CARRIE- THE REMAKE. 2013. REVIEW BY SANDRA HARRIS.

I enjoyed Sandra Harris' review of the 2013 Carrie.  She kindly allowed me to repost her review here.  Check out Sandra's blog, it's full of some great movie reviews.

reposted with permission:  
sandrafirstruleoffilmclubharris.wordpress.com

CARRIE- THE REMAKE. 2013.
BASED ON THE BOOK BY STEPHEN KING.
DIRECTED BY KIMBERLY PEIRCE.
STARRING CHLOË GRACE MORETZ, JULIANNE MOORE, JUDY GREER, GABRIELLA WILDE, ANSEL ELGORT, ALEX RUSSELL AND PORTIA DOUBLEDAY.
REVIEW BY SANDRA HARRIS.

This is the reworking of Brian De Palma’s classic 1976 film adaptation of Stephen King’s novel, CARRIE. The book was Stephen King’s first major success and some people still regard it as one of his best works, along with THE SHINING, PET SEMATARY, SALEM’S LOT, IT, MISERY and CHRISTINE.

Sissy Spacek was unforgettable and perfectly cast in the original film as the lonely, socially awkward Carrie White, whose single mom Margaret is a religious fanatic with violent tendencies and mental problems that have clearly gone untreated for some time.

While Sissy Spacek is a hard act to follow, newcomer to the role Chloë Grace Moretz certainly gives it her best shot. She’s a beautiful young woman with a fabulous head of strawberry blonde hair and I actually think she does a good enough job in the remake, which seems to be a straightforward take-for-take reimagining of the original movie.

Julianne Moore plays Mommie Dearest this time around. As I’m a big fan of hers, I actually prefer her to Piper Laurie. It’s nothing personal, I just love Julianne Moore, that’s all. She’s gorgeous and I loved her in such films as HANNIBAL, THE END OF THE AFFAIR and JURASSIC PARK 2- THE LOST WORLD.

She really works the role of the self-harming Margaret White. It’s horrible to watch her banging her head off the wall, hitting herself in the face and stabbing herself in the leg with scissors. The two leads also really look like mother and daughter, which certainly helps.

What I don’t like about the remake is the fact that it’s inevitably set in a much more modern and technologically-advanced world than the one in which Stephen King initially wrote it, but that’s not the film’s fault. It’s now the era of boring old cellphones, so the remake is full of the bloody things.

The famous scene in which an hysterical Carrie gets her first period in the school showers after gym class is actually filmed by the little bitches in her class on their cellphones and uploaded to the Internet. They all think that Carrie’s ignorance of what’s happening to her body is a big hilarious joke and they can’t wait to share that joke with the rest of the world.

They don’t know, of course, that they’re sealing their ultimate, terrible fate with every act of nastiness they commit against the telekinetic Carrie, who has the power to move people and objects with the force of her mind. Her powers have been considerably ramped up for this remake. Books and knives and all sorts of households objects spend half the film flying around the place.

Carrie can fly now too, a little bit, and she has the ability to fling her crazy mom through the air and slam her into the wall or into the dreaded ‘prayer-closet,’ the one with all the Jesus statues and pictures, etc. Carrie’s extra powers are accompanied by a lot of arm-waving, finger-pointing and mad facial expressions as little Chloë hams it up big-time in an effort to do the job well. She ends up looking a bit like Kate Bush in one of her early videos, but she still gets the job done, I think.

The ‘bucket of pig’s blood at the prom’ scene lacks a little of the sheer power (there’s that word again!) of the same scene in the first movie, and I prefer the original Tommy Ross and Billy Nolan to the chinless wonders (sorry, guys!) playing the parts this time around. The teacher, Miss Desjardins, is maybe slightly less effective than the teacher in the first film and, overall, I think I prefer the film when it’s set in the ‘Seventies. It has a grittier, more authentic feel to it, somehow.

Still, if a remake was unavoidable and seemingly it was, haha, I think that this is a perfectly decent effort. It does everything the first film does, just with a different cast and a more contemporary feel. Of course there’s a loss of atmosphere and it’s not as frightening, but I’m happy with the two female leads and I thoroughly enjoyed watching them take on these two iconic roles. I don’t know what more you can ask for, really.

* * * * * * * * * *

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY OF SANDRA HARRIS.

Sandra Harris is a Dublin-based performance poet, novelist, film blogger, sex blogger and short story writer. She has given more than 200 performances of her comedy sex-and-relationship poems in different venues around Dublin, including The Irish Writers’ Centre, The International Bar, Toners’ Pub (Ireland’s Most Literary Pub), the Ha’penny Inn, Le Dernier Paradis at the Trinity Inn and The Strokestown Poetry Festival.

Her articles, short stories and poems have appeared in The Metro-Herald newspaper, Ireland’s Big Issues magazine, The Irish Daily Star, The Irish Daily Sun and The Boyne Berries literary journal. In August 2014, she won the ONE LOVELY BLOG award for her (lovely!) horror film review blog. She is addicted to buying books and has been known to bring home rain-washed tomes she finds on the street and give them a home.

She is the proud possessor of a pair of unfeasibly large bosoms. They have given her- and the people around her- infinite pleasure over the years. She adores the horror genre in all its forms and will swap you anything you like for Hammer Horror or JAWS memorabilia. She would also be a great person to chat to about the differences between the Director’s Cut and the Theatrical Cut of The Wicker Man.

reposted from: 
sandrafirstruleoffilmclubharris.wordpress.com

Every Generation Needs A Carrie

Joseph Lee at 411Mania posted an article comparing and contrasting the three screen versions of Carrie.

Lee's opening line strikes me as odd; "why has Carrie been done three different times and we're still waiting on a proper film version of IT?"  Well, we are waiting for a proper film version of Stephen King's IT -- but Carrie has been  properly done, in my opinion.

Lee calls Carrie King's most "average" work.  I don't know about that.  I think Carrie is special, and not just because it's King's first novel.  There is a magic to the book every time I read it.  So it might not be  the "sprawling epic" of the stories that would later come; but it is still dark and powerful.  Most important, we identify with Carrie.

Lee begins by comparing Spacek, Bettis and Moretz in their role as Carrie.  Truth is, I like them all. "Moretz looks like a Hollywood actress on a Hollywood set," Lee complains. Bettis also doesn't get his vote, as he feels she "seems more like she's trying to act weird than someone who just is weird." His favorite lies with Spacek who he says, "knocks it out of the park."

He then compares Piper Laurie, Patricia Clarkson and Julianne Moore in their role as Margaret White.  Clarkson was the "worst" aspect of the 2002 version, Lee says, calling her performance boring.  So with a knock-out punch to Clarkson, he then compares Laurie to Moore.  For him, a lot boils down to "plainness."  Both with Carrie and Margaret, he wanted them to be as plain as possible!  Once again, the classic takes the prize as far as Lee is concerned, giving Laurie his vote.  For what it's worth, I think I would have gone with Moore on that one.  In many ways, Moore made Margaret make sense.  Not only did I know she was crazy, I had a sense of understanding what her rationale was and how she got there.

When it comes to what Lee terms the "Bad teens," Lee picks the 2002 television version.  On this I agree.  In fact, in almost every aspect I think the television version is better than it gets credit for and can stand toe to toe with the film adaptations.

When it comes to Tommy Ross, Sue Snell and Miss. Desjardin, Lee once again gives his nod to the 76 version.  So far it's not looking so good for the new Carrie in Lee's book.

And, of course, there has to be an opportunity to compare shower scenes.  (Seems like that line should be in a discussion about Psycho.) Lee completely ignores the 2002 version, calling it forgettable, and casts his vote with the 2013 version.

the 2002 version is the most forgettable here, as I actually forgot that movie had a shower scene. The 2013 version, besides being kind of creepy since Moretz was fifteen or sixteen when it was shot (the camera likes to linger a little too much), adds in the new technology we have now, as her friends decide to record her first menstruation and post it on Youtube. How they get away with what is clearly a very serious crime is another story.

Moretz plays Carrie as rightfully scared given her circumstances, but also hurt by what her peers are doing to her. It's Spacek's worst scene in the 1976 version and in terms of acting, is probably Chloe's best in the 2013 version. 

The prom itself is also an important scene that has to be compared.  But Lee doesn't do much comparing, as he goes straight for the classic, delcaring "The 1976 version clearly wins here. It not only includes practical effects, but the superior direction of Brian de Palma."  The 2002 version looses his vote because of what he deems bad special effects.  To each his own.

It's interesting that all three movies have a different ending.  Lee's choice is again the classic 76 version; as it should be if it comes down to the two movie versions.  After all, nothing really new was offered by the 2013 movie.  It followed DePalma's lead note for note, even giving us the strange crucifixion.

Lee hated  the 2002 ending, calling it, "just terrible."

Carrie kills her mother like she does in the book (stopping her her heart) but then she fakes her death and moves to another town with the help of Sue. You see, the 2002 version was actually supposed to be the pilot for a TV series. It got terrible ratings and the series never happened. I can only imagine how awful a TV show about Carrie would have been. Would she be like The Incredible Hulk, moving from town to town as the beast inside her comes out when she gets too angry?

Know what -- I liked it.  It managed to surprise me the same way Carrie's hand reaching from the grave surprised viewers of the 1976 version - but in a good way.  I didn't jump out of my seat afraid, I jumped up so glad to have a happy ending to this story.  Everything in me was prepped to take a heavy emotional beating, when the show surprised me with some real creativity.

I still think Carrie would make a great resident of Haven.

And which movie is truly the best?  Lee has a magnetic pull toward the 1976 version, and that's where he goes.  So why did he begin his article saying we are still waiting on a proper film version of Carrie?

As he wraps things up, Lee gives an interesting nod to Rage: Carrie 2, calling it a "better remake."

It's an updated tale set in the 1990s, with ties to the original but telling it's own story. I say that as someone who's not a huge fan of The Rage because of the fact it kills off Sue Snell for no reason and its very much a product of its time. But it's a better movie, in my humble opinion, than either the 2002 or 2013 versions. At least it tries to be it's own thing with the spirit of its source material. 

Just to spice things up -- my vote goes to 2002.  

The full article is at: www.411mania

Which Carrie is your favorite?

Carrie Deleted Scenes

What Happened to Carrie?

I think this is pretty interesting!  And now I want to see the real thing.  I'm sure all of you will, too, after reading this.  Click on the images for higher resolution.

What Happened to Carrie? Missing Scenes, Controversy, Fan Petition

by Petition Host

The newest adaptation of Stephen King’s debut novel, “Carrie”, came with much hesitation, criticism, and now some controversy. It starred Chloe Grace Moretz as the titular telekinetic prom queen, Julianne Moore as her religiously fanatical mother, fan favorite Judy Greer, Gabriella Wilde, Portia Doubleday, Alex Russell, and newcomer Ansel Elgort.

Many people asked: Why another Carrie when the 1976 original was so iconic and the story itself already had a [forgettable] remake in 2002? It seemed that the Studios wanted something closer to the source material. And with director Kimberly Peirce at the helm, known for her edgy work with “Boys Don’t Cry”, many expected something far different than previous adaptations.

The first footage we saw of Peirce’s Carrie revealed a plot point generally forgotten in the story, the town destruction. This sequence of events were even promised by the filmmakers themselves and used as the teaser - Carrie standing amongst the fire of burning buildings in the town square with narrations from the investigation. Originally set for a March 2013 release, the film was pushed back to the October 2013 release when additional filming was needed to, apparently, make the film darker and scarier. And when we finally got the chance to see Carrie, finished and presented to the masses as the only horror film for Halloween, we were shocked to see a virtually scene-by-scene remake of the 1976 film - with the town destruction now completely gone.

It's come to the attention of many fans that the final cut eliminated many pivotal scenes from the novel that was filmed: The Rain of Stones, The White Commission, and the town destruction being just three of the storylines/elements that were removed during the editing process. Some of the cast members have come forward and confirmed that there were a lot of things deleted. Michelle Nolden, who played an adult Estelle Parsons during one of the several Commission scenes, commented about the editing floor being a sad place for Carrie after viewing the final cut. Mouna Traoré [Erika] commented that an extended cut would reveal the fate of her character! And Connor Price [Freddy "Beak" Holt] commented as well about the cuts.

Carrie fans everywhere want to know what happened to the film?

Confirmations have been made by those who previewed the film back in December 2012 as test audiences, who stated that Carrie was much different from the final cut - the film originally told through flashbacks.

No one is quite sure what happened to Carrie - just based on the fact that so much was removed. When asked by a fan what happened to the final cut and why things were shortened or completely removed, screenplay writer to the film, Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa publicly commented that much was removed because director Kimberly Peirce did not want to go for something new. He’s also publicly commented on one of the Carrie fan-pages on Facebook that it was not the fault of the studios. Kimberly Peirce has been pretty tight-lipped on the subject. Though when asked about her alternate ending and why it wasn’t featured in the theatrical cut, she simply told the interviewer to ask those in power. There's definitely an interesting story here!

A petition is online right now to see Carrie restored to its original cut with all deleted or extended scenes restored within the film. The petition has reached nearly 2,000 signatures and has even been acknowledged by some of the cast members of the film, most recently by Samantha Weinstein who played Heather. Fans have also been taking to youtube.com in an effort to spread the word about the petition, making their own advertisements. While Kimberly Peirce has not publicly commented about the effort for an extended cut, she has acknowledged the petition by liking the link when it was sent to her by a friends through a comment.

If you’re interested in learning more about the deleted scenes, or would like to sign the petition, visit the following link: http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/carriepetition 

Carrie Valentine's

Contact Music Says 2013 Carrie Essentially Unnecessary

Along with the rest of us, Contact Music is asking the deep question, "why exactly did we need a Carrie remake?"  Well, for many of us who saw the movie, the necessity of the movie is set aside once the film begins to roll.  It doesn't matter if the story is needed, we just want to know at that point if it is going to be a good story.  I think they did good with it.

Rich Cline suggests that the "problem" with the new Carrie is Moretz.  "She's simply too confident and glamorous to believe as someone so socially inept," Cline continues:

Thankfully, Moretz is a terrific actor, so she sharply catches Carrie's nervous energy and makes us believe that she's been pushed to the brink by both her mother and her classmates. Even so, she works out how to use her power far too quickly. Opposite her, Moore delivers a superbly detailed portrayal of a paranoid true believer.

Check out the full article: www.contactmusic.com

I Love The Carrie Alternative Ending!

CARRIE, I Didn't Know That

In a one star review of the Carrie remake (not a remake -- remake), filmstalker shared something I had not put together.  Yes, I know this was everywhere, I just missed it.  

So, drum roll . . .

The screen writer for the 2013 Carrie is Lawrence D. Cohen, who co-wrote the 1979 script.  So it's not a remake, but it has the same screen writer?  Okay.  The article picks up on this, noting, "It seems odd then that if this is a new version of the novel and was clearly trying to distance itself from being a straight remake, that they would bring on board the screenwriter from the original film but let’s not be picky, the original Carrie was after all a very good film. The upside is also that since it was such a good film then perhaps the original writer would bring some of the talent he poured through the keyboard back then." www.filmstalker.co.uk

Cohen has links to several Stephen King projects, scripting things like The Tommyknockers, IT and he appeared in a short film titled, "Resurrecting Carrie."  He is also the author of the 1988 musical version of Carrie.  

Cohen has a special connection to Carrie, having written the musical twice and the movie twice -- it would seem he's written more about the kid than King has.  

Moretz: The CARRIE Novel Drove The Film

In this interview, Moretz discusses the Stephen King novel and her choice not to watch previous versions of Carrie before taking on the role herself.

Examiner Calls CARRIE remake a "mess"

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.

www.examiner.com

Holly Derr Uses Carrie To Show Us What Tunnel Vision Looks Like

Holly Durr at Huffington Post has an article titled, "The Blood of Carrie: A Feminist Review of the Re-Make."

She spends her time focusing on the 1970's, not 2013 where the "re-make" was done. She sees Carrie as a challenge to the male dominated establishment and Christian fundamentalism.  For Durr, Carrie's mother represents fundamentalist Christianity.

  the infamous shower scene -- is a product of the meeting of these two forces. Because of a fundamentalist Christian worldview in which menstruation is not simply a biological process but rather evidence of Eve's original sin being visited upon her daughters, Carrie's mother does nothing to prepare her for getting her period.

Only problem with Ms. Derr's assessment is that is not what fundamentalist Christianity teaches.  So  in her  rush to attack Christianity, Ms. Derr builds a straw man position so that she can have fun blowing it up. In the movie, Carrie actually tells her mother that  she is not quoting from the Bible.  Moretz discussed the fact that Carrie's mother had actually made up her own religion, and was not reflecting the views of a Christian movement.

By the way -- in Genesis, Eve’s curse was pain in childbirth, not menstruation. Women giving birth don't menstruate.

Durr continues: "When Carrie's mother locks her in the closet, Peirce has the crucifix bleed -- something that doesn't happen in the first movie. The blood of the crucifix connects Carrie's first period to the suffering of Christ, deepening the relationship between debased femininity and religion."  Someone should get Durr a spot on the documentary Room 237.

The message of Carrie for Durr?  "that fundamentalism is dangerous to women."  Huh?  Fundamentalist Christians believe a man should love his wife, be ready to give his life for her and honor her.  That's dangerous to women?  Of course not!  Because that's not what Durr has decided in her own head Fundamentalist Christians believe.  She has decided Margaret White must represent the whole of Fundamentalist Christianity.  That's great, maybe we should assume Bill Ayres represents liberals.

Of course, Carrie's school tormentors were not fundamentalist.  Nor is Carrie's mother -- she's her own whack-job.  The only fundamentalism is coming from Durr's own imagination.  She made the movie what she wanted, saw what she wanted to see, and came out swinging against enemies that lie only between her own two ears.

www.huffingtonpost.com

Rebooting Good Movies

I was watching Pet Sematary last night when I saw Lilja's Library post news that the reboot was underway again.  I saw the Carrie reboot last week, and liked it a lot.  Variety notes that the original was a hit, bringing in $57 million on only a $11 million budget!  So  my reaction to a reboot is a simple "why?"

Unlike Carrie, which was pretty rooted in the 70's -- Pet Sematary holds up today.

Shortlist.com suggests that the reason the film is being remade is because  the original didn't "capitalize" on their own great idea.  They then dig up the used suggestion that they aren't remaking the movie, but going back to the book.  Now we heard this with Carrie.  I liked Carrie, it was most certainly a remake of DePalma's film -- not a return tot he book.  The ending alone was a play on the original that had nothing to do with the book.  It was an update of DePalma's film, not a return to the world of Stephen King.

Also, in the new Carrie film we had Margaret White crucified with household objects.  Did this idea come from DePalma or King?  Well, give Carrie a quick read and you'll discover that indeed a DePalma remake was in the works, not a return to Stephen King's CARRIE.  From wikipedia:

"Carrie returns home and confronts a crazed Margaret, who claims she conceived Carrie due to marital rape. When Margaret stabs Carrie, she kills her mother by telekinetically stopping her heart."

Now is that what happened in the recent "more faithful" adaptation of Carrie?  No!  They went with the more dramatic DePalma ending.  Which is fine, but why pretend it was a return to the book when it was clearly not?

So, I have this feeling -- where we go again.  Same jabber offered up for another remake, which is this time truly unnecessary.

The other reason offered for remaking Pet Sematary is that it wasn't very scary.  I guess that's a matter of taste.  I thought it was dark, creepy, faithful to the book and scary.

What's the real reason for all the remakes?  Fear of trying new things.  Investors don't want to put money into a risky new project, but would rather try and resell things they've already done.  It's like Van Gogh trying to repaint Starry Night.

If money is being poured in Stephen King projects, why doesn't someone take on Duma Key, Rose Madder or From a Buick 8.  And if we just have to remake Stephen King films, how about making a real adaptation of Needful Things.  Now there's a book that would make a good mini-series.

And, how about this; instead of giving us another movie version of Pet Sematary, give us the book on audio.  How about that.

CARRIE 2013 ROCKS!

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.

The story is beautiful  -- until the pigs blood.  A traumatized girl is swept away from her abusive mother by a handsome young man, taken in a limo to her school prom where  she  is complimented, loved on and  affirmed -- and then she is crowned queen. . . that's awesome!  I leaned in to my daughters, "Listen, this movie isn't going to get  better than it is right now," I said as they announced Carrie the prom queen.  "Let's go now."  Of  course, they didn't want to leave, so the fairy tale gets blown up -- scissored -- crushed -- knifed -- and everything else. 

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? 

THE WRAP: ‘Carrie’ Scares Up $725K at Box Office in Late Night Shows

Brent Lang at The Wrap posted news that studio estimates have Carrie making $725,000 on the first night, calling it a "solid start" for a horror film.

Lang shares these insights: "Sony, which is distributing the MGM/Screengems film, thinks it will open to between $18 million and $20 million, while analysts predict it could be do for a $25 million debut."

www.thewrap.com

Check out the yahoo movies article by Karen Warner which compares the "old Carrie" to the "new Carrie." movies.yahoo.com

Warner breaks it down for us nice and simple.  She also really likes the film!

Key differences Warner notes:

• Contemporary Humiliation
• Age-Appropriate Actors
• Variations on Mom
• More Death! More Destruction!
• A Telekinetic Takeoff
• Survivor Pool

There's an article that goes with these simple points -- so read it!

When discussing the death and destruction, Warner says, "“In Stephen King's novella she destroys half the town and Kimberly Peirce's new version hints at that more than the De Palma one (though neither film really recaptures the scope of the book's ending).”  (NOVELLA?!)

THE MOVIE ADDICT REVIEWS Carrie (2013)

Carrie Reviews Are Starting To Come In

The questions been -- where are the CARRIE reviews?  Well, I'm starting to spot them.

rottentomatoes.com is giving the movie an average rating of 5.4 out of 10.

Tim Hall at Seattle Pi give the film a B-, saying Moretz a "talented young actress" and that she and Moore bring out the best in each other (as actresses).  He wonders, however, what exactly the film does to make it any different from the 1976 version.  (blog.seattlepi.com)

Bruce DeMara at thestar.com isn't quite so generous. Giving the film 2 stars, he titles his review, "Carrie 2013 pales in comparison to 1976 original," and suggests in his opening line that the film is nothing more than an imitation of the 76 version.  It kinda goes downhill from there.  (thestar.com)

But Amy Nicholson at LA Weekly argues that Peirce didn't have to change anything for the movie to still pack a punch.   However, Nicholson seems to be on her own agenda, attacking " puritanism" and speaking of the dangers of religious leaders who are "trying to keep a new generation of young women from learning how their bodies work."  Huh?  Does she think religious leaders today don't want girls to know about their period, or about sex, or about. . . who knows what.  I'm a pastor (so I count int he "religious leaders" category) with four daughters, and we have no fears of our girls learning how their bodies work.  

Nicholson seizes on Carrie as her own own platform to rant nutty unsupported attacks at groups of people she doesn't like (Home Schooling seems to also be on her naughty list.)  Nicholson isn't reviewing a movie, she's standing on top of a movie throwing darts.

So -- my review of her review is that she sounds like a very angry person who wishes she was Carrie.  Think I'm wrong?  She writes, "what’s scariest about Carrie in 2013 isn’t that this wounded teenage girl has the power to kill—it’s that there are thousands of girls like her with no power at all." (laweekly.com)

William Gross at film.com give CARRIE a 5.8 out of 10.  He suggests that the movie "fails to become its own satisfyingly whole interpretation of coming-of-age horrors both literal and figurative. Its bloodshed may be all dressed up, but it ultimately has nowhere to go." (film.com) 

And the reviews that matter. . . DREAD CENTRAL!  Staci Layne gives it 3.5 out of 5 stars.  Layne is pretty enthusiastic about the film, writing, "I am pleased to report that the Carrie remake takes the material seriously, and what’s more, it stays true to the Stephen King novel." And concludes, "People who haven’t seen the original will love it, and people who have seen the original should at least like it. (dreadcentral.com)

making Carrie

Carrie's Bullies Are Meaner Than Ever

Hey, check out Derrik j. Lang's article titled, "An updated 'Carrie' for the digital age New Blood: An updated 'Carrie' incorporates online bullying, special effects (finance.yahoo.com)

It seems the updated Carrie has some painful new twists -- smartphones and internet.  Not only must Carrie endure teasing, it is replayed over and over after being uploaded to the internet.

Lang quotes Moretz, who seems to think that Carrie would not have gone nuts if it weren't for the video. "I do think she would have walked out of that gym, gone home, cried and been fine — figured her life and moved back into her shell. Without the video, I don't think the telekinesis would've taken over her body." WAIT A MINUTE!  There was no video the first billion times this story was filmed -- and she still nuked the school.  And, there is the small matter of the book.  Did Moretz read the book?  See, there was no video in the book, and her telekinesis did take over.  We do get to see what would happen if Carrie weren't videoed, because that's what happened in every other version!  And, guess what -- it never ever ever ever ever plays out the way Moretz thinks it would have.

Uhhhh. .  . "With the aid of computer-generated effects" great.  Call George Lucas.

But, there's hope:

The filmmakers focused more on the novel than the original film, with screenwriter and "Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark" playwright Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa incorporating additional elements from King's book. 

I kept going back to Stephen King's impetus for writing the book, and that's how damaging isolation can be to people." 

PEIRCE: I'm A Huge Stephen King Fan

photo credit: blog.seattlepi.com

Tim Hill has a great interview with Carrie director, Kimberley Peirce. Check it out at seattlepi.com.  What I really think is reflected in this interview is her passion for Stephen King and Carrie as the source material.  Maybe she should remake The Shining.

I also like it that Peirce clarifies that Carrie's mom is not practicing Christianity.  "She has her own iconography and as Carrie says, she changes things to mean what she wants."  That's pretty  insightful.  It can  be easy to mark an entire faith by the weirdo's who have twisted it up.  Carrie's mom falls in with David Koresh, Joseph Smith and the Westboro Baptist kooks.

My favorite lines (I'm picking and choosing -- read the context and full article at the link!)

• I’m a huge Stephen King fan. I was a literature student so I read it when I was in college. I re-read it when they came to me to do the movie and I was blown away at what an amazing storyteller Stephen King is. 
• I also love that it’s a Cinderella story. What does she want? Love and acceptance. When she’s asked to prom she can’t say no and we can’t say no. We’ve fallen in love with this Cinderella story. I think we want to take her to the height of the Cinderalla night and we crave seeing it turn on its head.
• When I read the book, I see it in my minds eye as this largely entertaining story using superhero powers.
• The difficult part of my job was figuring out how to put somebody’s face through a window. You can’t put an actor’s face through a window. So what do you do? A) You can put an actor’s face through sugar glass. B) You can put animation through fake glass. C) An actor can fly forward on a green screen. So that scene is a series of a ton of composites and that was really a blast for me.
• One of my favorite lines in the movie is something that Julianne and I pulled out of the book. She says, “I’ll be the preacher, you be the congregation.” 

There is a LOT in this interview.  How many times did they film the blood droppin' scene and so on.  Of course, that raises a question. . . how effective is a movie where we all already know there is a blood dropping scene?  I hope they've saved some surprises.  She is asked if there will be a sequel, and does not give an answer.  Does that suggest Carrie survives the horror?