"Carrie" - directed by Kimberly Peirce
Remakes seem to cop a lot of flak.
People say that the number of remakes shows that Hollywood has run out of original ideas.
For me the fact that something is a remake isn't necessarily a comment on the quality.
After all "The Departed", "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels", "King Kong (2005)", "Scarface", "12 Monkeys", "The Thing (1982)" and "The Fly" are all remakes and are all very, very good.
When we just look at horror remakes there are also a decent number of remakes that work.
Recent versions of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "Fright Night", "Dawn of the Dead" and "The Blob" have all been top notch.
The problem is that there are probably two or three times as many that aren't any good.
If the intention behind a remake is good it is a promising start.
In the case of "Carrie" I can see where the idea possibly came from.
The original came out almost forty years ago.
I remember one of my older sisters seeing it and getting the crap well and truly scared out of her by the infamous end sequence.
I recall my oldest sister reading the book and can still recall the embossed blood design on the battered paperback.
Why not present a version of a great film to a new audience a lot of whom may not have even heard of Brian DePalma's film?
With this film I would answer that with - because it brings absolutely nothing new to the story and often takes much away for no good reason.
This years version of "Carrie" starts on an interesting note- a note very different to the original film.
We see Margaret White (Julianne Moore) lying on her blood soaked bed in agony as she believes that she is dying of cancer.
In fact she is giving birth to Carrie- the result of a one time sexual encounter that she had no idea had lead to pregnancy until the baby emerged.
And she promptly raises a large pair of dressmakers scissors above her head ready to plunge the blades into the newborns head.
Of course she doesn't and Carrie grows to be a maladjusted, socially outcast teenager who has no friends.
We know the rest - first period... pelted with tampons, prom date... bucket of blood.
Wrathful, destructive revenge ensues.
And herein lies the first hurdle.
So much of what made the original film so memorable was those shocking scenes- scenes that we had never seen before.
The sight of a naked Sissy Spacek lying in a pool of her own menstrual blood completely confused as to what was happening to her as her classmates pelt her with towels was a hell of a start to a movie.
Seeing John Travolta play a bad guy jock and Piper Laurie delivering a genuinely creepy Oscar nominated performance as Carrie's whacko hardcore religious Mother.
And of course that dreamy end sequence which delivered a shock final image straight off a "Tales From the Crypt" comic book cover.
All of these things worked because they were fresh and original and director Brian DePalma showed real visual flair and skill in presenting them.
Sadly there is none of that in the remake.
Kimberly Peirce's direction could most kindly be described as technically sound.
It is just lacking in any visual punch.
DePalma is well known for his heavily stylised use of long tracking shots, split screen and slow motion and I am not suggesting that Peirce should have gone for the same but surely she could have stamped some sort of flair or style onto this?
She also shows little ability in picking when to go for it and when to hold back on the emotional beats.
Carrie's telekinesis is introduced with small instances of the power as she discovers it.
She makes a flag move, shatters a mirror... levitates books.
Then suddenly she is levitating cars, forging massive earthquake like cracks in the roads and throwing people great distances.
By the time the climax arrives she is like some sort of hybrid - two parts Incredible Hulk and one part Jedi Knight wrapped in the cheerleader from tv show "Heroes".
She is nigh on invincible and thanks to her transformation from gawky outcast to prom-worthy date to vengeful she-devil being so poorly handled the character is hard to sympathise with.
When the climactic fireworks began I couldn't even identify the bloodstained woman as Carrie - so suddenly so far removed from the girl of the last hour.
As you would expect given the almost four decades between movies the special effects are technically far better.
They are just nowhere near as effective.
Just because you can convincingly levitate a car and thrust a woman's face through the windshield in slow motion it doesn't mean that you should.
A movie with a simple story like "Carrie" needs to stand on the strength of the characters - not on the effects scenes.
Margaret White is well played by Julianne Moore but there is no room for subtlety in this incarnation.
Piper Laurie's version was creepy because her mental problems always bubbled beneath the surface constantly seeming ready to burst violently out.
Moore's Margaret scratches and stabs herself until she bleeds to show that she is bonkers.
It is unnecessary - or at least should be with properly formed characters and a decent script.
The framework of the original is there but everything is delivered with the force of a sledge hammer.
Everything is explained to us in case we are total idiots and can't figure it out.
Early on the school principal says "We've had trouble with your mother before when she was not allowed to home school you".
It is just one example of exposition being clumsily slathered on. It is jarring in how obvious it is.
I am a huge admirer of Chloe Grace Moretz and her impressive body of work but this role is not her best.
She is simply miscast.
Unkempt hair and dowdy clothes do nothing to detract from her obvious attractiveness.
It is the Laney Boggs dungarees and glasses fiasco all over again.
Sissy Spacek's Carrie was skinny, pale and freckled and improved a fair amount when she got made up and dressed up for the prom.
Moretz's Carrie always looks pretty good and just looks a bit better after her makeover.
Gabriella Wilde is pretty and likeable as good girl Sue but the less said about Ansel Elgort as Tommy the better.
How I wish that David Cronenberg had been handed this one to write and direct.
Not only does he have genre credibility but he is a master with this sort of psychological stuff.
Refer to his great remake of "The Fly" and the amazing "Dead Ringers".
I recall an interview with him years ago in which he stated that he wanted the then unknown Sissy Spacek for his film "Rabid" as he was sure that she would be huge before long.
Of course she did go on to Oscar nomination glory for "Carrie" and an Oscar win five years later for "Coal Miners Daughter".
This years "Carrie" never rises above mediocrity.
The performances are uninspired mainly thanks to a weak script that tosses a lot of the good stuff from the original out and replaces it with overblown nonsense.
It is the direction that really lets it down though.
Gone is the grit and realism of the original - a neat trick given the unrealistic nature of the story.
Ironically for a movie about a girl who can move things with her mind this one is lacking in gravity.
It doesn't garner any sympathy for the characters that need us to feel it nor does it make us despise the scumbags who torment Carrie.
The villains are paper thin cliches that all but twirl mustaches.
Worst offender is Portia Doubleday as Chris Hargensen.
Nancy Allen played her as a nasty bitch in the original but she was nonetheless believable as a woman who just had a bad streak.
Doubleday is relatively awful but it is the script that once again really lets the character down.
She is so over the top in her nastiness that Chris becomes a character hard to accept.
In every scene she spews out hateful lines and squints and struts and even for a royal doofus like boyfriend Billy she seems a poor choice.
This character is a singularly unattractive young woman on any level - think current Lindsay Lohan level unappealing.
File this one under- Why did they bother?
Save yourself the ticket price and just watch the original movie on dvd or Blu-ray.
You'll see how a top notch director with superb actors makes the most of a simple tale to produce a scary, memorably sordid little tale that earns every little bit of its reputation as a real deel horror flick.
This film removes almost everything that worked in the original (including that shocking final moment... what!!??) and adds nothing new or worthwhile in its place.
It just chugs along very predictably to exactly the conclusion that every man and his dog will be all too familiar with and offers nothing at all new.
A weak remake only for fans of the original who want to be reminded by comparison of how this sort of film is supposed to be done.
People say that the number of remakes shows that Hollywood has run out of original ideas.
For me the fact that something is a remake isn't necessarily a comment on the quality.
After all "The Departed", "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels", "King Kong (2005)", "Scarface", "12 Monkeys", "The Thing (1982)" and "The Fly" are all remakes and are all very, very good.
When we just look at horror remakes there are also a decent number of remakes that work.
Recent versions of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "Fright Night", "Dawn of the Dead" and "The Blob" have all been top notch.
The problem is that there are probably two or three times as many that aren't any good.
If the intention behind a remake is good it is a promising start.
In the case of "Carrie" I can see where the idea possibly came from.
The original came out almost forty years ago.
I remember one of my older sisters seeing it and getting the crap well and truly scared out of her by the infamous end sequence.
I recall my oldest sister reading the book and can still recall the embossed blood design on the battered paperback.
Why not present a version of a great film to a new audience a lot of whom may not have even heard of Brian DePalma's film?
With this film I would answer that with - because it brings absolutely nothing new to the story and often takes much away for no good reason.
 |
| Most of the iconic moments return but are they better or even as good? |
We see Margaret White (Julianne Moore) lying on her blood soaked bed in agony as she believes that she is dying of cancer.
In fact she is giving birth to Carrie- the result of a one time sexual encounter that she had no idea had lead to pregnancy until the baby emerged.
And she promptly raises a large pair of dressmakers scissors above her head ready to plunge the blades into the newborns head.
Of course she doesn't and Carrie grows to be a maladjusted, socially outcast teenager who has no friends.
We know the rest - first period... pelted with tampons, prom date... bucket of blood.
Wrathful, destructive revenge ensues.
And herein lies the first hurdle.
So much of what made the original film so memorable was those shocking scenes- scenes that we had never seen before.
The sight of a naked Sissy Spacek lying in a pool of her own menstrual blood completely confused as to what was happening to her as her classmates pelt her with towels was a hell of a start to a movie.
Seeing John Travolta play a bad guy jock and Piper Laurie delivering a genuinely creepy Oscar nominated performance as Carrie's whacko hardcore religious Mother.
 |
| Judy Greer |
All of these things worked because they were fresh and original and director Brian DePalma showed real visual flair and skill in presenting them.
Sadly there is none of that in the remake.
Kimberly Peirce's direction could most kindly be described as technically sound.
It is just lacking in any visual punch.
DePalma is well known for his heavily stylised use of long tracking shots, split screen and slow motion and I am not suggesting that Peirce should have gone for the same but surely she could have stamped some sort of flair or style onto this?
She also shows little ability in picking when to go for it and when to hold back on the emotional beats.
Carrie's telekinesis is introduced with small instances of the power as she discovers it.
She makes a flag move, shatters a mirror... levitates books.
Then suddenly she is levitating cars, forging massive earthquake like cracks in the roads and throwing people great distances.
By the time the climax arrives she is like some sort of hybrid - two parts Incredible Hulk and one part Jedi Knight wrapped in the cheerleader from tv show "Heroes".
She is nigh on invincible and thanks to her transformation from gawky outcast to prom-worthy date to vengeful she-devil being so poorly handled the character is hard to sympathise with.
When the climactic fireworks began I couldn't even identify the bloodstained woman as Carrie - so suddenly so far removed from the girl of the last hour.
 |
| Julianne Moore - solid without being anywhere as good as Piper Laurie |
They are just nowhere near as effective.
Just because you can convincingly levitate a car and thrust a woman's face through the windshield in slow motion it doesn't mean that you should.
A movie with a simple story like "Carrie" needs to stand on the strength of the characters - not on the effects scenes.
Margaret White is well played by Julianne Moore but there is no room for subtlety in this incarnation.
Piper Laurie's version was creepy because her mental problems always bubbled beneath the surface constantly seeming ready to burst violently out.
Moore's Margaret scratches and stabs herself until she bleeds to show that she is bonkers.
It is unnecessary - or at least should be with properly formed characters and a decent script.
The framework of the original is there but everything is delivered with the force of a sledge hammer.
Everything is explained to us in case we are total idiots and can't figure it out.
Early on the school principal says "We've had trouble with your mother before when she was not allowed to home school you".
It is just one example of exposition being clumsily slathered on. It is jarring in how obvious it is.
I am a huge admirer of Chloe Grace Moretz and her impressive body of work but this role is not her best.
She is simply miscast.
Unkempt hair and dowdy clothes do nothing to detract from her obvious attractiveness.
It is the Laney Boggs dungarees and glasses fiasco all over again.
Sissy Spacek's Carrie was skinny, pale and freckled and improved a fair amount when she got made up and dressed up for the prom.
Moretz's Carrie always looks pretty good and just looks a bit better after her makeover.
Gabriella Wilde is pretty and likeable as good girl Sue but the less said about Ansel Elgort as Tommy the better.
 |
| Tommy (Ansel Elgort), Sue (Gabriella Wilde), Chris (Portia Doubleday) and Carrie (Chloe Grace Moretz) |
Not only does he have genre credibility but he is a master with this sort of psychological stuff.
Refer to his great remake of "The Fly" and the amazing "Dead Ringers".
I recall an interview with him years ago in which he stated that he wanted the then unknown Sissy Spacek for his film "Rabid" as he was sure that she would be huge before long.
Of course she did go on to Oscar nomination glory for "Carrie" and an Oscar win five years later for "Coal Miners Daughter".
This years "Carrie" never rises above mediocrity.
The performances are uninspired mainly thanks to a weak script that tosses a lot of the good stuff from the original out and replaces it with overblown nonsense.
It is the direction that really lets it down though.
Gone is the grit and realism of the original - a neat trick given the unrealistic nature of the story.
Ironically for a movie about a girl who can move things with her mind this one is lacking in gravity.
It doesn't garner any sympathy for the characters that need us to feel it nor does it make us despise the scumbags who torment Carrie.
The villains are paper thin cliches that all but twirl mustaches.
Worst offender is Portia Doubleday as Chris Hargensen.
Nancy Allen played her as a nasty bitch in the original but she was nonetheless believable as a woman who just had a bad streak.
Doubleday is relatively awful but it is the script that once again really lets the character down.
She is so over the top in her nastiness that Chris becomes a character hard to accept.
In every scene she spews out hateful lines and squints and struts and even for a royal doofus like boyfriend Billy she seems a poor choice.
This character is a singularly unattractive young woman on any level - think current Lindsay Lohan level unappealing.
File this one under- Why did they bother?
Save yourself the ticket price and just watch the original movie on dvd or Blu-ray.
You'll see how a top notch director with superb actors makes the most of a simple tale to produce a scary, memorably sordid little tale that earns every little bit of its reputation as a real deel horror flick.
This film removes almost everything that worked in the original (including that shocking final moment... what!!??) and adds nothing new or worthwhile in its place.
It just chugs along very predictably to exactly the conclusion that every man and his dog will be all too familiar with and offers nothing at all new.
A weak remake only for fans of the original who want to be reminded by comparison of how this sort of film is supposed to be done.
| Rated | R16 for violence, language & sexual themes |
| Running Time: | 100 mins (1hr, 34mins without end credits) |
| Starring: |
| Chloe Grace Moretz | --- Carrie White |
| Julianne Moore | --- Margaret White |
| Judy Greer | --- Ms Desjardin |
| Ansel Elgort | --- Tommy |
| Gabriella Wilde | --- Sue Snell |
| Portia Doubleday | --- Chris Hargensen |
| Alex Russell | --- Billy Nolan |
| Zoe Belkin | --- Tina |
| Samantha Weinstein | --- Heather |
| Katie Strain | --- Lizzy |
| Barry Shabaka Henley | --- Prinical Morton |
| Demetrius Joyette | --- George |
No comments:
Post a Comment