MaxwellEck_3-29-05

My favorite Carrie. Its the only one I watch over and over, and the genuinely best written adaptation of the three, minus the batnutty, goofy ending, which was done because they were going the 2002 "Dead Zone" route and tried to make this into a series. I watched for the first time when I was 14, I'm 19 as of this review, and I was already a big King fan, specifically having a soft spot for his made for TV adaptations, which all started around age 12.

Its easy to crap on this and write it off because of it's relentlessly early 2000s TV movie look, what with the music, the effects, the clothes etc. But the 2000s are a soft spot for me and if you can look past those elements, this is a great page to screen adaptation of King's novel and it really explores the characters and gives them great scenes to interact with each other in and have some great and subtle character moments. Its about as 2002 as the 1975 version is 70s, I mean that prom montage was really dumb.

I stand by the opinion that this is unjustly shat on. The piece of trash from 2013 is the example of a shameless remake. All movie critics need to learn the difference between remake and re-adaptation. You don't call all of the hundreds of adaptations of Alice in Wonderland all remakes of each other, so stop calling this a remake, use your brain and think about the words you are using. The 2013 version is nothing but a remake, and a dumb stupid one at that, just a lazy copy of the DePalma film and doesn't try anything different, or anything effectively .

This is much better written. A majority of the characters are richer than they were in either of the other two. DePalma's version, all of his films in fact, suffer from the same thing John Carpenter's films do, and that's that they feel very undercooked, for me anyway. There are lots of great scenes in their films, but in the end, the thread holding those stand out scenes together is very thin and lackluster, always leaving just a little bit more to be desired. I mean his version is SO OVER THE TOP, where this is more subtle and realistic, and I think that suits this story better, even if DePalma's version is more pretty to look at, that is only a topping to the layered cake of good storytelling, I'm lookin at your cynical arse Kubrick.

I get my "Carrie" fulfillment with this version more than the other. I think preference aside, it does many scenes factually better than the semi-overrated DePalma one. Angela Betis is heartbreakingly sweet and perfect, as well as probably my favorite thing about this version! The sound design in the prom scene, specifically when the blood finally falls, and there is that "drip drip drip" music, it is just amazingly effective! It is way more effective than the clunky split screen in the other. Also all of the high schoolers are played by people who actually look like teens, not 25 year olds, which is something in movies that is always been really jarring and leaves me feeling taken out of the emersion. When they all get electrocuted, and drop to the floor in slow motion, I mean that is some really scary stuff! Its one of the few instances where the grainy handheld camera really effing works in this version's favor. Its like watching real security footage of a bunch of kids getting electrocuted. And its very nuanced, I'm not reminded every second that I'm watching a "movie" because there are all these crazy and satisfying death scenes (the 2013 crap).

I'm not making the argument that this version is perfect, its not, because less than a minute later there is some bad CGI, I won't say really bad, it looks better than the CGI in The Shining 1997 or The Langoliers, but it does stand out, thankfully its very short.

This adaptation deserves a second chance, and it is better than 99% of the horrible modern horror King adaptations that have come out in the last 15 years or so, and I think it is the best screen telling of the story out of the three. Just take the time to see all the good things about this version before you jump on the bandwagon and write it off with the crowd because it looks cheap or whatever.

Probably the best film, in what I think is one of, if not the best horror franchise! Now, I'm not gonna lie, I get next to nothing from any of Hitchcock's films, and I tend to roll my eyes every time someone else says how much of a masterpiece his films are. So "Psycho (1960)" is nothing sacred to me, and I loathe the sacred cow movie critics who blindly jump on the "movie critic" bandwagon, but I will die on the hill that this movie is incredibly underrated. I get more out of this film, and "Psycho II", emotionally and otherwise, than anything Hitchcock made.

Now, normally I love when things are subtle, and left up to interpretation, and kept a little vague, but for this prequel/sequel, it never feels like it oversteps the boundaries, or tells you too much. Norma Bates (Mother) was a psychotic c*nt, and any child would come out of that incredibly screwed up. It makes you feel so bad for Norman, and feel conflicted by sympathizing with his homicidal tendencies.

I mean, single mother homes are notoriously unstable and unsuccessful, but this is journeys to the darkest lengths of Norman's character in so many aspects that, kind of gruesome to say, but you are just waiting, anticipating, for when Norman finally snaps, and poisons his "mother". It almost makes you root for Norman Bates, the homicidal psycho we all know, its great. It's one of the best "sympathy for the devil" stories ever, and I kind of like it's emotional core over "Psycho II" in a way, which also was so great in large part due to that emotional core being what moves everything else in the story, and that is generally considered the best film in the series.

"Psycho IV" is very creative and disturbing, thought provoking, heartbreakingly tragic, and thrilling, even if the ending got a little too 90s cheese in some moments, it is still an effective little gem. 70% of horror franchises never amount to half of those compliments for one of the films, let alone a fourth installment. There was more care put into this quadrilogy than it had any right to have, well, except for maybe Psycho III.

Good god, so much unnecessary bull and bloat. I always thought everything with Monks, and Agnes and Brownlow being related, and all the stuff with the Maylies was just beyond stupid and contrived, not to mention forced. It is good that most versions cut that crap out, and it made parts of the book a chore to get through, but here, all of that dull and silly backstory takes center stage, whereas anything with Oliver and his misadventures is merely secondary.

I may make a fan-edit of this version, cutting it down to just the Oliver story as much as possible. I was always put off by this version, and I watched every other Oliver film or TV adaptation before I was 13, but I never got into this one because of just what I said. I tried biting the bullet today, but I admit I skipped through most of it when I could. And its not even really the length, its what it chooses to focus on and devote the 6hrs to that I hate about it.

I wish I could enjoy this version, because it visually looks good, and has some good actors in it, Andy Serkis was terrifying and compelling, but everything else aside from that was meh at best. Many of the characterizations here are odd, or not right, mostly Oliver and Fagin. Oliver has some very awkward line deliveries, boarder line bad, and Fagin is a hippie magician type figure... its all just weird, and feels off. Like they were just trying so hard to make this different than any other adaptations, but they got way too carried away with it.

I don't see myself ever wanting to revisit this beast anytime in the future. Just a dull, drawn out, forgettable version. Go watch the 1985 and 1962 miniseries versions instead, they are more worth 6hrs of your time.