Carrie rocks! really. . . there's rocks. . .
I took my mom and two of my daughters to see Carrie. They are now being seen to by a trauma unit as they recover from shock. Nah -- it was good stuff.
Do you need to be told there might be spoilers? I will not tell you how it ends. I will not tell you if there will be a sequel. I will tell you that I thought it was just as good a telling of Carrie as the DePalma film.
Tell ya up front, I liked it a lot. No use giving movies stars or grades, just saying honestly that I thought it was a strong film is enough. Carrie 2013 can stand toe to toe with any other Stephen King adaptation.
Random thoughts:
- The relationship between Carrie and mama is nicely played out. They love each other deeply, but one is so broken that she is unable to overcome that brokenness and embrace her daughter. In fact, the moment her daughter needs her most is the moment Margaret's own brokenness reaches its zenith.
- Though the story takes place in the present, the world for Margaret White has not progressed a bit. Her house seems like something from the 70's.
- I like it that Carrie has a sense of God's love and rejects her mothers whacky theology. She is bold, declaring that God is a God of love and telling her mother that the things she is saying aren't even in the Bible. Glad the Bible is the standard of truth.
- Carrie's power is not telekinesis. I don't know what she has, but it's not telekinesis. It's more like -- the force. This girl is like Darth Vader. Her power goes terrifyingly beyond telekinesis.
- This Carrie might be a little socially awkward because of scars from her mother, but she's not an emotional weakling. That's probably good, since Chloe Moretz has an inner strength that can't be hidden.
- Is the movie a remake, or is it a reimagining of the book? Both I think. There are definitely scenes in the movie that were also in DePalma's that are not in the book. However, the story does more with King's source material than the classic did.
- Who is the hero in Carrie? Teachers.
- Scenes with the principal seem forced, rehearsed and awkward.
Despite what previous reviewers have implied, there are no swipes or digs at homeschoolers, or faith itself. I had no sense of a political "statement" being made. Margaret White is a broken person, so everything in her life is broken as well. Her relationships are broken, her daughter is broken, her understanding of God is broken, her attitude toward her own body is broken. It is amazing that in real life I see young people who come from really messed up homes, but they are emotionally okay. They might have some debris, some small scars, but really they made it through unscathed. Carrie has that kind of strength.
I found the prom scene where everyone is laughing at Carrie quite unbelievable. When someone is picked on publically like that, the response is not that kind of laughter. That doesn't give young people enough credit. The whole school doesn't follow the mean girls. The school was enjoying her triumph -- they wouldn't so quickly turn on her. They would be outraged by what was done.
I think this Carrie pulls the viewer in better emotionally than the original. However, I have never seen the original in a theater -- that might matter.
Carrie is one of Stephen King's strongest characters. Emotionally she is able to stand up to and rebel against her abusive mother. Physically, she has powers that could hold off Superman. Sign the kid up for the Justice League -- where do you get an application?
I liked it, too. There are some things that I think it does better than the DePalma version (Julianne Moore is vastly better than Piper Laurie as Margaret) and some things I think it does worse (the new version of Tommy Ross is inferior to the old one in every way). Overall, I think the novel is still by far the best version of the story.
ReplyDeleteAs to the question of whether it is a remake of the movie or a retelling of the book: I'd say it's more a remake of the movie. It adds a few things, but mainly follows the movie beat for beat, to the extent that the movie's original screenwriter receives a screenplay credit! That says it all, right there.
I'll just say this about the ending.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts were: I don't know, but I just LIKED seeing old horror tropes put to good use, tropes that date all the way back to Shirley Jackson, and even further back to writers like M.R. James, Charles Dickens, and the Victorian horror authors.
What I also like is how it seems the old fashioned values of those writers seems to be more or less on display, especially in a cinema age dominated by mindless stalker clones who think all you have to do is throw blood at the audience in order to be hip.
This film, seems to remember that it's story that makes horror work or fail.
ChrisC
"especially in a cinema age dominated by mindless stalker clones who think all you have to do is throw blood at the audience in order to be hip"
ReplyDeleteWithout knowing what specific movies you're talking about -- since you provided no examples -- I can only guess here, but I assume you're referring to movies like "Saw."
I'd respond to that in a couple of different ways. First of all, "Saw" is a pretty great movie, and while its sequels became too bloody for me to take, even they -- the ones I watched, at least (2-4) -- had interesting stories. So did "Hostel." The remake of "Texas Chain Saw Massacre" was pretty good; the remake of "Halloween" was pretty good. That subgenre -- which got labeled "torture pron" -- had some quality entries.
Secondly, that trend lost steam at least five years ago, and arguably more. So what you're railing against here is a trend that is already at least half a decade in its grave. The modern trend has been toward non-gory supernatural thrillers like "The Conjuring" and the "Paranormal Activity" movies, and most horror critics I'm aware of feel like the genre is in a bit of a mild new golden age right now.
As for "Carrie," I think it is a really frustrating movie. IT could, and should, have followed through on its promise to hew closer to the King novel and less closely to the DePalma movie. Instead, apart from a few grace notes, it is practically a scene-for-scene remake of the 1976 film. Why do that? There was nothing to be gained, and so far, the box office bears out my contention that doing so was a BAD idea.
I smell the decrepit hand of studio interference at work, personally. But Kimberley Peirce will get the blame, and that is a real shame.
Overall, though, I did like the movie.
"I can only guess here, but I assume you're referring to movies like "Saw."
DeleteI was thinking along those line, at least (although I have to admit, Saw is a good idea in conception before sequel mandates dragged it all down).
"that trend lost steam at least five years ago, and arguably more. So what you're railing against here is a trend that is already at least half a decade in its grave."
Which sort of shows how I really ought to pay more attention to film trends if I don't want to be a dinosaur at 30(...doh!).
ChrisC
Everyone is a dinosaur at 30. No avoiding it!
ReplyDeleteI liked it - although there seemed to be a lot missing (judging from the editing there were scenes shot and cut at the last minure - also based on the 20 or named actors and characters on IMDB that never made it into the credits). I think it was better than the critics said it was, but not as good as it could have been. I was also kind of confused by the fact that they gave one of Chris' friends a "meaner" death than Chris herself...
ReplyDeleteNot bad for a horror movie - or a remake. John Carpenter's The Thing got panned when it was released - so I think this one might end up looking better as time goes on.
Hated it.
ReplyDelete