Examiner posted Tim Estiloz review of the CARRIE remake. Does he like it? Well, he does say it is fun in parts, but the truth is that he does not think it was a strong film. He says the original stands the test of time and that a remake was unneeded. Here's the bullet point version. (I'm drawing these from HIS points, they are not mine!)
- The remake offers nothing new.
- Pierce follows DePalma's vision while at the same time tries to move in her own direction.
- Pierce "tinkers" with the characters, resulting in a more shallow rendering of the story itself. He points out Margaret White in particular, noting, "Margaret is now not only an overly religious zealot bathing herself and Carrie in misplaced guilt; but also, she's a self-mutilating cutter doing additional outer damage to the body that already shelters her damaged psyche."
- Carrie comes across as a "mildly rebellious teenager" -- not the "frail and frightened teen tht Spacek played to perfection." (I think I liked the more confident Carrie.)
- DePalma built the final scene up with such suspense that it "evoked Hitchcock at his finest." However, Estiloz calls the Pierce version "bland and tension free." why? Because we already know what's going to happen! That's not exactly Pierce's fault, except that she chose to remake a popular classic film. Hey, try remaking Star Wars and see if we're not really surprised when Darth Vader turns out to be Luke's father -- again. Discussing the moment when pigs blood is dumped on Carrie, Estiloz says, "rather than keep us on the edge of our seats anticipating that moment, Pierce rushes to the event as if it's just the first inconsequential cog in a wheel of repetitive and overdone visuals for shock value alone." Ouch.
- In DePalma's film, Carrie is shown out of control. The Pierce version gives us a Carrie who is completely aware of what she is doing. I had not thought about this until Estiloz pointed it out. Maybe this is why I hate movie reviews -- because I end up agreeing with them when I don't want to. He's totally right! This Carrie is taking eye for eye, while DePalma's Carrie was simply at the mercy of her own powers seeping out of her; she is simply "unable to escape her deadly rage."
Estiloz closes with a few kind words for Moretz and Moore while taking another final digs at Kimberly Pierce:
Moretz and Moore do admirable work for the roles they're saddled with; doing their best to add some dimension to a screenplay where dimension is sorely lacking. The two actresses vainly attempt to elevate the burden of banality that weighs this film down. However despite their efforts, they cannot overcome director Pierce's misguided vision for this bloody mess of a remake.I think the many folk looking to remake other King films might take note. There is a growing chorus of "why bother" beginning to circle these movies. Do we need another Pet Sematary? No! If all these remakes would pool their money, maybe someone could get started on The Dark Tower.
"I think the many folk looking to remake other King films might take note. There is a growing chorus of "why bother" beginning to circle these movies. Do we need another Pet Sematary? No! If all these remakes would pool their money, maybe someone could get started on The Dark Tower."
ReplyDeleteWell, the economic Hollywood seems to work from (based on my own limited vantage point) might be called the "Franchise" model.
Basically it's focusing all the industry resources on any and all films that can be marketed in as many consumer venues as possible, so it can then take the income generated from all that marketing and feed it back into making more franchises.
It seems to be Hollywood's main source of income at the moment, rather than movies per se.
Hence, the glut of superhero films (though I still wonder if Affleck as Batman might cause a drop in franchise popularity).
What you note about the "Why bother" complaint probably does mean that fans are getting anxious for real films again.
If so, that's great, though bear in mind it's fans going up against a business model that keep the industry running, and unless the cash stops flowing in from the franchise model entirely, I think it's going to take awhile for anything like a major shift in the way Hollywood does business.
ChrisC
I think the characterizations were a bit stronger in this one than in the original. Chris actually seemed human as opposed to a shrieking comic book villain and I thought Moore did a great job (her Margaret was much more disturbing). The prom scene did feel rushed - I would have rather had more build up to it ( I was kind of disappointed that they didn't have a real slow dance scene like in the DePalma version). I did like how Pierce put more focus on Sue and Chris' relationship - and how that might have motivated both of them (I got the feeling that Carrie was more of a tool than a target - Chris was mad at Sue and used Carrie to "get" at her).
ReplyDeleteI think part of the problem with Carrie herself was that Pierce tried to combine two different Carries into one. Book Carrie was (at least by the time the blood dropped) an angry, bitter little girl with a great deal of pent up rage. She was already comtemplating using her powers against people (trashing her house if Tommy stood her up etc). In that version it made sense when she did the whole "eye for an eye" thing. DePalma's version was Disneyfied - she was innocent and sweet tempered and didn't seem like she'd want to harm anyone. Pierce tried to combine the sympathetic, lovable part from DePalma's Carrie with the sadistic, vengful part from King's and it just felt kind of off.
It also seemed like half the film was missing... I'd love to see the cut footage.
There are a lot of great books out there that could be translated to film (John Alqvist's Harbour etc) - I think that if Hollywood would just hit the local library once in a while, we could probably break the whole reboot cycle.