37 of 46 people found the following review helpful
on October 20, 2013
For 38 years the original Carrie has remained one of the greatest horror movies ever made, a shining example of not only how to adapt a book into a movie, but also how to make you....Fear, so it was inevitable that a remake would be made.
To not compare this film to the original is impossible. Brian De Palma's version is an immersive experience, a psychological assault on the mind, you feel what Carrie White feels. Chloe Grace Moretz is an incredible actress, but her Carrie doesn't quite project her fears and emotions into us like Sissy Spacek's did.
In Kimberly Peirce's Carrie, the mother(played by Julianne Moore) nearly lacks the controlling dominance the original had over Carrie, Chloe Grace Moretz's Carrie right from the start doesn't hardly fear her mother, but instead shes defiant towards her, hates her, and this is what separates this new Carrie from the original. Brian De Palma's Carrie FEARS and Kimberly Peirce's Carrie HATES.
For the most part the majority of the middle of this film plays out almost identically to that of De Palma's, the actors are the only real difference. Some of the new actors are good and some are just terrible, like Judy Greer(Miss Desjardin / the P.E. teacher), she sounds so week and juvenile when shes speaking her lines it's hard to take her seriously as an authority figure.
Lets fast forward to the prom scene. In Brian De Palma's Carrie after winning prom queen and king Carrie and Tommy Ross head up to the stage, this scene is gloriously shot in slow motion, eventually the blood gets poured on her and she goes into a state of absolute shock, the only sound that can be heard is the bucket swaying back and forth, then the bucket falls and hits Tommy in the head knocking him unconscious, in her state She takes no notice of whats happened to Tommy as the overwhelming fear that has enveloped her causes her to lose control unleashing her powers on all her school mates. In Kimberly Peirce's Carrie...well lets face it, the prom scene lacks the build up of the original, no slow motion, no sounds of a swaying bucket, how this scene was shot by De Palma is what made the original so fantastic. Kimberly Peirce's Carrie somewhat figures out how to control her powers, unlike De Palma's who's powers mainly activated out of fear. This time when the blood is poured on her head she doesn't go into shock, instead she nearly walks off stage before turning around after Tommy is hit by the bucket. This pushes her emotions over the edge and in a fully aware state of mind she unleashes her powers on her class mates.
I personally feel nothing for Kimberly Peirce's version of Carrie, it may have followed the plot of the book a little closer in some areas, but it did it with far less sophistication. It has some unique changes that make it worth a watch, but ultimately it doesn't come close to the brilliance of the original.
53 of 73 people found the following review helpful
on October 18, 2013
Usually, when watching a remake of a great movie, I'm looking for something new that it adds to the story or characters. If it doesn't bring anything fresh or original to the table, then why step in again at all? "Carrie" is an exception to that rule, however, as instead of providing any substantially new material it essentially gives the story/character an update into modern cinema.
For a basic plot summary, "Carrie" tells the story of young Carrie White (Chloe Grace Moretz), a strange girl who lives with her religious fanatic mother Margaret (Julianne Moore). When Carrie is humiliated at school after unknowingly receiving her first "curse of blood" (menstrual period) in the women's locker room, she begins to develop inexplicable telekinetic powers. Drawing the ire of school "mean girl" Chris Hargensen (Portia Doubleday) but gaining the friendship of Sue Snell (Gabrielle Wild), Carrie is asked to prom by Tommy Ross (Ansel Elgort) in what turns out to be the defining night of her life in more ways than one.
Despite being little more than a straight remake of the original, I still thoroughly enjoyed the concept of the new "Carrie" because of how it brings the story into the modern cinematic cannon. This is one of the great coming-of-age stories ever told (adapted from the pen of Stephen King, his first widely successful written work), but getting the younger folk to see the original would be like pulling teeth. Show them the trailer for Sissy Spacek's "Carrie" and they will blow it off as a "typical weird 70s movie" (which of course it isn't at all, but...). So, while the Carrie story didn't "need" to be remade, per se, as the original was so good, it did "need" to be remade in order to refresh the story for generations to come.
Of course, one cannot help but compare this 2014 version with the 1976 original, and in doing so there are arguments for/against both interpretations. For example, the ending to the original is much better and that film may actually have a little bit higher "creepy" factor due to the horrific Spacek facial reactions. On the flip side, I like how this new version casts actors much closer to their "screen age", giving the film a bit more of a "believe-ability" factor.
One of the hallmarks of the original "Carrie" was always its incredible acting, and this version also continues that trend. Moretz is a great Carrie (albeit in a different sort of fashion than Spacek's manic portrayal), while Moore remarkably matches Piper Laurie's complicated turn as Margaret White, who may just be the most interesting character of either film. All the auxiliary players are also just fine, again just different from the "household names playing teenagers way below their actual ages" approach taken by the original.
Overall, 2013's "Carrie" is a wonderfully spooky film that (in keeping with King's novel) is much more "human/psychological drama" than "horror". If pushed, I might have to give a slight nod to the original (but that is strictly because that 1976 movie was the first time I had ever been engulfed in the challenging, uncomfortable story that defines "Carrie"). However, this remake does a great job of updated the story/characters to present it in a way better suited for today's generation. Had I been watching the narrative for the very first time with this movie, I think I would have had the same reactions I did upon my first viewing of the original. "Carrie" is a story that deserves to live on through the generations, and this film makes it possible for it to do so.
95 of 133 people found the following review helpful
on December 9, 2013
Format: Blu-rayVerified Purchase
Tonight, I watched the screening of the new film adaptation of Stephen King's novel, "CARRIE". At first I was somewhat disappointed that it wasn't as faithful to the Stephen King novel as I hoped it would have been, but that's to be expected when you've been a devoted fan of the novel for almost ten years. After watching it on the big screen tonight, I can confidentially say that it definitely stands on its own as a solid film. My only disappointment is the running time of the theatrical cut. The pacing is good and quick, but it felt as though it could have been longer to flesh out the characters and tell the story properly. I do know for a fact that a lot of scenes were filmed, but were dropped from the theatrical cut during the editing process. Kimberly Peirce said in a interview that the original cut of the film was longer and a lot different than what we saw in theatres. I just hope the studios release a 'Director's Cut' on DVD and Blu-ray sometime down the track.
Chloe Grace Moretz (Carrie White) and Julianne Moore (Margaret White) give a solid performance and make their leading characters their own. Judy Greer (Miss Desjardin), Ansel Elgort (Tommy Ross), Gabriella Wilde (Sue Snell), Alex Russell (Billy Nolan) and Portia Doubleday (Chris Hargensen) give a solid performance and make their secondary characters their own. Director Kimberly Peirce does an excellent job focusing on the mother and daughter relationship, as well as the bullying aspect of the story. Composer Marco Beltrami delivers an incredible score which is hauntingly beautiful and unique in its own way. Cinematographer Steve Yedlin does a phenomenal job with the visuals throughout the film. There are a lot of scenes that are psychologically disturbing and emotionally moving -- it definitely makes you feel for Carrie. Even though there are a number of similarities to Brian De Palma's 1976 film, I do believe that Kimberly Peirce's film captured the true essence of the Stephen King novel.
I know a lot of people will disagree with me, but I personally don't see "Carrie" as a typical Horror story. Having a final jump scare just diminishes the point of the story. It cheapens it. Since it's more of a character-driven story, I see it as a Drama (maybe Thriller?) with elements of Horror. Yes, Stephen King's work is known as "Horror" or "Thriller", but the story of Carrie just doesn't fit into the Horror genre by today's standards. Lawrence D. Cohen and Brian De Palma took the novel and turned it into a generic Horror film. I think that's why a lot of people have classified the story as "Horror" -- it's implanted in their mind. If you dissect the novel layer by layer, you will see that it's a tragedy culminating to a horrific event. And what's scary is the realism of the story: religious fanaticism, sexuality, bullying, abuse, revenge, etc. How many incidents have we seen in the past where people take matters into their own hands after being pushed too far? It's a timeless story that fits in any era.
Do I believe that it was necessary for the story to have been re-adapted for a new generation? Yes. Today, bullying has become a major issue in our society, especially on social media. Take a look at the school shootings and teenage suicides that has occurred over the years. Remember the Columbine massacre that happened in 1999? Two boys were treated as outcasts by their high school peers and in the end they were hellbent on revenge. The same thing applies with Carrie White. Yes, it may be a fictional story of a girl with telekinetic powers, but it does make you stop and think. She was an outcast at school who was regularly tormented by her peers. She suffered emotional and physical abuse from her overly religious mother. And in the end... it was a tragedy. I just hope people take heed of the dangers of bullying and understand that a person can only be pushed so far before they break.
I genuinely believe that "CARRIE" stands alone as a solid film and highly recommend that people watch this with an open mind. The 1976 film was a horror, this is a tragedy.
Here's a bit of information regarding the film...
Having read the original screenplay by Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa, I can safely say that the original script didn't follow the same structure as the 1976 film. I will admit there were a few homages, but it was a whole new take on the story. Before the film was delayed in January 2013, there was a lot of positive feedback from those who attended the first test screenings in December 2012. A number of people confirmed that the original cut was longer and a lot different than the theatrical cut.
I remember watching a video on YouTube where two guys reviewed the film (without giving away spoilers) based on what they saw at the test screenings. They confirmed that the film was a lot different to Brian De Palma's film and was more closer to the Stephen King novel. I personally believe that the studios interfered with the editing of the film. The theatrical cut wasn't what Kimberly Peirce wanted to release in theatres. It's like they [the studios] re-cut the film and gave us a scene-by-scene remake of Brian De Palma's film. I knew it wasn't Kimberly's voice in the movie -- it was the studios.
A friend of mine, who is a filmmaker, gave their two cents as to what might have happened...
The original cut was all ready to go in March, then the studios looked at the release date and thought they could make more money on "Carrie" during the Halloween season. So they demanded re-shoots and multiple re-edits to make it more Horror. It would explain why Lawrence D. Cohen (the writer of the 1976 film) was credited after the film was delayed -- they re-shot a number of scenes from the 1976 screenplay. The downside to the re-shoots and multiple re-edits is that a lot of scenes would have to be dropped or trimmed to fit the new running time by the studios. The shorter the film, the more viewing sessions the film has.
Based on fan speculation, test audience feedback, and certain confirmed details concerning the film -- the deleted and/or extended scenes include:
-The original opening was a flashback of Carrie as a little girl spying through a fence on a female neighbor who is sunbathing. The young woman notices Carrie and starts to make conversation with her. Carrie tells her that she can see her "dirty pillows" and the neighbor explains to her that it is normal for women to develop breasts when they get older. That's when Margaret White appears and snatches up Carrie, screaming and yelling at the neighbor. She calls the young lady a whore, telling her to stay away from her child, and Carrie gets upset and begins to cry. Suddenly, it starts hailing. Pellets of ice come down on top of Carrie's home while Margaret runs into the house trying to console her daughter. The neighbor just stares in disbelief as the hail rains down on the White residence, and only the White residence.
-The White Commission [The film had integrated several courtroom scenes with witnesses giving testimonies of their experiences with Carrie White leading to the prom incident, essentially structuring the film as a series of flashbacks and recollections. The neighbor from the alternate opening scene is shown at first, now an adult woman, recounting her experience. There is also a scene featuring a TK Specialist discussing telekinesis and saying something to the effect of Carrie being one of many people who may be born with this genetic anomaly. It's been said that the White Commission scenes revealed too many prom survivors which the filmmaker's felt spoiled the climax]
-There was 'found footage' that played a role in the film. That's why you see Freddy 'Beak' Holt carrying his camera and filming everything.
-There were scenes detailing more in depth character development.
-There were scenes involving Facebook, the e-mail sent from Chris to Donna Kellogg. "So I'm out of prom and my [censored] father says he won't give them what they deserve."
-"Wipe that smile off your face." - Chris to Carrie at the pool.
-The locker room scene [Extended] - Chris turning the cell-phone toward herself and the mean girls.
-Chris and Tina kiss [Extended]
-Tommy and Sue's backseat sex scene [Extended]
-Billy's wild ride [The "blow--- scene" - similar to the 1976 version]
-An interaction between Chris and Carrie outside the dress shop.
-The confrontation between Sue and the mean girls.
-Carrie levitates Margaret [Extended]
-Drive to the pig farm [Extended]
-After Tommy leaves the table to get some drinks, Carrie and Miss Desjardin have a friendly and meaningful conversation.
-Carrie and Tommy kiss.
-Billy kisses Chris.
-Margaret claws her way out of the closet and goes over to the sink where she retrieves a butcher knife and cuts herself.
-Sue tries to call Tommy from outside the school to warn him that something bad is about to happen. He rejects the call.
-The prom scene as a whole, which was said to be longer and more violent than the theatrical version.
-Tina on fire [Extended]
-A scene or shot which reveals George Dawson and his girlfriend's fate.
-There were some really creepy stuff that was unfortunately cut during post-production, like some "dancing" dead students. My source is not completely certain about this detail or its placement within the film. But it was either in a deleted scene where Carrie snaps the limbs of prom-goers or during the electrocution scene which was supposed to be more graphic and longer. In the novel, it was described as a "crazy puppet dance".
-The scene of Carrie levitating outside of the burning school was actually re-shot. In the original version of that scene, Carrie was standing on the centre of the lawn, waiting for the remaining surviving students to come out of the burning school before killing them one by one with her telekinetic powers.
-After Carrie leaves the school, she begins to destroy part of the town by causing explosions and bringing down power lines as she follows Billy and Chris. You can see the first few seconds of the town destruction from the aerial view. If you look closely behind Carrie, you can see that several cars are in flames.
-When Sue is outside the school with Miss Desjardin, she sees Tommy's body being carried out on a stretcher. Miss Desjardin tells Sue that she's sorry and Sue walks away with determination to find Carrie.
-Margaret's original death scene - possibly similar to the book version which depicts a heart attack caused by Carrie's power.
-The multiple endings
1) The first ending is very similar to the ending of the 1976 film but without the final twist: Sue Snell actually gets killed when Carrie pulls her into the ground.
2) The second ending is an exact replica of the original film where Snell gets pulled into the ground by Carrie but wakes up in her bed to find it's just a dream.
3) The third ending is after Carrie saves Sue by pushing her out of the house, which collapses from the falling stones. There's a bird's eye view of the wreckage of what used to be Carrie's home before we get a quick CGI zoom through a pit of debris, to a close-up of a now bloodied Carrie snapping her eyes open.
4) The fourth ending is of Sue making a final speech to the court where she says the line heard in the teaser trailer about Carrie being just a girl, not a monster. This is spoken over scenes of Sue and her family visiting the cemetery. Sue goes to Carrie's grave, which shows the headstone tagged up and vandalized. She leaves her flowers and just walks away. Nothing scary, just a very somber closing shot of the headstone.
5) The fifth ending is after Carrie's house is destroyed by the falling stones. The movie flashes forward to several months later and we see Sue in the hospital surrounded by doctors and nurses, ready to give birth. They're trying to calm her down but Sue begins to struggle, saying she feels something is wrong. Suddenly, a very bloody hand (covered in afterbirth) erupts from between Sue's legs, reaching up and gripping her arm. She screams in terror and we see that she is having a nightmare, being held down by her parents while the camera pans over to a wall where we are shown a large crucifix hanging in her room.
6) The sixth ending is described as a "morning after voice over" by Sue Snell as we see the town coping with what happened.
7) The seventh ending shows the town the morning after Carrie's attack filled with news crews, reporters, and cops talking about the whole thing. What's bizarre about this scene is that Carrie's destruction of the city is being described as "a conspiracy." Apparently the town is "trying to cover up what really happened."
There is an online petition for a Director's Cut to be released. The petition has gained almost 10,000 signatures (I think?), so I'm curious to see how that will turn out.
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
on April 14, 2014
This is a pretty good remake. I'm not one for horror movie remakes. but this one is pretty good. the best I've seen since rob zombie's version of Halloween and Halloween 2. chloe did a great job as carrie and julieanne moore did good as her mother. the special effects were great. and the transformation of carrie was excellent from shy little girl to a rage monster. great acting. this is a good movie. if you have not seen this movie then I recommend you do
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
on October 3, 2014
Format: Amazon Instant Video
I will never forget reading Stephen King's Carrie., nor will I ever forget watching the movie Carrie (1976). I am not a fan of remakes, or reboots. I find them pointless when the original is indisputably a classic. I will admit when I received the email from Netflix that the 2013 rendition of Carrie was on line, I was a little excited, maybe it was because it is October, and there a few horror movies worth the watch.
I think everyone knows the synopsis of the film (novel). Carrie White may have been unfashionable and unpopular, but she had a gift. Carrie could make things move by concentrating on them. A candle would fall. A door would lock. This was her power and her sin. Then, an act of kindness, as spontaneous as the vicious taunts of her classmates, offered Carrie a chance to be a normal and go to her senior prom. But another act--of ferocious cruelty--turned her gift into a weapon of horror and destruction that her classmates would never forget.
It is a simple plot, but so packed full with depth and underlying themes that are so uncomplicated they are genius.
I was prepared to dislike the remake. The original had Sissy Spacek as Carrie, and Piper Laurie as Margaret White, Carrie's mother. The two carried the movie. Their acting is what made the movie such a success. Laurie was amazing. Creepy. I had nightmares from her performance as a religious heretic, a Bible thumping fanatic. Spacek was so timid and shy, so pathetic and weak. I could never imagine anyone else playing either role nearly as well. I remember trying to watch other movies with Spacek, and just couldn't do it. She scared me. Even though she was never the evil in the story.
In the remake, Julianne Moore is top billed, portraying the role of Margaret White, while Chloe Grace Moretz landed the part of Carrie. Unfortunately, but showing great diversity, Moore nailed the role of Margaret White. Normally an attractive woman, Moore has forever scared me. She managed to capture and add to the role, paying complete homage to Piper Laurie's performance. Moretz had big shoes to fill. At times she came very close. Mostly she missed. Just missed. Moretz is far too pretty, far too cute to garnish much sympathy or empathy. This is not meant to imply Spacek was not an attractive woman, however, when she was Carrie, she was Carrie! Now, with that said, Moretz did elicit emotions in me while watching the movie. I felt for her character when she talked with the gym teacher about being asked to prom, and when Tommy Ross actually asked her to prom. Moretz did portray sense of sweet innocence that made me like her. All I meant was, she is no Sissy Spacek when it comes to this . . . legendary and iconic role. (Think Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka . . . close, but no cigar). Some pluses include seeing more into Margaret White. Just a bit more of her as a sick person. It added to the story. It added to the horror.
The high morals gym teacher, Mrs. Desjardin (Miss Collins in the original), played by Judy Greer, was well done. She kept the performance true to the original, played by Betty Buckley. The roles of Sue and Tommy Ross, Chris, Billy Nolan, and Norma were non-eventful in both movies and, sadly, hardly worth the mention.
The remake is more relevant. I feel like the reboot serves a purpose. The incorporation of cell phones, the internet and YouTube were essential to draw in teen viewers. It made the movie appeal to a wide audience. It exposed a new generation of Stephen King and horror fans to a classic in a way that would make sense, and was relate-able. For that, I understand and applaud the new rendition. The special effects were extreme, a bit thick and poured on, but did assist in the prom scene.
The climax, when Carrie returns home after prom to tell her mother she was right, that they all laughed at her, was as graphic and impacting and sad, and troubling as it was the first time I saw it in the original. The women did an amazing job at recapturing that . . . magic. The overall sense of loss and dread, and emptiness were complete.
If I were seeing the movie for the first time, I'd have easily given it 5 Stars. However, there is no way I can evaluate this version of Carrie without comparing it to THE Carrie. And for that, I am forced to give the movie 3.5 Stars. And this may be a spoiler, but I was kind of upset that Carrie's hand did not shoot up out of the grave in the final scene. I waited for it. Never happened. (Might be why I am giving it a 3.5 instead of a 4).
Author of Blood River and Vaccination
12 of 17 people found the following review helpful
on January 13, 2014
Unlike many people, I have no problems with remakes of classic films. Who's to say that someone else's take on a character or universe wouldn't offer something new to the cinematic world? I actually enjoyed the "A Nightmare on Elm Street," "Friday the 13th," and "Fright Night" reboots. The upcoming "Robocop" looks to be entertaining as well.
I especially don't mind alternate versions of movies when they were originally based on a novel. Many times, one screenwriter or director's interpretations of a book can be vastly different from another's. Just look at the difference between the two "Total Recall," "The Shining," and "Salem's Lot" movies and mini-series. Many have said one follows the author's writings much better than the other. Unfortunately, that doesn't always mean we get a better movie just because it's more faithful. That's the case with Director Kimberly Peirce's vision of "Carrie."
Carrie's (Chloe Grace Moretz) life can only be described as miserable and lonely. An outcast in school, she finds no solace at home. Her overbearing mother (Julianne Moore) is a misled and overzealous religious nut that constantly condemns Carrie and everyone around her for the sins they have and will commit. When the young girl finds she possesses telekinetic powers, it opens up a whole new world to her. It won't be long before both her psychotic mother and bullying classmates will regret everything they've ever said and done to Carrie.
Several things are wrong with "Carrie." First off, it's very hard to buy Chloe Grace Moretz as a "Plain Jane" girl who is the blight of the school and the outcast everyone picks on. She's too cute to be playing this kind of character. That's not to say she didn't do her best in the role. I just think she was miscast.
Secondly, I couldn't shake the feeling that I was watching a made-for-TV movie through much of "Carrie." The camerawork and overall look reminded me of something I'd see on Lifetime. It's passible, but doesn't give the movie the cinematic feel it should have.
2013's "Carrie" does take viewers in a couple different directions that weren't explored in Brian De Palma's version of the story. However, that doesn't necessarily translate into being a good thing. Moretz's portrayal of Carrie doesn't leave the audience with the sense of empathy Sissy Spacek's did in the first adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller.
The title character's telekinetic powers are much more fantastical in the new "Carrie." Instead of just being able to move things with her mind, she can also stop cars in their tracks, fly, and cause the ground to split open. Whether more accurate to the book or not, these powers feel like a bit much and don't hold up well on film.
Finally, some of the special effects and CGI were less than spectacular. My biggest complaint is that the explosions suffered from looking a bit too artificial. More time in the image editing process could have cleaned these issues up.
The real diamond in the rough when it comes to "Carrie" is Julianne Moore. Her portrayal of Margaret White is absolutely wonderful and disturbing. She perfectly captures the desperation and lunacy the character bounces through with complete sincerity.
"Carrie" is rated R for bloody violence, disturbing images, language, and some sexual content. It's definitely gory enough for a restricted rating. There's one scene where two teens are having sex that was unnecessary. They didn't show any nudity, but it was still too much. If it weren't for that scene, this could easily have been rated PG-13.
I really respected the way Bible-based Christianity isn't thrown under the bus in 2013's "Carrie." As the mother is spouting off religious banter, Carrie points out that what the mother is reciting isn't even found in the Bible. This gives viewers a clearer picture that Margaret isn't practicing traditional living through scripture. Her beliefs are more cult-like and not limited to true Biblical teachings.
The DVD edition of "Carrie" contains a few special features. They include a making-of featurette entitled "Bringing Back Carrie." A featurette entitled "Telekinetic Coffee Shop Surprise" and a theatrical trailer are found as well.
2013's "Carrie" isn't going to please people who loved Brian De Palma's version. It might be more accurate to Stephen King's written word, but it lacks the tension and emotion of the 1976 film. However, it will appeal to those who never saw the first screen adaptation of the book and teenagers will find it easy to relate to. It's safe to say they'll definitely think twice before bullying someone in the future after watching this.
8 of 11 people found the following review helpful
on October 22, 2013
This version of Carrie is a modern take on the 1976 version, based on Stephen King's first novel. It adds a few new elements and the cast is quite good, but it is another remake that does not need to exist. We all know what is going to happen and it is nearly a copy in structure. Chloe Grace Moretz has the acting ability to almost make me forget that she is too pretty for the role. The prom scene lacked the impact of the original, but overall it was still enjoyable and better than most of the new takes on classic horror films. Worth at least one look.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
on October 21, 2014
Format: Amazon Instant Video
It is perhaps unfair to hold a remake to the same standards of a near perfect original, but this film is superfluous at best, though I did find it moderately entertaining. Chloë Grace Moretz isn't terrible as Carrie, but her performance at times just did not ring true, not I was expecting anything close to a performance like Sissy Spacek's in Brian De Palma's 1976 film. Julianne Moore does give a very good performance as Carrie's mother.
I should point out that this film is based more on the De Palma film than on Stephen King's novel. (The famous "plug it up" line in the shower scene was not in King's novel but was in the remake.) Also, I was disappointed in the very end of the film (minor spoiler ahead), which had a supernatural element that was jarring and missing in Stephen King's novel. (The novel was written as a non-fiction chronicle of the events surrounding Carrie White's life. Telekinesis was viewed as a natural phenomenon.)
This could have been an opportunity to make the film a bit more faithful to the book (perhaps by including some of Carrie's childhood, using a documentary style or by portraying Carrie more as King described) or could have provided a thorough updating of the story (such as expanding on the "cyberbullying" portrayed in the film), but instead director Kimberly Pierce choose an easier path, creating film that is a mediocre adaptation of King's novel and inferior to De Palma's original.
3 of 4 people found the following review helpful
on October 27, 2014
Format: Amazon Instant Video
‘Carrie 2013’ is just why Hollywood should STOP the remakes. The movie fails to capture what made the original so powerful. Chloë Grace Moretz, a very talented actress never gives off an air of being venerable and awkward the way Sissy Spacek portrayal captivated generationa
This remake is filled with Hollywood pretty. Sue Snell looks like she left the run way, stopped by the studio to pick up her check. The Chris Hargensen, played by Portia Doubleday, should have been the only Hollywood pretty in the movie, but, not to take away from the actress, she was a bargain basement let down and should have been cast as an extra, at best, as should Alex Russell who portrayed Billy Nolan.
Chris and Billy never had that really hot date together where the Chris character uses her charms on him to do her bidding; they just shared scripted screen time.
Ansel Elgort had a huge fail as Tommy Ross. He was supposes to be dreamy this was a miserable fail. There is NOTHING charismatic about this Tommy Ross. Maybe with is my I didn’t bother with ‘Divergent’ or ‘The Fault in Our Stars.’ Okay that is too much to lie at Ansel Elgort feet. Just don’t want to be part of another Twli-tard fan craze movement
The gym teacher Miss Desjardin, played by Judy Greer, had NO real connection with the Carrie character and offered no comfort to the supposed mis-fit Carrie.
And let’s face it Julianne Moore is way too hot to be Margaret White. Julianne Moore performance was not religiously disturbed enough and was more a nuisance. Slapping a ratty wig on the Margaret White character doesn’t make the character deranged, just in need of a comb.
True to Hollywood form, an African American couple was introduced and the prom and lend nothing to the movie.
Watching Carrie dance with Tommy was just painful, not romantic.
Do yourself a favor. Fast forward to the last 15 minutes of the movie: the prom scene, the comeuppance of Chris, and a story wrap of the Sue Snell story line.
20 of 29 people found the following review helpful
on October 19, 2013
Since I am such a huge fan of the original "Carrie," I went into this movie with tempered expectations. Boy, was that a good move. The latest remake was a HUGE disappointment. I almost left before the ending, but decided I'd already been tortured for over 90 minutes, so I'd just buck up and try and stomach the rest. I am amazed by the other reviews; however, after this movie has been in circulation a little while, I don't believe anyone will find it still being rated as a 4-1/2 star movie.
"Carrie" tells the tale of a young girl with special powers, i.e. telekenisis (the power to move objects by force of the mind). Constantly tortured by an over-protective, uber-religious mother--not to mention just about an entire high school--Carrie dreads just about every day of her life...until she discovers her power. After that, Carrie feels a little more focus in her life; she has something no other teenager in her school possesses, and she doesn't feel so helpless anymore. After a very ugly scene is posted on the internet involving Carrie and her "becoming a woman," one girl feels the need to try and help Carrie fit in. This turns out to be the worst thing for everyone involved.
Most of you know the rest of the story. Scenes in the original that were poignant, tender, and so meaningful have been replaced with hurried attempts to tell a story--and LOTS of CGI. Although Chloe Grace Moretz does a decent job as the title character, it is the rest of her cast that do this movie in. Julieanne Moore was an absolute train wreck as her mother. Her character portrayal was lifeless. I'll take Piper Laurie's over-the-top portrayal anytime over the zombie-like mumblings of Moore. I could compare (character for character) the 1976 version to this remake, and there was not ONE actor who came close to hitting the marks of the original.
"Carrie" will hopefully die a quick death. This should be a lesson to all the morons in Hollywood who continue to think they are capable of outdoing a classic. It will never work, so STOP already. "Carrie" is rated R for violence and language, and was directed by Kimberly Pierce. NOT RECOMMENDED.