Carrie, a Estranha

It seems to make as much sense to remake a great movie like Brian DePalma's 1976 horror/suspense masterpiece CARRIE for television as it did to make a sequel of it in the form of THE RAGE: CARRIE 2 three years before, but that's what has been done. A lot of bells and whistles have been added to this television remake, but in the end this CARRIE is still in the shadow of the DePalma original.

Angela Bettis (GIRL INTERRUPTED) has the unenviable task of stepping into the shoes (and the prom dress) of Sissy Spacek in the title role of a New England teen tortured at school by cruel classmates (because she doesn't belong) and at home by her religiously fanatical mother (Patricia Clarkson, in the Piper Laurie role). Soon, she discovers she has telekinetic powers; and when the most gruesome of gags is played on her on prom night, all bets are off.

Though looking much more glazed in the eyes than Spacek ever did, Bettis gives a fairly good performance as Carrie; and Clarkson's portrayal of her uprighteous mother is much more low-key, but no less threatening, than Laurie's portrayal. The special effects, however obvious they might be, are also quite good. But in the end, the reputation of the 1976 original, with its combination of psychological horror and teen-angst drama, still hovers over this remake. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the pig's blood scene. It doesn't have the same jarring emotional impact this time around--not so much because we've seen it before, but because here it looks slightly laughable when the blood gets poured onto Bettis. Because of DePalma's use of slow-motion in the original, the blood hits Spacek like a tidal wave.

I give the CARRIE remake a '6' just for trying. I only regret that its shortcomings as a film have less to do with its execution as a film than the fact that the original movie still resonates much more fully.

Carrie was originally a nerdy girl who was tormented over and over. Next, she was a goth who was videotaped having sex. This time, she's an epileptic girl struggling with life as a whole. Instead of doing a third one, the people decided to do something that people would rather see- remake the original loosely and transform it into a polished version of the book. While I do love the original, this one is closer to the book. There are a mere three things that I hated- the ending was stupid and Patricia Clarkson was too toned down for the role. They should have gone with a direct clone of Piper Laurie's flawless version of the character. Also, th pig blood dumping scene sucked this time. Ironically, all of the original's blonde characters are brunette here, and vice versa. The ending sort of copied the graveyard sequence at the end of the first one, but isn't as scary. But as a whole, this third in a blooming series was quite good and worth a few watches.

I have read the book and seen the original 1976 movie, numerous times. When I saw this advertised and heard that it followed the book, I knew I had to see it! It was interesting to see the book brought to life in a film. Even though it was modernized with Carrie making references to the internet, Chris using a cell phone, etc. I really enjoyed watching it, even though I still have to say that the original 1976 movie is still a classic! For some strange reason, during the prom scene where the blood is poured on Carrie, I was actually waiting to hear the famous line, "They're all gonna laugh at you!" That was such a nice touch in the original, but very difficult to duplicate. I also noticed in the credits that Jasmine Guy was in this film, but I looked and was not able to see her anywhere. The only thing I did not like is the fact with it being on regular television, the commercial breaks interrupted some of the good parts. Just when I was really into watching it, a commercial appears! Overall this movie was enjoyable to watch and to see a classic book and film come back. I am not much on remakes, but this one was not that bad. Still, nothing can hold a candle to the original!

The problem with remaking "Carrie" is two-fold. First off, the original Brian DePalma film is such a defining classic. Any additional version will be compared unflatteringly to that original. Secondly, the story follows a clear, well-known formula. Every version of "Carrie" has to end with the main character wreaking telekinetic havoc at the prom. The question of remaking "Carrie" becomes whether or not the performances justify telling a story everyone knows the ending to. This was the question facing the 2002 television version of "Carrie" and is the question currently facing the brand new, Chloe Moretz-starring remake.

So, do the performances justify the film? Kind of. A screening of "May" is what convinced the producers that Angela Bettis was the perfect choice for the role of Carrie. No doubt, the two characters are similar, disenfranchised loners who strike back violently against their tormentors. However, Angela Bettis makes Carrie not only very different from May but different from Sissy Spacek's Carrie. Spacek played the character as a wounded animal. Bettis' Carrie, meanwhile, plays like a PTSD victim. She keeps her head down, taking abuse silently. She's more spastic, seemingly going into seizure like trances. Bettis' naturally nervous qualities are played up, her eyes and forehead twitching. However, this Carrie has a secret rage burning inside of her. She bottles up her anger at the world. A more bitter or even sarcastic side shows through during her interactions with mother or schoolmates. Spacek's Carrie was a poor girl who snaps suddenly, unexpectedly. Bettis' Carrie is a ticking time bomb. The differing interpretation allows Angela to make the part her own. It's a very good performance from a great actress.

Patricia Clarkson also goes in a very different direction from what Piper Laurie did in the original. Laurie played the role as over-the-top, high opera. Clarkson goes in the opposite direction. Her Margaret White rarely raises her voice. Her threats are quiet and subtle. She doesn't have to yell and scream to make her point. She plays her religious fanaticism as a frightening truth, someone who believes unerringly. Clarkson is excellent, far more believable then Laurie's campy theatrics. It's the only true advantage the 2002 version has over the 1976 version.

The 133-minute long film, originally aired in two halves over two nights, hews more closely to Stephen King's original novel. It reinstates the epistolary format, a police detective interviewing the surviving high school students about what happened that night, the events recalled in flashback. The narrative reshuffling does little to change the flow of the story. Carrie still gets her period in the girl's changing room, freaks out, discovers her powers, faces her religious fanatic mother, gets invited to the prom by Tommy Ross, has pig's blood dumped on her, goes nuts and kills a lot of people. Several missing scenes from the book are reinserted. Small meteorites fall from the sky when Carrie is born. When she's six years old, after an encounter with the neighbor's daughter, the same thing happens. After the massacre at the prom, Carrie walks through Chamberlain, Maine, destroying most of the town.

I'm not sure how to feel about the extended run time. In some ways, it allows the material to breathe more. A few of the additional scenes add nice character development. Chris Hargensen has a scene where she interacts with Carrie alone, that shows Chris to have some depth as a character. When Kandyse McClure's Sue Snell talks to Carrie about make-up, it's humorous, expands on the two's relationship, and provides more insight in Carrie's opinions. The pre-massacre prom scenes are surprisingly good. Carrie and Tommy Ross talking in the car is unusually sweet. Miss Desjarden's monologue to Carrie about post-high school life is wonderful as well, especially Carrie's reaction to it. As Carrie and Tommy dance, Angela gets a great moment, expressing gratitude to the young man. The detective subplot doesn't add much but the cop looking through Carrie's completely empty, unsigned year book is rather heartbreaking. Then again, several scenes are unnecessarily extended. The pig bleeding scene goes on far too long. A moment of Carrie freaking out in class, shattering her desk, adds nothing. The principal talking with a lawyer has no effect on the rest of the film. Though Emilie de Raven's Chris is less blatantly psychotic then Nancy Allen's, her boyfriend Billy becomes a cold sociopath for no particular reasons.

The biggest problem with 2002's "Carrie" is that it can't compete with the 1976's version thrills. The CGI-filled prom massacre lacks the visceral punch of the original. DePalma's unique style ramped up the intensity. David Carson's comparatively flat direction adds little. The rampage through town is well executed but seems superfluous. Carrie's powers are often overdone, with her cracking desk, throwing bikes through the air, or wrapping a truck around a tree. Considering Carrie's obvious anger, her not having any memory of the rampage is a cheat. Laura Karpman's score isn't bad, blatantly recalls Pino Dinaggio's work at times, but isn't as impressive.

Of course, the ending is different. For some reason, producer Bryan Fuller decided "Carrie" would make a great set-up for a series. Carrie White survives and goes on the road with Sue Snell. The series would have been "The Fugitive," with a telekinetic teenage girl as the protagonist. This, of course, was a terrible idea. If 2002's "Carrie" maintained the book's ending, it perhaps would have been a stronger film. As it is, it's not a bad effort. It can't compare to DePalma's version and is frequently mediocre. Still, the two lead actresses lend what otherwise would have been a forgettable product some elegance.

Why not just watch DePalma's 1976 adaptation? While this remake was made for TV, which sometimes can brand a film as belonging to a lower class, it is a more faithful adaptation of King's novel. Have you read the novel? Many of the complaints you have about the "changes" made for the TV adaptation are major occurrences in the novel. Even the way in which the main action is interrupted by interviews, follows the structure of the book. While I like to judge a film adaptation of a novel separate from the novel itself and not on how well it sticks to the story, I found the flow of the novel much more interesting than the almost slasher genre quality of DePalma's film, and subsequently found the remake just as interesting. Pick up a copy...it's a quick easy read and maybe you'll see the remake in a whole new light.