Wonderful Film!

  • This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.

king family fan

Prolific member
Jul 19, 2010
33,133
117,741
south
Gotta disagree with everyone on this thread, seems I'm in a small minority. Thought the new movie was awful, really bad. Felt like I was watching a made-for-TV cheap trashy American movie made on a shoestring budget, lots of blood and gore (cos that makes a scary movie right?) and bad acting aplenty. It tried to update it by setting in the present rather than in the 70's with iphones and the internet and todays music, but it just doesn't work. I really didn't like the lead actress who played Carrie, too pretty and too slim to play her--In fact, I didn't connect with any of the characters in the film. I really don't have a good word to say about this movie, was hoping it would be much much better than this as I love the novel but this was just dire to say the least, really don't know how some of you say its a wonderful film or its improved on the original...
Welcome to the board. I have yet to see this movie myself.
 

BeverleyMarsh

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2010
862
5,374
The Twilight Zone
Haven't seen it and I don't think I will. I think Chloe Moretz is a brillant actress but is the wrong cast for Carrie. She's far too pretty. Sissy Spacek was perfect because she could go either way, and it really worked with the story. She was the plain teenager girl who all dolled up turned out to be really quite pretty. I don't get the need for a remake.
 

Chuggs

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2012
3,777
6,426
Arkansas
I dunno. They promised some major new additions, but from what I can see, the only huge difference is that she can do research on the internet now. I'm middle of the road on this one. It may not be bad, but I wonder if it's really enough of an improvement to warrant yet another redo. The original may be dated, but in terms of Carrie's personality, I think that one nailed it.
I understand where you are coming from. But I will say this: it speaks to what a wonderful story Stephen King wrote oh so many years back.
 

Neesy

#1 fan (Annie Wilkes cousin) 1st cousin Mom's side
May 24, 2012
61,289
239,271
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
We watched the original one last night. Brian de Palma did a great job with that movie.

I asked hubby if he wanted to go see the remake but he said he was not interested. Piper Laurie was so good as the fanatically religious Mom in the one from 1976 and Sissy Spacek really did become transformed into a beauty (just before the pig blood shower!)
(turns out it is not playing here any more and I am too cheap to buy the DVD) :big_money:
 

NightShifter

Well-Known Member
Nov 8, 2013
63
344
Mansfield, Massachusetts
Why do so many people get all uppity about remakes? If you don't want to watch the new one, don't. No one is forcing you to. I like remakes, myself. If the remakers suck it up, then so be it. I still have the original to enjoy.
In the latest ongoing trend of remaking horror films there have only been a handful that actually improved the telling of the story. I my opinion some examples are: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Evil Dead, Fright Night and perhaps The Last House on the Left. The problem is most of these remakes and reboots are just a way for the film companies to make a guaranteed buck instead of retelling a tale because someone has a way of improving it or re-imagining it, and as a result most of these new versions made today pale in comparison to the originals. The remake of The Fly (1986) and The Blob (1988), filmed before remakes and reboots were a trend, were remade for the right reasons, unlike the latest Halloween, Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neesy and Chuggs

Chuggs

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2012
3,777
6,426
Arkansas
In the latest ongoing trend of remaking horror films there have only been a handful that actually improved the telling of the story. I my opinion some examples are: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Evil Dead, Fright Night and perhaps The Last House on the Left. The problem is most of these remakes and reboots are just a way for the film companies to make a guaranteed buck instead of retelling a tale because someone has a way of improving it or re-imagining it, and as a result most of these new versions made today pale in comparison to the originals. The remake of The Fly (1986) and The Blob (1988), filmed before remakes and reboots were a trend, were remade for the right reasons, unlike the latest Halloween, Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street.
I understand your point, but I also think it has something to do with trying to reach new markets...i.e. the younger generations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neesy

NightShifter

Well-Known Member
Nov 8, 2013
63
344
Mansfield, Massachusetts
I understand your point, but I also think it has something to do with trying to reach new markets...i.e. the younger generations.
I do think that is part of it to, and I can appreciate that. And the remakes and reboots to pay off from time to time, just look at Batman Begins. I think when I have a kid someday and he's ready to be introduced to, I dunno, let's say Carrie to stick with the thread's topic, I think I'm going play the Sissy Spacek version because I think that is the better telling. There is the question of them be able to relate to the material, but I remember growing up watching Nick at Night and older films. I think watching the older sitcoms and movies acquainted me with a world before the color TV, cordless telephones and stay-at-home dads. I never had a hard time settling into an earlier time period, and hopefully my future kids feel the same way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neesy and Chuggs

Chuggs

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2012
3,777
6,426
Arkansas
I do think that is part of it to, and I can appreciate that. And the remakes and reboots to pay off from time to time, just look at Batman Begins. I think when I have a kid someday and he's ready to be introduced to, I dunno, let's say Carrie to stick with the thread's topic, I think I'm going play the Sissy Spacek version because I think that is the better telling. There is the question of them be able to relate to the material, but I remember growing up watching Nick at Night and older films. I think watching the older sitcoms and movies acquainted me with a world before the color TV, cordless telephones and stay-at-home dads. I never had a hard time settling into an earlier time period, and hopefully my future kids feel the same way.
I never had a hard time settling into earlier time periods either. I like a lot of older movies/shows. But some remakes are upgrades...some are not.
 

samiamthemustangman

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2013
97
20
It's great that his first book is standing up to the test of time. Bulling is a old school story that needs to be token under control. People get away with too much. I think everyone knew a bully that grew up from his/her childish ways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neesy

Neesy

#1 fan (Annie Wilkes cousin) 1st cousin Mom's side
May 24, 2012
61,289
239,271
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
It's great that his first book is standing up to the test of time. Bulling is a old school story that needs to be token under control. People get away with too much. I think everyone knew a bully that grew up from his/her childish ways.
Yes, you're right, and now they have taken it to new heights with cyberbullying. It is pathetic.
 

Gerald

Well-Known Member
Sep 8, 2011
2,201
7,168
The Netherlands
I got the feeling from it, there isn't so much new you can do with Carrie. It is a pretty simple straightforward story and this film didn't add anything new or surprising. What De Palma brought to it was loads and loads of style and the actors were amazing (as was the score). This movie does have neither those benefits, nor was anything new added. On top of that: every guy with some sense wants to take this actress to the prom - she is just very charismatic and charming - so the basic idea of the story doesn't make sense anymore.

I think Julianne Moore was the best thing about it, but I just expected more. I will watch it again though to find more nuances I might have missed. The first thing you tend to do with a remake is compare all the time, it's hard to watch them on their own merits.

Actually, I can understand why Stephen wanted David Lynch or David Cronenberg for it, because these are two highly original directors who MIGHT have done something new with it.

There is a wonderful fairy tale quality to the story that feels unlike any of his other books. I don't know if he based it on that (as he based it on real girls he knew), but basically it's Cinderella without a happy ending. :)
 
Last edited:

Machine's Way

“Go then, there are other worlds than these.”
Jul 13, 2009
671
2,877
41
Baltimore
Well I have to say this remake was not good at all. I am actually surprised to see as many on here that liked it. I had no hopes for this, but went in with open mind. I really think it would be hard to ever make this better than the original. Although Id love to see a Lynch or Cronenberg version of Carrie, but I doubt that will ever happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neesy

icarus

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2011
125
168
Julian Moore was excellent as Margaret White...she played the part great....the scene where she is stabbing herself in the leg with anger while talking to Sue's mother in the clothes shop is a scene thats not in the original...
The original has one scene that is way superior to the remake is the final scene in Original where Sue visits Carrie's grave to put flowers on it and then Carrie's hand comes out of the grave and grabs Sue....when you see that for the first time it gives you a good fright!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neesy

Sunlight Gardener

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2013
375
1,273
Why do so many people get all uppity about remakes? If you don't want to watch the new one, don't. No one is forcing you to. I like remakes, myself. If the remakers suck it up, then so be it. I still have the original to enjoy.

Mostly because the vast majority are nothing more than inferior, dumbed down versions of the originals with fancy CGI effects.
 
Jun 19, 2015
10
34
72
Atlanta, Georgia area
We watched the original one last night. Brian de Palma did a great job with that movie.

I asked hubby if he wanted to go see the remake but he said he was not interested. Piper Laurie was so good as the fanatically religious Mom in the one from 1976 and Sissy Spacek really did become transformed into a beauty (just before the pig blood shower!)
(turns out it is not playing here any more and I am too cheap to buy the DVD) :big_money:

If you saw Carrie II, you saw closer to real-life Carrie, although the actress was still taller, not shorter like Sissy.. Real-life Carrie was very short ... I was in class when real-life Carrie's period started,,,, we didn't see any blood but the smell was horrible .... Frank-ly_realistic
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neesy

César Hernández-Meraz

Wants to be Nick, ends up as Larry
May 19, 2015
605
4,416
40
Aguascalientes, Mexico
When this movie was announced, I was worried about Chloe being cast as Carrie. I really like her in a lot of movies (practically all of her other movies), but I thought she would have her biggest challenge in convincing us she could be an outcast like Carrie (no, the outcast she portrayed in Kick-Ass was a different type).

I watched the movie hoping for the best. She is a good actress and she might have pulled it off against my expectations. Sadly, I think she did not do it. Her Carrie seems to be a pretty well adjusted girl. Yes, she is bad at sports, but it seems like the other girls are laughing with her, not at her. She even joins in the jokes. I never got the feeling she was kept totally out of the circle, by others or by herself. She could join in at any time and leave if she so desired it. Her eyes never looked to me like they were hiding hurt feelings and yearning for something out of her reach.

I really liked how Margaret's love for Carrie was more apparent, as that was a favorite part of the book for me. However I loved the original movie's Margaret's performance. I know people in real life who are like that. And she made much sense of why Carrie inherited the "outcast" label, even before she could do anything on her own to either "earn" it or get rid of it. The new one may be scary in how she keeps all her troubles hidden (the self-hurting is present in both movies, but the first one uses it in an in-your-face way while this one is very discreet). This Margaret White looks more "normal" and could even be accepted by people, even if they did not actually speak to her: they would look at her and think no more of it. The old one had people talking about her (and her daughter) all the time.

What I liked the best about the movie were the portrayals of Carrie's classmates. I see Tommy Ross (from the book) as an almost perfect human being (just like Duma Key's Jack Cantori). Good at everything. Sports, school, good-looks. He is even nice to the outcasts. This movie made me see him like that (unlike the first movie) and I am grateful for it. Sue Snell was the same way. She was physically beautiful and made a good job of showing her remorse (the original did a good job, also, so they both did well; the advantage of this one is that she is blonde, like in the book).

There was much for me to like in this movie, but quite a few points are lost by not making the Whites more rejected. It feels as if Carrie was simply overreacting when people did not treat her differently than they did others or how she herself treated them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frank-ly_realistic