Lo sguardo di Satana - Carrie

Some might remember this for it's viral marketing (putting a woman with powers into a café as a teaser to this was almost geniuses) or for the fact that it tried to recreate a classic horror movie. Whatever your point is or was coming into this, you will see a very solid horror movie that updated a classic and took it into the current time. There are themes explored here, that weren't touched upon in the original, which is a smooth move.

Other than that Moretz delivers one strong lead performance. If you know the original or have read the description you will know where this is heading. It won't spoil too much or take too much away from it though, because it is well directed. It might be too neat in places, but overall this does have punches and it's not afraid to deliver them. Overall not as good as the classic, but way better than one could expect it to be

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.

How well you respond to the new remake of "Carrie" may depend greatly on how your mind is associated with the material that inspired it. If this is your introduction to this enterprise, it may be kind to suggest that you check out Brian DePalma's original 1976 horror classic, or Stephen King's 1974 debut novel. That's where you get the true meat of the story. Kimberly Peirce's remake is glossy, pretty and professionally made, but it adds almost nothing new. It is violent and energetic, but it lacks the sustained melancholy creepiness that made the original so memorable. Peirce has the parts of the story in the right order but her film lacks a sense of tone and mood. She can play the notes, but not the music.

DePalma's film remains a permanent fixture of our popular culture because he understood that the foundation of Stephen King's best work comes from his ability to pry supernatural events out of a foundation of realism – i.e. the more realistic his environment, the scarier the magical stuff plays out. Plus, it had the added bonus of a previously unknown actress named Sissy Spacek in a brilliant performance that made her a star. Knowing that, it may be possible that no filmmaker could have revised this material. By this point there may not be anything new to explore. After the book, the 1976 movie, a 1999 sequel and a 2002 TV movie, we know this story so well that the narrative of a remake is more or less perfunctory. It becomes less a story and more of a checklist keywords: prom, dirty pillows, pig blood, tampons, prayer closet, telekinesis. The pieces are here, but there are very few surprises.

The story is one of alienation. We know that the world is populated with more young people like Carrie then than the prom queens who torment her, and with all the news stories lately about the horrors of bullying, this new film might have been a good chance to shed some light on the subject. Yet, there seems to have been no ambition to expand on the original idea. Pierce, who is openly gay, understands alienation first hand. She previously made "Boys Don't Cry," the story of Brandon Teena, a girl suffering a sexual identity crisis (for that film Hilary Swank got an Oscar for Best Actress). She also made "Stop-Loss" about a soldier who returns home from Iraq, but refuses to go back. Here, in her first big commercial film, she seems to have lost her creative edge. The movie is long on plot but very short on personality.

One of the biggest problems lies in the casting of Chloë Grace Moretz in the title role. She's so conventionally pretty that we have trouble believing that she could ever be a wallflower. This is a story about a girl who is so spaced away from the world that she might as well be invisible. She's trapped in a body that offers a telekinetic ability that she can neither control nor adequately explain. Moretz is not a bad actress, but she has such a strong screen presence that we don't feel her defenselessness.

The people around Carrie aren't people, so much as standard movie requirements. There's the snobbish queen bee (Portia Doubleday) who torments Carrie at school. There's her lunkhead boyfriend (Alex Russell) who acquires the pig blood. There's the nice guy (Ansel Elgort) who agrees to take Carrie to prom. There's the P.E. coach (Judy Greer) who defends Carrie against her tormentors. There's the principal (Barry Shabaka Henley) who is so petrified of a lawsuit that he can hardly speak. These characters aren't given personalities; they are just functions of the plot.

The one performance in the film that does work is Julianne Moore as Carrie's hyper-religious mother, Margaret. Moore does a nice job of playing a woman so encased in her own God-fearing paranoia that she shuts out a world that she feels pleasures itself at the altar of a fallen creation – which includes pretty much everyone. The worst of this vantage point she pushes on Carrie herself, locking her in a closet and declaring that her special power makes her a tool of the devil. The set designer has done a good job of creating Margaret and Carrie's home as a sponge-cleaned den of claustrophobia and blandness.

The scenes between Carrie and her mother are the best parts of this story because they reveal two broken personalities that eventually face off in a final conflict that seems to have been preordained from the moment that Carrie came into the world. The rest of the movie is pretty much a tired march through a story that's been told three times before. There are some nice touches. The prom scene is well made. Peirce allows Moretz to wave her arms during the final telekinetic fury as if she were conducting a symphony of terror and mayhem. Yet, it's a moment of originality so clever that you wish the rest of the movie had followed.

Is "Carrie" entertaining? Not really. If you know this story already, there's no real reason to see this one. It only goes to further the mystery of why remakes are even necessary. Why remake this movie beyond the attempt to cash in on a brand name? Why not remake movies that were bad? Make them better. 37 years after the Brian DePalma's masterwork, horror fans are still talking about it. This film is so forgettable that 37 years after this remake, horror fans may have to be reminded that it was ever made in the first place.

** (of four)

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.

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.