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?
