Coventry
I notice that I've become a lot more tolerant and open-minded regarding remakes of genuine horror classics! 10-15 years ago, around the time when remakes of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "The Fog" were getting released, I was fanatically against the trend and even encouraged others to boycott all these titles. My perception gradually changed over the years. Of course I still think that Brian DePalma's original "Carrie" is a powerful genre landmark and that another remake is completely unnecessary, but if that's what it takes to attract new & younger audiences, then so be it. I even daresay the 2013 version is fairly enjoyable, mostly thanks to a very solid & plausible performance by Julianne Moore and a surprisingly big amount of bloody murders and explicit make-up effects. This 2013 remake is almost identical to the 1976 original, except that the script is updated with typical post-Millennium atrocities. When poor Carrie White hysterically panicked for getting her very first menstruation at school in 1976, she got laughed at and bullied by the other girls in the shower. In 2013, she gets laughed at and simultaneously filmed by a dozen of smartphones, so that afterwards she gets cyber-bullied yet again on the internet. As I said, "Carrie" is a reasonably good film and I'm trying to be mostly positive, but there are nevertheless a few unforgivable mistakes here. First and foremost, the casting of Chloë Grace-Moretz. She certainly isn't a bad actress, but she's far too attractive and trendy to depict the unique titular character. Regardless of what pitiable clothing she wears or how pale her skin looks, this natural born cute girl simply cannot pass for the timid, introvert and religiously oppressed ugly duckling Carrie White! I know I'm sounding like a dinosaur again, but Sissy Spacek was phenomenally well-cast in the original for her looks and charisma, whereas here it's the other way around. Secondly, and this perhaps largely the achievement of Sissy Spacek also, the 1976 Carrie somehow remained a "human" and a "victim" when she went on her murdering rampage after the pig-blood incident at the prom. 2013 Carrie seemingly transforms into a sort of mean and unstoppable killer-robot, devoid of any emotion whatsoever. But hey, Julianne Moore's performance is truly impressive and arguably even more better than the almighty Piper Laurie in DePalma's original. Her depiction of the insanely religious Margaret White is intense, disturbing and genuinely petrifying. Other strong points include Kimberly Peirce's surefooted direction and the bloody carnage Carrie leaves behind at her senior prom.
filmclassics44
I am HUGE fan of the 1976 Carrie, when I think about Carrie, I think about Sissy Spacek specifically. I have also read the novel, seen the sequel (The Rage Carrie 2) and the TV version from 2002. When I first heard about the 2013 version being made, I was at first, very shocked, and wondered, why? Until I found out about the casting and the director. Chloë Grace Moretz being announced as Carrie and Julianne Moore being announced as Margaret White really got my attention, and then of course, so did Kimberly Peirce being chosen as the director. How interesting I thought it would be to find out that a female director would make a version of Carrie; a win-win especially since she also directed the award-winning film Boys Don't Cry. What increased my hype even more was the fact that we would be promised a film based ONLY on the novel by Stephen King, and NOT the original 1976 classic. The teaser trailer that came out on October 2012 even showed a bird's eye view of the town on fire, and narration of Carrie's acquaintances, and so I knew that this WAS truly going to be a FAITHFUL adaptation to the novel. However, on October 18, 2013 I was proved VERY wrong. What happened to this movie? That was one of the taglines for this film when it was being promoted, that is really my question. What happened to Carrie? This movie was totally an adaptation of the original film, NOT the novel, as promised. I was SHOCKED, not in a good way. And yes it's been stated many times, but it was so similar to the original that the original screenwriter (Lawrence D. Cohen) got credit. There were so many missed, wasted opportunities that happened with this movie. I was so happy to see a DIFFERENT version that took only from the book.Now, if the original film did not exist, this would be a decent movie. But, either way, let me start with the two stars: Chloë Grace Moretz as Carrie White. BIG MISTAKE. I love Chloë overall, she's super talented, she's brilliant in Let Me In, Kick-Ass, Hugo, etc. but she either should not have been cast as Carrie, or someone should have given more effort in making her look like a believable outcast. There's NO way that any guy in high school wouldn't want to ask her out, I just couldn't buy her as an ostracized, abused girl; and therefore the revenge scene did not work. Julianne Moore, however, was perfectly cast as Margaret; she brought many differences to the role and more personality that made audiences squeal. SPOILERS: The climax prom scene: The blood being dumped on Carrie, why did it look like jell-o? That's all I'm asking about that part. I will say, the deaths of the bullies was very well orchestrated. However, the bullies (Tina, Heather, Lizzy and Nicki, Jackie) were not built up very well, some don't even know who Tina and Heather are, everyone knows Lizzy and Nicki but only because they're twins. The deaths were very creative, but since the characters were not fleshed out, the meaning of the deaths became essentially insignificant. They made it very unclear that it was TINA who played the video of Carrie in the shower at the prom. And also, why were there so many survivors? Not to sound malicious, but during the prom scene, there are only supposed to be at most five survivors, pretty much everyone (but the bullies and Freddy "Beak" Holt, the boy with the camera) survived. This makes the story much less tragic. And what happened to George and Erika (the couple that was nice to Carrie at the prom)? Now, the showdown between Chris, Billy and Carrie was also well-done, I will say, the CGI was a little bit "video game-like" but watchable. Chris and Billy definitely got what they truly deserved in this version, so score for that! The showdown between Carrie and Margaret, however, was a bit disappointing. It was no different from the original. The confrontation between Carrie and Sue was also a positive of this version; the rain of stones should not have been done however, that was from the 1976 original script, NOT the novel. The rain of stones only happens when Carrie is a little girl in the novel. The last scene was very infuriating. Whoever approved of that ending should not have been a part of this movie, I'm talking about the one with Carrie's grave cracking and you hear Carrie screaming. That made no sense whatsoever; the alternate ending is not much better however, although it would have fit a lot more, then the movie would start with a birth scene, and end with a birth scene.If you have never heard of Carrie, or you have never seen the original or read the novel, you will probably enjoy this movie, I will say; mainly younger teens, in my opinion. But, if you are a die-hard fan of Brian De Palma's cult classic, then this is a very disappointing, and possibly even insulting movie. Apparently, the movie was supposed to be 45 minutes longer, involving more gory deaths, more destruction at the prom, the aftermath of the prom, and more social media. One video of Carrie getting her period was not enough to call this a modern version. It felt like it was done just because it was set in today's time. In fact, it didn't even feel like this movie took place in 2013, more like 2005. Proms don't take place at schools anymore. Overall, this was a very unnecessary movie, well, it reminds me of one thing: There is a much better movie that remains a classic even after 40 years for a reason to watch. Hopefully if/when the next Carrie remake comes (it will eventually), it'll be done right.
Wuchak
Released in 2013 and directed by Kimberly Peirce from Stephen King's novel, "Carrie" stars Chloë Grace Moretz as the titular teen misfit whose hyper-legalistic mother is mentally disturbed and abusive (Julianne Moore). A compassionate teacher (Judy Greer) and two teens (Gabriella Wilde & Ansel Elgort) try to help Carrie while her nemesis (Portia Doubleday) organizes a cruel prank for the prom, where all hell breaks loose.In ways, this is a competent remake and I generally prefer Chloë in the eponymous roll, who's surprisingly up to the task, although Spacek was more effective in the harrowing prom sequence. Unfortunately, this version is less realistic and feels like it's in a rush. The 1976 film took the low-key, slow-build approach and it made the prom scene so potent and iconic. In this remake the psychokinesis elements are so amped up they (1.) ruin the build-up and (2.) are sometimes so overdone I busted out laughing, like the crucifixion scene. A horror story like this takes skill to pull off with a straight face and the '76 version fully succeeded and is even a work of art whereas this rendering is less aesthetically pleasing and sometimes verges on being a parody. Also, other than Chloë, the '76 film has better women.However, there are some things in this remake that are well executed and even superior, like (1.) how it is emphasized that the abusive mother's interpretation of the bible is seriously askew, (2.) that Tommy boldly supports Carrie and clearly enjoyed taking her to the prom, (3.) that this Carrie (the girl) is a stronger person than the way Spacek's character was written in the original and (4.) the dramatic parts are generally more compelling.Final Word: While this rendition is worth checking out for the positives noted above, overall it pales in comparison to the original and the excellent 1999 sequel, "The Rage: Carrie 2." The film runs 100 minutes and was shot in Ontario, Canada.GRADE: C
