Stupid News of the Decade: Chloe Moretz as "Carrie"
Tuesday, March 27, 2012 at 10:12PM 
Sigh.
Breaking news: Chloe Moretz has accepted the lead role in the remake of Carrie. The news broke. It broke all the goodness in the world.
Not that a remake of Carrie wasn't a uniquely terrible idea all on its own without a hand from Chloe! The original is bloody perfect and Sissy Spacek's fragile overwhelmed and finally furiously catatonic performance is unimproveable. Frankly it's the stupidest casting I've heard since that time decades ago when Nicolas Cage was going to play Superman. This is like asking George Clooney to play an ugly unsophisticated charmless schlub virgin or asking Tilda Swinton to be uninteresting. Some things are just impossible.
No matter what one thinks of Chloe as an actress there is this fact: she exudes confidence. She's like a teflon teen. Not one atom in her body seems fragile or confused or meek. Yes, yes, she's an actress and you can play things other than yourself. But. But. Everything about her persona / aura / being reads wrong for this. She'd be more convincing remaking Aliens as Ripley or remaking No Country for Old Men as Anton Chigurh. Or maybe The Silence of the Lambs as both Clarice and Hannibal. This is what happens when Hollywood bases their casting on "who's hot" and does it without imagination.
Executive: "Hey, we've seen her bloodsplattered (Let Me In) and killing (Kick Ass) already. She can do that. ZOMG she's perfect for it!!!"
Kimberly Peirce is directing. She started off strong with Boys Don't Cry (1999). Her second feature Stop Loss (2008) had its moments but barely caused a blip. This third outing can't end well. And I don't mean for the kids at the prom.
I'm trying to be nice but JA gave this the most apt funny headline... "Chloe Moretz Burns in Hell"
Carrie, Chloe Moretz, casting
Reader Comments (46)
Remaking Carrie: The original is VERY 70s, but absolutely PERFECT for it. Why not go after a new novel for a modern spin? Either 1. This is a blatant work for hire or 2. This is Kimberly Pierce's attempt to make a 70s throwback. The former would have a small chance of succeeding with a different, (maybe slightly older) lead. The second would have no chance of success. Picking a new novel and absorbing and using 70s film style to deliver it would have been preferable.
It doesn't have to "improve" on anything, it just has to be a good movie. Remakes are just like any other films, they have to be good. They don't have to "best" the original or "justify their existence" more than any other film. They only have to be good, that is it. There is are few things sillier than people who freak out over remakes.
the anti chloe moretz slant on this site has finally started to reach a point where its staring to turn me off . its one thing not to like actress or to think a remake of Carrie is a bad idea but to blindly hate an actress to a point where you actually think her casting is the worst of the decade wow.
im going to give the filmexperience.net some advice pull back on some of this anti moretz non sense because its starting to hurt your creditably.
Double sigh. As much as I like Moretz (and I realize I may be in the minority here), I can't see it either. Remakes are unnecessary but I realize it's somewhat futile to complain about them, so I was hoping for the best with this project. It just seems like every actress they considered was too...pretty? I guess I should be happy that Megan Fox didn't get the role. I will admit that the prospect of Julianne Moore or Jodie Foster as Mrs. White is enticing though, especially if it goes to Moore.
Secretly hoping they cast Sissy Spacek in the Piper Laurie role so Nathaniel has an aneuryism. Right there with you tw - but you take Nathaniel as you get him. I remember when he turned against Cate Blanchett all those years ago, and now she hardly graces the screen. Coincidence? I think not.
I'm with Josh R, completely. I still think we should treat remakes of films like revivals of plays. I know that film is more permanent, but that doesn't mean that there won't be something new to appreciate about a different vision. And, actually, I've always pondered about casting a Carrie remake, especially re: Margaret. At first I thought Patty Clarkson as the Mom, until I found out the TV movie's been there, done that. Then I thought Minnie Driver, who would be PERFECT, but doesn't really resemble little Moretz. Who then?
I don't want a Carrie remake - period.
Nathaniel turned on CB? When was this??? I think theater work in Sydney with her husband has something to do with less Blanchett on the screen.
I love that Nathan hates her. I hate her. Nice not to be isolated on this issue. I can't seem to overcome the group think with Streep—hag!
Oh, this is very, very, very disappointing news. I don't hate Morentz as some do on this board, and indeed believe that the hate is quite unjustified. She's a capable actress albeit an unremarkable one.
I'm disappointed because last I heard, Hailee Steinfeld was in talks for the role of Carrie. Steinfeld might have been the better choice, having actually been bullied in high school to the point that she withdrew and chose the home schooling route. So you know, she could have related to the bullying that poor Carrie suffered.
Anyway, bummed to hear that Morentz is doing this. She doesn't seem like a good fit for the role at all.
walter and josh. I can see that point actually but it still galls me. Partly because I think our culture is already so disposable. Why not encourage people to have a healthy variety of film decades in their viewing instead of always just MUST BE NEW.
everyone -- but yeah the casting of Mrs White will be difficult. difficult.
This makes me want to dump a bucket of pig's blood on myself. If you're going to foolishly remake Carrie, why cast someone whose scariest feature is her totally hackneyed glare (or her acting in Hugo)? Why not the totally terrifying Isabelle Fuhrman from Orphan/Hunger Games?
I cannot cannot can-not imagine Jodie Foster shrieking and screaching and scaring the collective shit out of us as Margaret White so let's get our fingers crossed for Julianne. Speaking of Tilda, can you imagine...? Such a good what if albeit a total not gonna happen...
They should get January Jones to play the mom, or Reba McEntire.
Given the talent involved, I'm not necessarily against the idea of this remake. Spacek's performance aside (and to a lesser extent Laurie) is there anything about the original that's "untouchable"? I think it becomes even less of an issue since this version is supposed to be much closer to the source material, which apparently will make it different enough (can't vouch for that, not having read the novel).
And I also have to respectfully disagree with you Nathaniel regarding Moretz. I can understand issues with her ubiquity, but the girl has chops and I think she can definitely pull off vulnerable. I think Let Me In proved that. When I heard about this it almost seemed like the next natural step from Abby (loved that movie btw).
I also think the news is DISASTROUS, I liked her in "Let Me In" but I cannot see her do this properly, either imitating Spacek or doing something completely different. I have to admit I'm very sad about the whole story. It's the same as remaking "Sophie's Choice" and have somebody almost certainly ruin Streep's greatest work.
As far as the Cate Blanchett case comes to mind, @ Arkaan, you might want to check your facts... after she gave birth in 2008 (and by the way had two smash hits) she took over the Sydney Theater company where she literally transformed DRAMA with her husband, remember the rave reviews about her Blanche Dubois and how Meryl Streep herself said she thought she had known that play, but she realized she hadn't until she saw that performance?
Despite the Sydney full time commitments and the 3 kids, she managed to work with Ridley Scott in "Robin Hood", and Joe Wright in "Hanna", and this year she's back as Galadriel, all of these things lead to some truly impressive multitasking from her, and above all else, real talent. So whether Nathaniel likes or dislikes her, it doesn't really matter, the facts speak for themselves: Blanchett's in a league of her own on screen and on stage. I've said this before and I'll say it again, any actor with a brain cannot but envy her collection of directors, it's just fascinating.
Is it wrong that I kind of want to see your suggestion of her as Hannibal and Clarice?
I actually saw someone on another site say they see her performance reminding them of Charlize Theron in Monster -___________-
I think we all know this remake is going to suck, that it will probably flop, and three weeks after it hits theaters no one will even remember that it exists. In the meantime, until it flops and is forgotten, I'm just going to go ahead and pretend that the remake does not and will not exist. I applied the same strategy to the recent remake/prequel/whatever of The Thing and it worked out really well!
Yavor: Blanchett's gifts aren't fully appreciated by Nathan yet. It has everything to do with them calling her the new Streep. Just as they're doing it to Jessica Chastain. Although he adores Chastain. As do I.
I don't hate her at all, but she seems too conventionally pretty for the part, not offbeat like Sissy or even Angela Bettis were.
Again 3rtful
Enough of the name calling ..... Grow up!!!! You must be a very lonely person... everything is so negative with you....
I can see where you're coming from about the miscasting Nathaniel, but seriously, did you have to lost such a mean spirited title for this post? What are you now, Perez Hilton? I seriously get turned off by your site when you do things like this. I read your site because of your humor and adoration of actresses. And its kinda alarming this yet another post about Chloe Moretz where you whine about her, and she is so young. It just leaves a nasty aftertaste.
NO! Saoirse Ronan! She looks like Spacey, too!
Please, let's keep Moore and Foster (and Ronan) away from this project. It's such a bad idea!
Nathaniel is merely offering the opinion that Chloe Moretz is miscast and that a remake is a bad idea...relax!
My only hope is that Kimberly Pierce is directing again but i'd rather she do something original or just rename the film and rename the characters, as many current films do!
Matthew - you should be a casting director!! I want to see your version of this movie starring Isabelle Fuhrman and Tilda Swinton....!! That would be amazing!
Miss Tufsy -- oh come on... i'm a long way from drawing penises on people's faces. And also: Chloe can handle it. She could probably take me in a fight. This is why I'm so against the casting. There is nothing about her that reads as "weak". Everything suggests strength. Even in "Let Me In"...
Val - the vulnerability is a mere act -- she's setting everything up to get herself a new companion. She's totally in control of that narrative and a manipulative monster. and yes it works well for that movie.
But vulnerable? meek? It's like asking... well, i already said it in the post.
Burning -- yes exactly.
Fingers crossed they'll pull a last-minute switch and give her the Nancy Allen role instead.
Abigail Breslin is too young, right? She'd be perfect if they could hold out a couple more years.
I really only care about who plays Margaret. She is the dominant force whenever she's onscreen and bad casting will sink this project fast.
Roark, that kind of happened with its "sequel" in 1999, right? I mean, most of you probably forgot there was a Carrie sequel in 1999.
And isn't that worse, by the way? Making an obviously unintended sequel versus just plain remaking it.
Robert G: Abigail Breslin is currently fifteen, same age as Moretz. The difference is...she had a small and kind of charming (but not really "great") performance six years ago and then faded away fairly quickly. Moretz gets these offers because, well, she's somehow managed to stay in the public eye for a year in some fairly well received movies (Kick-Ass, Let Me In, Hugo.) After this year, she has, in pre-production: Bill Purple's narrative feature debut, The Devil and the Deep Blue Sea, The Rut, a wilderness drama by Karyn Kusama, The Drummer, a Beach Boys biopic by the guy who did Bottle Shock (don't expect TOO much) and Dance of the Mirlitons (so, since the title is a reference to The Nutcracker, we should expect a film about extremely harsh, ball busting women and the guy they gang up on?), a film written and directed by Evan Greenberg, someone who's only other narrative feature credit is a film called SEX FARCE. With this Carrie news, one or all of them might wind up not going into production.
Rick has crush on me! If you think you're lonely now...wait until tonight!
cal roth: No young actress should be cast with a face like Spacey's!
@kin: I do actually remember it - or rather remember the poster when it was being released. I didn't actually see the thing. And, wasn't there yet another "Carrie" sequel a year or two ago? (Or was that a remake of the sequel?)
Oh, and I almost forgot - Nathan wrote about a revival of the musical a few week backs? What gives.
Stephen King has written other books by the way (loads of them, in fact. Perhaps too many). Surely one of them could be made into another film. (And yet I also recall there being a slew of films based on Stephen King novels in the '80's - and who remembers them now? although his work seemed to fare better, ironically, on made-for-tv movies where horrors had to be suggested rather than shown outright.)
I realize that the movie industry has been doing remakes since the silent era (just look how many circa 1900 films there are of scarf-dancing girls a la Loie Fuller on YouTube; and Melies himself pretty much remade his own films endlessly with small variations); and yet I still have a certain resistance to remakes- in part at least because most of them end up pretty dreadful. Though, perhaps no greater percentage are failures than original films that suck. I'm trying to think of instances where the remakes are better - A Star is Born with Judy Garland comes to mind, and Hitcock's 1950's remake of his own 1930's "The Man who Knew Too Much Come to mind but that's all I can think of right this second.
Volvagia, interesting. Breslin looks so much younger than Moretz, who could pass for high school senior age at this point. I think they're both talented actresses. They're just suited for very different work. Breslin does have recent horror cache with Zombieland, same as Moretz for Let Me In. Moretz has just done more noticeable work recently than Breslin.
Chloe Grace Moretz is an excellent actress. For my money, she's the next Jodie Foster and Natalie Portman, not Saoirse Ronan or Dakota Fanning like Hollywood would like to shove down our throats. And Sissy Spacek was too old to play Carrie in the original. This isn't such a sacred cow that there can't be a remake done. I'm more interested in who's playing Piper Laurie's role anyway. Get someone that's truly batshit crazy for it. Too bad Sally Kirkland's too old now. Ten years ago she'd been absolutely perfect for this role. All the best to Miss Moretz tho!
Actually (DON'T HATE ME!) this bit of casting news kind of makes me more hopeful for the remake, because of all the young actresses they could have picked for this part, Chloe Moretz is probably the least like the character as we know her from Sissy Spacek's performance. There's something to be said for running in the opposite direction when you're tackling something that iconic. Granted, I'm still not holding out THAT MUCH hope, but certainly more so than I would be if they chose someone even more obvious, like Ronan or Fanning.
I agree with you completely, this might be the weirdest casting ever. Sissy Spacek was so brilliant, why even remake this at all?
//I'm more interested in who's playing Piper Laurie's role anyway. Get someone that's truly batshit crazy for it. Too bad Sally Kirkland's too old now. //
And so are Sharon Stone and Diane Ladd, aren't they?
Julianne Moore could probably be brilliant in this but - would this show us a new side to her (I assume she's not going to even try to imitate Piper Laurie) or is she too "fragile"? She can do characters cracking to pieces (Magnolia, The Hours) but I've never gotten the sense of her playing a force of nature onscreen.
This may be crackpot but - Eva Green? I know it's a stretch but...think about it for a moment.
Or Olivia Williams. Who I will watch in anything anyway, but The Ghost Writer suggested a direction that directors don't usually ask her to go; it could be interesting to see her push the envelope with that. (ie, someone not obvious and expected, which may be why they are going with Moretz as some have suggested.)
To 3rtful
I take it back ... you are not lonely.... you are crazy!!! THE END
In reality, this is one of Nathanial's more benign, almost quasi-nice things he's written about Chloe Moretz. I think some of his commentary on her is supposed to be seen as humorous but it can come off as mean-spirited, particularly when it's always the same target and that target is a young girl.
As for the movie, I'm not sure she can pull it off either, but she's a nice kid and I hope it turns out well.
Rick I love that you love me. What's there to be embarrassed by? You thought you could mask your intentions by policing my Streep hate but in the end it was just your way to get me to notice you. That's sweet. My favorite things are Almodovar movies and the ocean.
Sharon Stone is a good suggestion. I'd love to see her in a juicy role again. She gets a bad rap around here when she shouldn't. Diane Ladd is too old I think. They'll probably skew younger b/c of Moretz. Diane Lane maybe? Jean Smart? Nothing against Julianne Moore (she was awesome in "Game Change" recently), but I'd rather see someone else get this role. Someone we don't see much of. I guess between Moore and Foster I'd pick Foster, but I'm lukewarm on her too.
LOL, I found out about this yesterday... how did I find it out. Oops, I think it was actually Chloe's twitter (guilty!). After reading the article she linked to I immediately checked TFE wondering what you, Nathaniel, had to say. Hmm... no news...so either you hadn't heard it yet, good for you, or you were still in shock.
But now I am actually more and more getting the impression, that while once he really seemed to hate her, meanwhile Nathaniel secretly already kind of loves Chloe, but just isn't ready to admit yet. I feel like I'm reading that between the lines.
That being sad, I also don't see the point of this unnecessary sequel!
@Matthew, I love Isabelle sooo much, but... nah! Don't know why not, probably because the sequel is as I said completely unnecessary!
denny -- hmmm. interesting point. perhaps if the movie is good (ahem) i bet that'll be the reason. a totally new approach.
Wow. The author of this article seems to be an idiot (although only the title by itself would be enough to give that impression)
the only way I could see this even gaining a small shred of credibility is if they went more towards King's description of her and make her...ugly. Give her acne. Give her the worst hair. Just completely make her that girl that was relentlessly bullied. I believe that was what King didn't like about the movie is that Sissy Spacek wasn't fat and hideous. Just odd looking. However, you know they won't. They will probably just try to make her look sad and brooding. With perfect skin.
Seriously, was Saoirse Ronan too expensive?