halloween.

 

[danoyse]

Eh, not really impressed. Chloe was excellent, which was a hard act to follow. But it gave no good reason why it needed to be remade. A good chunk of the dialogue was virtually word-for-word from the original film, and the stuff they added from the book didn't add anything new to the story.

 

[childeroland]

I liked this, but it might have been more interesting if they'd followed the book in making it partly an investigation after-the-fact with pieces being filled in as they went along.

 

[Heretic]

I was planning to see this today...but even the reviews on Horror and other genre sites have been pretty bad, so I'll wait for the Netflix.

 

[Double B]

The thing with adaptations of Carrie, any adaptation, is that the movie lives and dies on the casting of Carrie.

Now, I'm not a huge fan of De Palma's Carrie. I think it's a film with flashes of greatness, but some directing choices have led to it feeling dated, moreso than other films of that era. For example, I find his use of splitscreen in the prom scene was a colossal mistake - something the man himself has agreed, but on the whole, it's a solid movie and that ending is iconic.

However, the reason it works as well as it does, and the reason why moments of the film truly shine is down to Spacek. It's probably one of the single most underrated performances of the last 50 years. She inhabited that character. She is at once sympathetic but at the same time, you are frustrated with her. You want her to break free from her mother and rebel, but at the same time, you want to bloody shake her. At times, you become some of the fellow students, as you urge her to "just be normal" and then pity her when you realise she never can be because of her upbringing. Her transformation at the prom, and those eyes, is utterly mesmerizing. It's a stunning performance.

Having watched this, Moretz not only failed to measure up to that, but just as disappointingly, failed to put a fresh spin on it or give the role anything special.

Moore was the star of the show here.

 

[danoyse]

Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie both received Oscar nominations for the original film. As decent as some of the performances were here, there was nothing on that level.

Chloe is more the right age (I think she was 15 when they filmed this?) and she's a wonderful actress - I just wanted to give her a hug in a few scenes, but she was nowhere near Sissy Spacek. It's almost not even fair to compare them, considering that Spacek was older when she played the part. She was written so back-and-forth between tormented and psychotic that you couldn't get a clear read on who she really was by the end.

I love Julianne Moore, and she was good in this, but there is no competing with Piper Laurie. I think the mistake was that they made her more psychotic and put her religious fanaticism in the backseat. They made her so crazy and dangerous that it became a footnote instead of what fueled her. There's this great moment in the original film where she's preaching door-to-door and Sue's mother is trying to chase her off. But in this movie, that's completely taken over by her cutting herself instead.

They threw in some stuff from the book, but I didn't think they got that right. An inquiry scene shows up with no reason for why it needed to be there. They changed some of the names back, but big deal? The best part of Chris' father threatening to use was the principal hitting back with all of the things Chris had done. Instead, it became all about the phone video, which at that point would have been on YouTube long enough to have gone viral on its own. And they got the pregnancy thing totally wrong.

The town destruction wasn't much, it was more like she blew up a street. The prom massacre had some more violent effects, but it looked like most of the students survived, making the original film's prom far more horrifying. The scene with Carrie taking out the car went on way too long, and people were laughing at how Chris ended up.

It just seemed like this was being touted as 'closer to the book', when it instead it was a needless retread of the original film. Almost word-for-word. I was saying the lines before the actors in a few scenes. Then to virtually copy the entire movie and then cop out at the last scene, that was ridiculous.

Closer to the book would have been having more of the inquiry. Showing the town being destroyed. Having the flashback where Carrie made stones rain on the house. Having Carrie kill her mother by using her telekinesis to stop her heart.

It had potential, but in the end it was a lazy retread of what we'd seen done better before.

 

[dark_b]

Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie both received Oscar nominations for the original film. As decent as some of the performances were here, there was nothing on that level.

Chloe is more the right age (I think she was 15 when they filmed this?) and she's a wonderful actress - I just wanted to give her a hug in a few scenes, but she was nowhere near Sissy Spacek. It's almost not even fair to compare them, considering that Spacek was older when she played the part. She was written so back-and-forth between tormented and psychotic that you couldn't get a clear read on who she really was by the end.

I love Julianne Moore, and she was good in this, but there is no competing with Piper Laurie. I think the mistake was that they made her more psychotic and put her religious fanaticism in the backseat. They made her so crazy and dangerous that it became a footnote instead of what fueled her. There's this great moment in the original film where she's preaching door-to-door and Sue's mother is trying to chase her off. But in this movie, that's completely taken over by her cutting herself instead.

They threw in some stuff from the book, but I didn't think they got that right. An inquiry scene shows up with no reason for why it needed to be there. They changed some of the names back, but big deal? The best part of Chris' father threatening to use was the principal hitting back with all of the things Chris had done. Instead, it became all about the phone video, which at that point would have been on YouTube long enough to have gone viral on its own. And they got the pregnancy thing totally wrong.

The town destruction wasn't much, it was more like she blew up a street. The prom massacre had some more violent effects, but it looked like most of the students survived, making the original film's prom far more horrifying. The scene with Carrie taking out the car went on way too long, and people were laughing at how Chris ended up.

It just seemed like this was being touted as 'closer to the book', when it instead it was a needless retread of the original film. Almost word-for-word. I was saying the lines before the actors in a few scenes. Then to virtually copy the entire movie and then cop out at the last scene, that was ridiculous.

Closer to the book would have been having more of the inquiry. Showing the town being destroyed. Having the flashback where Carrie made stones rain on the house. Having Carrie kill her mother by using her telekinesis to stop her heart.

It had potential, but in the end it was a lazy retread of what we'd seen done better before.

march 2012

this is how they promote the new remakes since the last 5 years. its always the same '' its not like the first movie. we are adapting the book. ''

so no stones raining? and no big scale town destruction? does she even kill her mother?

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Closer to the book would have been having more of the inquiry. Showing the town being destroyed. Having the flashback where Carrie made stones rain on the house. Having Carrie kill her mother by using her telekinesis to stop her heart.

All the things I've specifically mentioned hoping to see. Gah!

 

[nocomics]

march 2012



so no stones raining? and no big scale town destruction? does she even kill her mother?

Spoiler

Yea, there is stones raining and she does kill her mother!

I've never seen the original so I don't have anything to compare the new movie with. I thought Chloe was good as Carrie and did a decent job at it, about same performance as Let Me In. Moore was okay as her mother, though I'm not sure I liked the portrayal of her, too much crazy and religious zealousness for my taste.
I think they needed a few more sequences to show the students bullying or chastising Carrie to give Carrie more reason to be angry. Maybe; should of done some in Flashbacks?
The Prom scene was decent, not sure how it compared to the original, but it kind of reminded me of the scene from Silent Hill movie for some reason. The main thing I disliked was the cliché teenage antagonistic girls, just seemed so forced.

 

[dark_b]

why didnt you watch the original movie?

 

[danoyse]

Spoiler

Yea, there is stones raining and she does kill her mother!

No.

[BLACKOUT]Stones randomly fall at the end. In the book, there's a flashback of Carrie at three where she sees a neighbor sunbathing in her bathing suit, and her mother catches her, drags her back into the house to be punished, and a rain of stones fall on the house. It was the first sign of her telekinetic powers. (and it was originally in DePalma's film, but it was cut)

In the new movie, a bunch of rocks fall down on the house at the end. There's no significance to it unless you know the reference from the book.

Yes, she does kill her mother, but it's no different than how she did it in the original film. In the book, she used her powers to make he mother's heart stop. The remake just does it the same way she did it in the original film. And they even screwed that up - Margaret was left in the position of the Jesus statue in the prayer closet in the original film.
[/BLACKOUT]

I think they needed a few more sequences to show the students bullying or chastising Carrie to give Carrie more reason to be angry. Maybe; should of done some in Flashbacks?

What they did in the shower utterly horrible, it was certainly enough to drive her to what she did later. She'd put up with the bullying all of her life, but that was turning point of everything.

The Prom scene was decent, not sure how it compared to the original, but it kind of reminded me of the scene from Silent Hill movie for some reason.

Comparison wise, the new version had some better effects...but the original was more brutal. No one survived the prom in the original movie, including the gym teacher. She locked the doors, used the hoses to start the fires, and let it burn. There's a completely terrifying shot where she walks through a space in the fire and out a door she opened, then it closes again and she walks away while it burns and you can hear everyone screaming inside.

 

[danoyse]

march 2012

I think you're under the illusion that I believed the claims that it would be closer to the book. Never did. I thought people using that as an excuse for a remake being necessary we're being ridiculous, quite frankly. The original was a damn near perfect adaptation. Carrie was remade because bullying is all the rage in the news these days, and they jumped on that story.

I saw the movie because I loved the original and curiosity got the best of me, but it was as I expected. An unnecessary remake.

so no stones raining? and no big scale town destruction? does she even kill her mother?

Not in the way it happened in the book. The destruction was limited to pretty much a street. Most of the students survived the prom. Stones randomly fell, but there's no flashback. She kills her mother the same way she did in the first movie, but not how she did it in the book.

There's even a twist, I guess...[BLACKOUT]with Sue turning out to be pregnant. In the book, she thought she might be pregnant, but when Carrie dies in her arms (her heart gave out from the telekinesis), Sue gets her period, meaning she's not pregnant and story basically ends where it began. In the remake, Sue's in the house when it's collapsing, Carrie touches her stomach and says she's having a girl and blasts her out of the house to save her. It adds nothing to the story.[/BLACKOUT]

 

[sueb1863]

Spoiler

I've seen people say the statue in the closet of the original movie is Jesus. It isn't. It's St. Sebastian, who was shot to death with arrows while tied to a pillory.

 

[John Locke]

so no stones raining?

I believe they did film the stone raining scene and it was meant to open the film but they replaced it with Carrie's birth.

 

[DACrowe]

The thing with adaptations of Carrie, any adaptation, is that the movie lives and dies on the casting of Carrie.

Now, I'm not a huge fan of De Palma's Carrie. I think it's a film with flashes of greatness, but some directing choices have led to it feeling dated, moreso than other films of that era. For example, I find his use of splitscreen in the prom scene was a colossal mistake - something the man himself has agreed, but on the whole, it's a solid movie and that ending is iconic.

However, the reason it works as well as it does, and the reason why moments of the film truly shine is down to Spacek. It's probably one of the single most underrated performances of the last 50 years. She inhabited that character. She is at once sympathetic but at the same time, you are frustrated with her. You want her to break free from her mother and rebel, but at the same time, you want to bloody shake her. At times, you become some of the fellow students, as you urge her to "just be normal" and then pity her when you realise she never can be because of her upbringing. Her transformation at the prom, and those eyes, is utterly mesmerizing. It's a stunning performance.

Having watched this, Moretz not only failed to measure up to that, but just as disappointingly, failed to put a fresh spin on it or give the role anything special.

Moore was the star of the show here.

I will agree that Spacek is hugely underrated. But I think most of what makes the original such a classic is also De Palma's direction. The 2013 version is about as faithful a rendering of the book as the 1976 film, but it is much more straightforward and "horror" about it, resulting in a rather average film.

The 1976 movie has a visual lyricism to it and an operatic underpinning which is both somewhat satirical of high school and earnestly tragic. And it is done by tricks like the dizzying and endearing spinning camera around Carrie and Tommy on the dance floor or the frenzied composition of the "tampon scene." And obvious things like forced perspective angles of the mother in a witch's cape, the glowing eyes of the saint who was stabbed to death in the closet, and the red lighting when Carrie goes into "rage mode." Also, his use of one long crane shot from Carrie and Tommy voting to themselves, to the rigging, to the bucket, and finally to them winning in a classic '70s zoom is an amazing bit of cinematography that ratchets up tension far better than the whole of the 2013 film.

But yes, Spacek is what makes it truly special. As you say, she is not only sympathetic, but also truly pathetic. Unlike Chloe Moretz, she is not playing it "pretty" or like a star. She is playing it with true desperation, which reminds the viewer of why they themselves may have disliked kids such as this in the high school. Even the gym teacher who helps Carrie and everyone loves at first slaps her for her actions. But it is from that desperation that we can truly sympathize with her pain once see her home life and then her "Cinderella" rise with Tommy....and then truly feel her agony with the blood, and finally fear her when her otherness is laid bare on the school.

It is a tour de force and one of the few horror movie performances to ever be nominated for a Best Actress Oscar. That is something that will not be repeated this year or with this movie. And that says it all.

 

[DACrowe]

Spoiler

Yea, there is stones raining and she does kill her mother!

I've never seen the original so I don't have anything to compare the new movie with. I thought Chloe was good as Carrie and did a decent job at it, about same performance as Let Me In. Moore was okay as her mother, though I'm not sure I liked the portrayal of her, too much crazy and religious zealousness for my taste.
I think they needed a few more sequences to show the students bullying or chastising Carrie to give Carrie more reason to be angry. Maybe; should of done some in Flashbacks?
The Prom scene was decent, not sure how it compared to the original, but it kind of reminded me of the scene from Silent Hill movie for some reason. The main thing I disliked was the cliché teenage antagonistic girls, just seemed so forced.

To be fair mean girls exist in any age (especially now with cyber bullying which this movie strangely only glanced at). Consider that Stephen King based Carrie on a few girls in his high school. One of whom he said tried to leave her shell several times and was "savagely beaten" back by girls in his school. This might have also been the same girl who then killed herself while in her 20s with a shotgun.

It is a real problem, so this movie going there is more than welcome. It is just other than the addition of the video appearing on the stage after the pig's blood-which was a nice, horrifying touch--they really didn't expand on it anywhere new. In fact, they seemed until that moment less mean to CArrie in this version than they were in the original.

 

[Heretic]

There's a fine line between "poorly written Horror movie jerk character that is not believable as a real person" and "well written, realistic yet unrelenting bully." You find that line, and you walk down it until Carrie can't take it anymore. Teen bullying has never been a bigger issue (meaning, news stories and attention) than it is now. I haven't seen the movie yet, but it would be stupid to not make that the story at the forefront of the film.

 

[Octoberist]

Am I the only who thought that 70's Spacek wasn't that bad looking in general?

 

[terry78]

Spacek was one of those chicks that wasn't ugly, but just looked awkward. I've known many girls like that.

 

[Heretic]

....meanwhile, Chloe Moretz is a blue chipper future draft pick on many a man's fantasy team.

 

[terry78]

Well, Carrie was never described as being hideous. If she had more confidence more than likely all versions of her could have been in the popular crowd. It's the way she acts that's the problem.

 

[jmc]

I take back what I said about Chloe Moretz being too attractive for this role, I watched the original movie recently for the first time in years and Sissy Spacek wasn't nearly as plain Jane looking as I remember.

 

[Double B]

I think Spacek (though a world away from the book version of Carrie, described as a bit on the larger side, as I recall) has a very distinct quality about her appearance. She is certainly a beautiful woman, but it's not a traditional beauty. There's a wonderful alien-esque quality to her appearance. Very slender, big eyes. It's unique. She's just not conventionally attractive.

Also, his use of one long crane shot from Carrie and Tommy voting to themselves, to the rigging, to the bucket, and finally to them winning in a classic '70s zoom is an amazing bit of cinematography that ratchets up tension far better than the whole of the 2013 film.

But yes, Spacek is what makes it truly special. As you say, she is not only sympathetic, but also truly pathetic. Unlike Chloe Moretz, she is not playing it "pretty" or like a star. She is playing it with true desperation, which reminds the viewer of why they themselves may have disliked kids such as this in the high school. Even the gym teacher who helps Carrie and everyone loves at first slaps her for her actions. But it is from that desperation that we can truly sympathize with her pain once see her home life and then her "Cinderella" rise with Tommy....and then truly feel her agony with the blood, and finally fear her when her otherness is laid bare on the school.

It is a tour de force and one of the few horror movie performances to ever be nominated for a Best Actress Oscar. That is something that will not be repeated this year or with this movie. And that says it all.

I will certainly agree that shot is stunning. There's a dreamlike unease to the prom scenes in De Palma's film. The soft focus creates a haze that manages to not only represent Carrie's faitytale, but also unsettle the audience slightly - as if it's not real. And of course, it isn't.

Exactly. I think Spacek walked that fine line between sympathetic and pathetic, as the role calls out for. Carrie is a victim, of course, but at the same time, there is that sense (that most of us have had when encountered and experienced) where you want to tell her to stop being "creepy Carrie". She embodies that so well, even down to her voice - equals parts filled with desperation and alienation, and yet, whiny. It's such an incredibly nuanced performance and a lesser actor could have either lost the pathos, and become nothing more than "sympathetic" Carrie, or worse, were so annoying that we didn't feel sympathy at all.

When Spacek's Carrie has her revenge at prom, there is an element of utterly understanding her revenge, but at the same time, being utterly terrified too, as she pretty much brutally slays everyone (burning them alive) simply because she imagines them all laughing.

The bath scene afterwards is also beautiful.

 

[jacobed]

I thought this was pretty good. Did some things better than the first one and some things worse. Overall I thought it was on par with the first and worthwhile seeing