Carrie, a Estranha

Remakes are often trashed by viewers, occasionally who have seen the older version. This one, i have to say, was pure entertainment. To be frank, there's nothing bad in this movie. But, i didn't say it's not flawed. I was just expecting another horror flick with jump scares and blood spewing all over the place. One minute into the movie, i was rather surprised.

The story is about an innocent teenage girl named Carrie (Chloë Grace Moretz), whom has a mentally abusive mother (Julianne Moore). Her life was very miserable. She got bullied at school and her neighborhood condemn her as being a freak. Until, she found out that she has a telekinetic power that could control every single thing. But, she doesn't know how far her power could go and do to the people who pushes her. All is well until one night that changed it all.

The movie is a remake of the 1976 version. I am glad to say that it was never boring. I was pinned down to the seat and saw the whole thing, especially the climax which i won't spoil any of it.

Julianne Moore, wow! I can't say a word about her performance here. She brought the hell out of her and made me witness her craziness. It was all very freaky and horrifying. Chloë Grace Moretz played the role as Carrie convincingly and made me feel about her character. All of the cast were well-acted.

Though, there's just a minor thing i would criticize.

The CGI wasn't all that spectacular. Sometimes we could see that it's not real. And the pacing was a bit off. Yet, i'd have to say it was well-executed and the effect was pretty gruesome at times.

Conclusion: Very solid remake and recommended for people who loves to be scared, and believe me, you WILL know her name.

This movie is hardly a scene-by-scene account of Brian De Palma brilliantly 'Carrie'. Yes, it impossible not to compare any remake to its original version, especially when the original is considered a classic. It is sad that with these days' shortage of originality, even a seemingly talented director such as Kimberly Peirce, succumbs to the commercial appeal of movie-making in the sole interest of monetary gain resulting in watered-down quality. Well, I'm not even sure if this movie will make its money back, given the mediocrity in all aspects of its quality. But then again, there are a lot of junks out there that make tons of money. All the efforts for the reimagining, whether it be an attempt to create a franchise or sequel or to modernize the narrative has totally undermined the essence of this otherwise compelling story. The destructiveness of social isolation, religious fanaticism, BULLYING, to name a few, underlined in Stephen King's novel were in no way conveyed effectively in this movie. There is a lack of connection in Moretz's performance and  she is unconvincing as a socially deprived and awkward girl. Julianna Moore as always delivers a competent performance.  But she can only carry the movie so far. As talented as Moretz is, she is a miscast for this movie.  As such, the movie is moderately entertaining at best.

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.

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

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.