Yes, No, Maybe So: "Carrie 2013"
Saturday, April 6, 2013 at 11:01AM If you remake Carrie they're all going to laugh at you!
the Mean Girls of Thomas Ewen Consolidated High School.
Or, if not laugh, than shake their heads in annoyance that you've dared to keep company with a 70s classic. I've never disguised or hedged my opinion here. I think Carrie (1976) is a GREAT motion picture. Not just a good one. Since it can't really be improved upon (specifically in the performance arena since Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie both did risky revelatory Oscar worthy work) there's no reason to remake it. Unless of course you have a fresh take on it, which is the only reason to ever remake anything that's great to begin with.
The teaser which featured merely voiceover about the telekinetic PMSing high school misfit over a zoom in on Chloe Grace Moretz as Carrie White as Firestarter was a hit as teasers often are (leave them wanting more!) but the new trailer basically says "hey, I'm just the same as the old Carrie only with actors you kids know. Look, it's all the famous scenes including the climax. Come see me in October!"
Pray for forgiveness Julianne! You're risking ANOTHER iconic do over?!
Having clearly stated my bias -- I'm a "no" ahead of time on principle -- let's break it down anyway after the jump with as much of an open mind as I can muster on this one.
YES
- Though I think it a stupid film to remake, I'm a Julianne Moore completist. When I told Julianne this in person a few years ago she laughed and said "You've seen some bad movies then!" So I'll be there for her as I always am though maybe she was prematurely warning me about this one before she even knew she was making it?
- Speaking of Julianne as Margaret White, I kind of love the trailer edit of her banging her head against the closet door where she's locked her daughter up. It's creepy in a mundane way which is a good sign.
- I even like the door cracking though I fear on the big screen it will be obviously CGI when the practical effect of a door suddenly splitting in the middle would be way scarier.
- Judy Greer in the Betty Buckley role? This is totally acceptable.
- Kimberly Peirce's previous pictures, the totally excellent Boys Don't Cry and the semi-good Stop Loss are strong enough as a twofer to demand a little goodwill going in.
Smirk Forthcoming. Carrie is a smidge delighted rather than all-terrified of her powers this time.
NO
- The last time Julianne Moore took on someone else's iconic role (Jodie Foster's) it didn't turn out so well. It's a shame she's trying this again as she's a unique enough film star to have her own iconic roles and it's annoying that they keep trying to give her other people's.
- I can't imagine that the 2013 film will be as daring as the 1976 film in terms of its sexual and therefore metaphoric content. The cinema has regressed a lot when it comes to sexuality and nudity and all of that. Complicating matters: Sixteen-year-old Chloe Moretz in the shower is NEVER going to be as vulnerable as twenty-seven year old Sissy Spacek in the shower (nor should she be). Still, Sissy's total emotional, psycho-sexual, and physical vulnerability was the whole unsettling foundation of the original thanks to that sick-making "plug it up! plug it up!" title sequence. And what kind of mood will the new Carrie be able to muster without an opening sequence that bold?
- I get beat up about this all the time in the comments but I swear my aversion to Chloe Moretz in this role (Errr, I guess she's going by Chloe Grace Moretz again? Make up your mind, girl) is NOT due to my aversion to Chloe Moretz in general. See, I'd totally buy her as Carrie's arch-nemesis Chris "eat shit" Hargensen (Nancy Allen in the original, Portia Doubleday in the remake) but as tiny fragile awkward shy Carrie White? When Chloe's screen persona is the polar opposite of all of these attributes and her previous screen roles laugh at the very suggestion of these weaknesses? It's just such weird casting no matter how big of a draw she is. (Or isn't. She's famous but still untested as a headliner and even this film won't truly test her bankability because it's Carrie as Famous Brand that sells tickets.)
MAYBE SO
- HOWEVER -- and here's why I show the remake some good will despite the uninspiring paint by numbers "all the famous scenes!" trailer -- IF the casting of Moretz is part and parcel of a perverse and fresh take on the story and role wherein a young teenager's conversion to massacre monster is treated as subversive destiny rather than a sad "look what became of her?!" tragedy like the original Carrie (1976) or that classic Pearl Jam "Jeremy" video, then I'll be interested if grossed out while watching it. See, I totally buy the Chloe Moretz I'm seeing once she's killing people. I love the car stopping bit -- which looks endearing fake in the original film but filmed differently this time -- and especially the tilt of Chloe's shoulders when she coopts destructive fire as flattering backlight.
- In other words reinterpret or go home; the original still holds up in 2013.
Are you a YES, NO or MAYBE SO? Tell us why in the comments.
Reader Comments (65)
I'm afraid this is going to be a disaster, and I was really looking forward to it. When you read about Stephen King's inspiration for Carrie it was based on two girls that lived in his neighborhood - one girl, if I remember correctly, had a religious zealot for a mother, and went door to door to collect money for the church. She was a freak in the community. The beauty and the innocence of the earlier film is that Sissy Spacek is fearless, she doesn't mind looking and being a freak in the early scenes, you can see why the girls might single her out. But this new actress, no matter how hard she tries, is just too pretty. Spacek was so committed to the role that during the filming of the prom scenes she stayed away from the cast and didn't wash any of the blood off even though it took days to finally complete. That's method. I don't think anything in this film will even come close. We just live in a different time. And by making it modern day, with everyone carrying around their cell phones, it makes one wonder how this could take place in 2013. It would make more sense of Carrie to bring an assault weapon to school the next day. That's more a story of our times.
Watching the trailer, I was irritated because in our society now of non-subtle, hit everyone over the head, it's not enough like in the original for a mirror to break or a door to slam, you have to have the bed levitating like the exorcist and all the books floating around like Harry Potter. If this movie is good, I would be very surprised, but like the television version with Patricia Clarkson, another great actress, it should have been left alone.
I say yes.
As someone who used to love the original Carrie, I have to admit it just doesn't hold up anymore and any scene that doesn't have Piper and Sissy in it are all fairly silly. Just as silly as the "Waah waah" music that plays while the college-age school girls are doing their toe-touches in detention. Edie McClurg was extremely miscast and her bad "giggly" acting is just annoying. William Katt was also way too old for his role.
The rest of the film solely rests on the great camera work and editing that De Palma did for the prom scene. His use of split-screen was awesome and hopefully isn't attempted by Kimberly Pierce.
The new adaptation, if it's anything like the original novel can only improve on the first version where Carrie was actually a pretty evil little girl who actually plotted getting revenge on her schoolmates and her mother. The Prom scene was much worse in the novel, and thanks to modern special effects, I can see it playing out differently than it did in the original film.
I'm definitely seeing this in the theater.
They should have left a classic movie alone and not do a remake. The movie poster of the new Carrie movie looks more of a glamour shot then the first original two fold movie poster of before and after that was intended to be frightening and capture the audience. Still i'm sure the new actors gave some moments of pleasure, but the up-date movie itself will never take away from what the original had that had many other directors of horror movies have duplicated in their movies. Sissy Spacek gave an audacious performance
with heart and soul that could never be duplicated again from her day in the 70's. The original Carrie was an intense drama that defined it and the up-dater version more of special effects that the producers wanted. Please don't knock the original and please give the new movie at least some credit for special effects. Hopefully, this will end the Carrie movies--manybe.
Totally agree about Chloe Moretz. Terrible, terrible choice for Carrie. And yeah, she should have played Chris convincingly, not Carrie. Sissy Spacek had the look, you know? Chloe Moretz just looks like a popular girl PLAYING an outsider. Takes away from the movie tremendously.
A big no. I will spend my money on a new film. No remakes of Rooster Cogburn, Total Recall, Carrie just to name a few of the most recent. No to War of the Worlds, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Ocean's Eleven, Footloose, etc. No to the upcoming Robocop or any other remake in an attempt for a "guaranteed" hit instead of a new film. I may eventually see the films but only if there is no additional cost to see them.
DONT JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER.
I MEAN, WE HAVENT SEEN THE WHOLE FILM EXACTLY?
SO WHY ARE WE ALREADY SAYING THAT ITS SO BAD.
JUST LIKE WHEN 'INSIDIOUS' WENT OUT.
HONESTLY , WHEN I SAW THE TEASERS AND THE POSTER FOR THE MOVIE,
I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS SO BORING.
BUT I WAS SO SURPRISED WHEN I WATCHED IT.
ONE OF THE SCARIEST FILM THAT IVE SEEN. :P
Why....why.....WHY try to improve the best? Sissy Spacek was awesome and are the studios hurting so bad for scripts that they constantly have to redo old movies and expect people to pay to see it? There are many good books out there just waiting to be transformed into a screenplay, so knock it off with stupid remakes.
No, it looks awful. The acting is forced, its all too obvious, and Chloe doesn't come close to Sissy in portraying Carrie in all her waifness and vulnerability. I feel its an insult to the original and an insult to the source material.
Remakes never ever work, especially not in the non-grit movie era of ovelry slick Hollywood. I loved Boys Don't Cry. Kimberley, go back to the campy, girttty, honest films you are so good at.
I would really appreciate it if people would stop calling this a "remake." It's NOT a remake; it's a reinterpretation of the book. This movie will be completely different than the one made in the '70s, and people should start treating it like such, not making so many comparisons.
It just looks over done..Like way too much loud action and jump scares..Just like all these new movies do, It will get low reviews i guarantee it
I wanted to like this movie even when I left the theater. On the drive home I kept telling myself that there was good within it. I finally had to give in and scream out loud how horrible it was. It still strayed from the novel and stole from the original adaption. We know Carries name through the words the King gave us. Leave this story on paper and off the big screen. Side note, Julianne Moore will be praised for her performance as Margaret White.
PS. They use Moore in too many movies, why this one too? Is she the ONLY older lady that knows how to act? All I like her for is her many sex scenes..Thats why Im not watching this stupid movie, sticking to the Old Carrie.
I liked the movie somewhat, it was kind of a disappointment. I hoped it could possibly live up to the original, but it didn't. There was gratuitous sex scenes, which were not needed. In the original, the only scene like that was Chris trying to get Billy to help her, and it worked, cause she did something for him, so now he has to do something for her. But it didn't work in this remake. It was used to create a sub-plot about Sue being pregnant, which was really stupid. And the effects were terrible as well. I wanted to turn the movie off by the time Carrie was killing everyone, it looked awful. in the original, the murders looked good and realistic (as realistic as they could). But Carrie couldn't lift people up, that is just dumb.
Now for the good. I liked how the remake had more from the novel (which i adore). I liked how it had Margaret giving birth to Carrie in the beginning, and how Carrie destroyed the town, but I would have liked if it showed more of Carrie and her powers. Like when she first made rocks fall from the sky, if i had seen that, i would have given this movie some serious points. I also would have liked to see more of Chloe Grace Moretz's body. I would have liked the movie to be more raw like the original. However, that is not going to happen. All in all, I say they should have left the original be, because it was pretty perfect.
XOXOX Kitty
Thanks for the share.
I saw this movie and thought it was awesome I know alot of people didnt like this because its new film aadaptation of Kings book and that understandable but this isnt the second ever Carrie movie theres been about three different adaptations besides this and the original my advice go see this movie enjoy and be happy when the bad guys get killed because its glorious.