Carrie : La Vengeance

I have been eagerly awaiting this movie since I heard of the casting of Chloe Grace Moretz. I could totally picture her portraying the character in the style and feel created by Sissy Spacek and followed up by Angela Bettis (2002 TV movie). I knew she would be a worthy successor after seeing the film Let Me In. I was, however, skeptical of the casting of Julianne Moore as the religious fanatic mother of Carrie, Margaret White.

After seeing the film twice this weekend, Julianne Moore turned out a creepy performance that should definitely garner her an Academy Award nod. Her portrayal of Margaret White was an emotional witches brew of fanaticism, insanity, and maternal instinct. For me, it was an unexpected treat.

As for Carrie, Chloe Grace Moretz did a fine job. She had big shoes to fill, and her performance does not top that of Sissy Spacek. However, she does hold her own. In all three versions of Carrie, each actress has portrayed Carrie in a different way. Each excelling in making the role their own while maintaining the artistic concept of Carrie herself. Chloe did deliver a chilling performance during the scenes where Carrie is exacting her revenge.

As for the movie itself, I would describe it as a remake of the 1976 film sprinkled with some additional elements from the Stephen King novel. It was very well made, and the modernization is appropriate without being too obvious of the change in times, i.e cell phones, the Internet, etc.

In closing, Carrie is an extremely competent attempt at remaking a classic. As I say with all remakes, you have to go into it with an open mind and not with the mind set of comparing it to the original. If you do that, you will find Carrie is a good movie.

To be honest, the 1976 version of Carrie was only great for that period. It's not hard to see how the audience reacted to the film back in the days, but now it's nothing more than an entertaining campy relic. The only thing that many would still be amazed is its iconic prom scene. Another adaptation could be a great idea, especially for this generation when the context of the story has become more relevant. Unfortunately, it seems everyone behind this new version can't let go of the past and the ambition leans more on recapturing the best moments of the original. However, solid filmmaking and great cast makes the film watchable. It's almost like the same movie, but with people using modern technology and CGI death scenes. But the rest, it's difficult to know what else is the difference.

While fans will always defend the De Palma version, a remake is reasonable. Bullying has become a serious subject, and sometimes the bullied fights back ending up doing something worse. Those real life incidents resembles so much in this classic story, but the film wasn't so focused at that point until the end. Although we get to see more of Carrie being curious about her special abilities and Margaret's briefest backstories, which are interesting addition to the plot, that didn't make up enough to show its bigger picture. Again, the movie is more fond to its campiness. It at least gives a bit of satisfaction to those who crave for horror violence. The famous prom scene has found some inventive ways to kill its characters, despite of CGI.

The direction has its own style which works throughout. If there's anything else elevated, then that's most likely the performances. From the original, most of the cast (aside of Sissy Spacek) were probably too broad and sort of hammed it up. It's from the 70's, sure, but then we need a more credible and darker depiction of high school. Chloe Grace Moretz gives a genuine intimidation and eventual natural madness to the character. Julianne Moore is the improvement among. She manifests the pain beneath Margaret White's fanaticism, which is quite compelling.

The best advice to see Carrie is to not be familiar with the other adaptations, because the existence of those kind of affected the surprises, though I wished the film stepped forward more on its message to make it feel distinct than the camp that made this story such an icon. Overall, it's neither inferior nor superior compared to the original; it's all straightforward remake with modern time elements. Despite of being disappointing, Carrie is still an entertaining film. It's a great story anyway, and giving it a second look with a different vision might be alright. In the end, it's a needless re-adaptation than we thought it would be.

It seems something of an obligation to dismiss remakes out of hand these days. Many of us do so with such confidence that we'll condemn the film in advance of its screening. Kimberly Pierce's remake of Carrie isn't an insult to De Palma's original; it is, in fact, an adequately performed, well-filmed picture, but one cannot help escape the inevitable baggage that comes with this film. It doesn't hold a candle to De Palma's original, which wasn't - if we're being honest - really scary, but elevated by the director's flair, enthusiasm, and stylistic excess. Visually, this film is inoffensive, but that's it's problem: it's flat and uninspired.

Chloe Grace Moretz is fine as the lead, but the script lets her down. In the original, Carrie (Sissy Spacek) reacts to her powers with bewilderment; hers is not one of awe and wonder, but a kind of fearful curiosity. Here, Carrie takes to her telekinetic powers with verve, gleefully levitating objects around her bedroom in moments that would be right at home in Matilda. The character of Sue Snell, who opts to redeem herself, is thinly written, as is her boyfriend, Tommy Ross. Chris Hargensen, who was played to perfection by Nancy Allen in the original, is more fleshed out than one would expect, but her interactions with her conspirators and Sue Snell seem, for want of a better expression, off. Astonishingly, it is Julianne Moore, a truly exceptional actress, who is miscast here. Piper Laurie was central to the original's success, playing on the absurdities of her character's dogmatic lunacy. Moore plays it straight, which, to her credit, is a departure from Laurie's performance, but it is wholly unconvincing.

The third act is a technical and dramatic misfire; it's all pyrotechnics. The pig's blood that ignites Carrie's - if you will - baptism by fire is of major significance. It's that moment when the film's fascinating relationship with the absurd and the horrific boil over. De Palma knew this and executed with gusto; Pierce does not.

Carrie White is somewhat a loner; raised by a fanatical mother who believes just about everything is sinful and bullied at school. She hasn't been told about what it means to become a woman so when she has her first period, in the shower after gym class, she is terrified. The other girls mock her and one, Christine "Chris" Hargensen, even films her on a phone. This lead to Chris being suspended and being banned from attending the upcoming prom; she determines to have her revenge on Carrie. As well as becoming a woman Carrie starts to develop telekinetic powers. Another girl, feeling guilty, asks her boyfriend to take Carrie to the prom... when Chris puts her revenge into action Carrie's powers erupt in a deadly way.

The original 1976 film is rightly considered a horror classic; even those who have never seen it, or read the book, are likely to know what happens at Carrie's prom... which slightly lessens the impact of the scene in this film. Trying to judge this film on its own is difficult but I'll try. It starts well with the characters being introduced and developed and no real violence before the infamous prom scene. Chloë Grace Moretz is the right age for the role and her acting is impressive; unfortunately she doesn't feel as vulnerable as Sissy Spacek did in the original. Julianne Moore is suitably disturbing as Carrie's overbearing mother and the rest of the cast are solid enough. The special effects are pretty good and there are some impressive shocks. Overall I don't think this remake was needed but it turned out better than I expected... certainly worth the 50p I paid for the DVD.

A reimagining of the classic horror tale about Carrie White (Chloe Grace Moretz), a shy girl outcast by her peers and sheltered by her deeply religious mother (Julianne Moore), who unleashes telekinetic terror on her small town after being pushed too far at her senior prom.

This film is criticized pretty harshly by audiences, especially horror fans. And for the most part, these criticisms are unfair. One minor problem with the film is the use of CGI when it was not necessary. And the major problem was remaking a classic. As it is impossible to improve on a classic, any attempt will be met with strong resistance.

But there are many strengths. First and foremost, Chloe Moretz, who is easily the best actress of her generation. Horror fans are lucky she has worked extensively in the genre, because her roles have brought much strength to otherwise average films. While perhaps not as awkward as Sissy Spacek, she handles the role well.

There are some aspects that are closer to the novel, including the more violent and intense climax, and the pregnancy subplot. This version has a more sympathetic Sue and Tommy as well as a more self-confident Carrie. These are different takes on characters that make an important, nuanced difference and allows for different interpretations. The updating of technology adds a different angle, too. This is its own movie in many respects.

Is the original better? Of course. It is a classic and directed by the legendary Brian DePalma. It probably should not have been tampered with (although it has been before). But if it had to be done, the people involved could have done much worse than this.