[Mike Tank]

CARRIE (2013)
Directed by Kimberly Peirce.





Julianne Moore cast in Carrie remake.

Fresh from her portrayal of Sarah Palin in HBO's Game Change, Julianne Moore is now going to take on the role of an even crazier woman...

http://www.firstshowing.net/2012/jul...ake-of-carrie/

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

Not sure what I'm more excited for: this remake or my next visit to the dentist. I'm on the fence.

[Mike Tank]

I can hear the updated take on Mrs. White's famous line already:

"They're all gonna tweet about you!"

[orpheus]

I would rather not have a remake, but you know, I think it can be well done. King's novel is good enough to warrant a different approach.

BTW, there was a rumor that they wanted Jodie Foster for Mrs. White, and while Julianne Moore is a good choice, I really wanted to see Foster play the mother.

[Mike Tank]

Originally Posted by orpheus

BTW, there was a rumor that they wanted Jodie Foster for Mrs. White, and while Julianne Moore is a good choice, I really wanted to see Foster play the mother.

I think they should have Foster play Mrs. White in the first half of the film, and then switch to Julianne Moore in the second half, with no explanation.

It worked with Clarice Starling! (Not really).

[Mike Tank]

Originally Posted by orpheus

I would rather not have a remake, but you know, I think it can be well done. King's novel is good enough to warrant a different approach.

This begs an interesting question, one that I've asked before about many a remake:

Can it really be considered a "remake" of a previous film if the original in question is itself an adaptation of pre-existing source material, ala King's novel?

There are many films like John Carpenter's The Thing or the television version of "The Shining" (scripted by King himself) that are actually just differrent, and in these cases, more faithful, interpretations of their respective source materials.

Yet we call them "remakes", mainly because the previous adaptations had become so iconic.

I mean, there's no doubt that, say, Gus Van Sant's Psycho really IS a remake of Hitchcock's classic film, and not an just another film version of Robert Bloch's novel. That's an obvious "remake" since it's shot-for-shot/word-for-word another version of the Hitchcock film.

Or even Zack Snyder's Dawn Of The Dead. Romero's film was an original screenplay, and even though Snyder's film varies a bit from Romero's, it's still definitely a remake, as Dawn was expressly created in its original incarnation as a FILM.

But with projects like Carrie....is it a remake of DePalma's film, or another take on King's book?

I'm sure the filmmakers of the new version would rather you call it a new version of a King classic novel.

But what does anyone else think? I mean, what IS IT, really?!

Answer: In my opinion, no matter how you slice it, it's still not an original film. And even though I'm not opposed to new takes on old material, I would be more excited if this were something that had not been done before.

But I can't totally knock remakes.There have been more than a few that have become classics in their own right.

I don't want to live in a world without Carpenter's The Thing or Cronenberg's The Fly.

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

Yeah but how long are we gonna keep name dropping THE THING or THE FLY to justify this endless spate of unimaginative retreads?

And whether CARRIE is a remake or simply another adaptation of the King novel, it doesn't matter. The point is, there exists an already significant film called CARRIE and it's a cinematic masterpiece.

I've had the pleasure of seeing it on 35 on a big screen and there's nothing quite like it - it's an operatic, obsessive exploration of teenage angst and an overpowering experience in its own right.

Now, I haven't read the novel so I can't state this definitively, but it's possible that the film may be a superior work of art to the source material.

But regardless....

Any film called CARRIE will always be compared with DePalma's brilliant effort.

So, it's a REMAKE!

But the question is, will the filmmakers behind this remake possess the vision to re-imagine a cinematic incarnation of this material that offers more than the 1976 version?

The answer? Probably not. Because if they possessed such vision, they probably would know better than to NOT fuck with DePalma's masterpiece.

It comes down to pure logic.

Although I do have a serious soft spot for Chloe Moretz! So I might just have to see this for her performance.

[orpheus]

I like the idea of Chloe Moretz playing Carrie and really a high school age cast instead of the usual college dropouts, lol, that tend to play teenagers in horror movies.

Honestly, this remake has a lot of potential, and I don't like remakes usually. It really can be seen as a chance to do something different.

And it goes back to King, whose work I am big fan of, and believe can be interpreted in many ways.

[Rovin]

Wasn't Carrie already remade within the last few years or so? Wow.

[Mike Tank]

Originally Posted by Rovin

Wasn't Carrie already remade within the last few years or so? Wow.

It was, as a 2-part mini-series for NBC, with the amazing Angella Bettis in the title role.

I actually sort of agreed with Rue Morgue's John Bowen on that one when he wrote it up awhile back for his Basement column.

It's not altogether bad, and is actually quite a bit more faithful to the book...

....until you get to the woefully stupid ending, which I won't spoil here, but I will say that NBC had hoped this version would lead to a weekly series (!), so we get an incredibly ridiculous and awkwardly forced open-ended conclusion.

But nothing will ever top DePalma's incredible original version.

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

Originally Posted by Mike Tank

....until you get to the woefully stupid ending, which I won't spoil here, but I will say that NBC had hoped this version would lead to a weekly series (!), so we get an incredibly ridiculous and awkwardly forced open-ended conclusion.

You just DID spoil it, you chone!

[Mike Tank]

Originally Posted by FEEDBACK

You just DID spoil it, you chone!

Whatever.

[Mike Tank]

Now, I haven't read the novel so I can't state this definitively, but it's possible that the film may be a superior work of art to the source material.

It is. King himself has stated as much. I liked the book, but it is a lesser work from him. (It was his first novel, after all...which he actually threw away, only to have it salvaged by his wife, who insisted he submit it. Talk about fate!)

Although I do have a serious soft spot for Chloe Moretz! So I might just have to see this for her performance.

Perv.

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

Originally Posted by Mike Tank

Perv.

That came out ALL wrong, didn't it?

Oh well - hopefully she grows up soon and FAST so I can stop feeling guilty.

[Scotty]

Originally Posted by Mike Tank

Fresh from her portrayal of Sarah Palin in HBO's Game Change, Julianne Moore is now going to take on the role of an even crazier woman...

Crazier, maybe, but not scarier.

I think what grates the most about this remake/retake and others is the shamelessness with which stories are reconstituted at such a glut. Hollywood is so risk averse and castrated that they won't lead a charge with anything new. It's got to be "proven" to the extent that the nepotistic non-creatives laying their derivative-earned riches down are guaranteed to further pad their offshore bank accounts. Sure, Carrie was already proven in written form but given the budget and film climate at the time there was something truly maverick about it's original adaptation.

There is some good news in that spec script sales are up. Most are adaptations of graphic novels, but a few original voices are making it through.

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

Originally Posted by Scotty

Hollywood is so risk averse and castrated that they won't lead a charge with anything new. It's got to be "proven" to the extent that the nepotistic non-creatives laying their derivative-earned riches down are guaranteed to further pad their offshore bank accounts.

And the award for MORTUARY Quote of the Day goes to....

[jaysaw]

I Knew she'd get it!

This kind of irks me. I like Julianne moore but i have this not-so-warm feeling in my tummy that this role and her don't gel for me. Not that casting jodie foster (who was the other big contender) might have made a difference. (though i would like to see foster channel bette davis a-la- (what ever happend to baby jane) kind of crazy for this role.

spacek+piper laurie= GOLD
Angela Bettis+ patricia clarkson= very good/convincing

what let the tv movie down was infact the rest of the cast and some of the dodgy effects.

Shouldn't judge until it's made i guess

Though the sue snell, Tommy Ross, Chris Hargensen, and the Miss Collins roles are key to making the film believeble. that's where the tv movie really failed.

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

I thought you guys were joking about the whole Jodie Foster / Julianne Moore thing? I guess somehow they're destined to be intertwined in the same roles....

[The Gore-met]

How many times are they going to remake this fucking thing? And how can a third adaptation be a patch on De Palma's kick at it? Yeesh...

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

Originally Posted by The Gore-met

how can a third adaptation be a patch on De Palma's kick at it?

The answer? It can't.

[The Gore-met]

Originally Posted by FEEDBACK

The answer? It can't.

Well, I know that. It was a rhetorical question.

I read the novel Carrie in 1979 or 1980, although I was already a Stephen King fan because of Salem's Lot, so I've had a long attachment to it. I have the Blu Ray of the original film and just revisited it last year. I don't see what justifies a third(!) movie of it. There's nothing to be 'improved' in it. Both the novel and the film are only guilty of being products of their time, but that's hardly a crime. Whether this a vanity project or just fucking senselessness, it doesn't deserve to exist.

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

Originally Posted by The Gore-met

It was a rhetorical question.

It was a rhetorical answer.

And yeah, obviously the only thing motivating this is the same short-sighted nonsense that accompanies so many of these remakes, and no doubt we'll get the same parade of apologists waving THE FLY/THING flags telling us to have faith....etc.

Well, I'm a little too world weary to have faith BUT at the end of the day, I'm not gonna condemn something til I've seen it either.

So does this deserve to exist? Well, let's see what the filmmaker does with the material and then we can answer that question.

But at this point, the only thing that has remotely captured my curiosity is to see how Ms. Moretz handles such an intense role. She could make the difference even though she steps into it with a disadvantage.

Sissy Spacek was perfect as the outcast teenage girl in high school. But let's face it, if Chloe Moretz (who's 15 now) was in high school (do movie stars go to high school???), no doubt all the boys (and many of the girls) would have a crush on her.

So the casting seems motivated by wonky factors that aren't necessarily in the service of the material BUT I think Moretz is a serious talent and may be able to overcome these handicaps.

We'll see....

As for Julianne Moore in the Piper Laurie role....

Whatever.

[Dark Mark]

I love the original adaptation and I'll take some persuading to actually see this as for me poor adaptations and or remakes do detract from the original. I went to a horror film discussion at the state library last night and the conclusion was on remakes that these films are all about cynically repackaging and reselling a known brand to an audience who lack the maturity to watch older movies.

[The Gore-met]

Originally Posted by Stuart Feedback Andrews

Well, I'm a little too world weary to have faith BUT at the end of the day, I'm not gonna condemn something til I've seen it either.

Heh, you should know better than most how much I'm not blindly opposed to remakes of films I think didn't need one (the I Spit on Your Grave remake for example)! But fuck, a third adaptation?! Bollocks to you lot!

[The Gore-met]

Originally Posted by Dark Mark

I went to a horror film discussion at the state library last night and the conclusion was on remakes that these films are all about cynically repackaging and reselling a known brand to an audience who lack the maturity to watch older movies.

I agree, which is why it is the duty of parents like you and I to arm our offspring against such ridiculous notions by exposing them to a diversity of films!

I can't tell you how proud I was that my children watched The Wolf Man (1941) again the morning after I showed it to them because they though it that cool. Then they immediately started bugging me to crack open The Mummy Legacy Collection they'd seen me buy at the comic convention I took them to in March.

Edumacation is key!

[Dark Mark]

Originally Posted by The Gore-met

I agree, which is why it is the duty of parents like you and I to arm our offspring against such ridiculous notions by exposing them to a diversity of films!

I'm on it, as you know. Film language is learned, so if you grow up only viewing modern movies it is actually difficult to appreciate older movies.

[Mike Tank]

I just hope we get some more of Moore's trademarked tear-jerking....

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

This is hilarious. Those YOUTUBE freaking maniacs.....

Now I wanna see the CARRIE remake. Just to see if she blubbers...

"It's amazing how much a person can cry."

[orpheus]

I cry that much every time I watch a bad remake.

[Dark Mark]

Originally Posted by Stuart Feedback Andrews

This is hilarious. Those YOUTUBE freaking maniacs.....

That reminded me of the Sean Bean Death Reel which is more entertaining.

[bigmac64]

Originally Posted by Mike Tank

But with projects like Carrie....is it a remake of DePalma's film, or another take on King's book?

I'm sure the filmmakers of the new version would rather you call it a new version of a King classic novel.

But what does anyone else think? I mean, what IS IT, really?!

Answer: In my opinion, no matter how you slice it, it's still not an original film. And even though I'm not opposed to new takes on old material, I would be more excited if this were something that had not been done before.

But I can't totally knock remakes.There have been more than a few that have become classics in their own right.

I don't want to live in a world without Carpenter's The Thing or Cronenberg's The Fly.

I get what you're saying, but this new version of Carrie won't be an original film. Sure, we may get the same story told in a slightly different fashion, with different interpretations of the characters. And I suspect we'll see more of the destruction caused by Carrie, both at the prom and in the town.

But the film will still hit all the keynotes the original movie struck; the locker room taunting (though I suspect it will be considerably toned down from DePalma's version), Sue setting up Carrie and Tommy, the prank. The plot won't change.

It might not make it a bad film, but it doesn't make it one worth shooting.

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

bigmac64? How do you know the movie will hit all these same story beats?

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

Originally Posted by Dark Mark

That reminded me of the Sean Bean Death Reel which is more entertaining.

You could actually splice the two together...

Yikes. What a gnarly career. When he gets a script, he must ask, "What page do I die on?"

[jaysaw]

Originally Posted by The Gore-met

There's nothing to be 'improved' in it. Both the novel and the film are only guilty of being products of their time,

As usual, the wise gore-met is pretty much spot on. when i read the novel and see the oroiginal film, to me it oozes the 70's. (true, i wasn't there, but have seen enough to get the feel of it.) You know it's the 70's, the music, the look of it etc...

The only thing they could do to 'improve' on it (which would be a really mean feat) is to put the bits in the novel that weren't in the original film. And the TV movie did most of that. Plus King has already used the opening of the novel in another film adaptation (ROSE RED). So that's pretty much not worth revisiting again.

All in all, the fact that it's chloe mortez (who i loved in LET ME IN) is playing Carrie is one of the reasons i will see this.

[Meli Hooker]

Originally Posted by Stuart Feedback Andrews

Although I do have a serious soft spot for Chloe Moretz! So I might just have to see this for her performance.

Me too!

She had me at "cunts."

[bigmac64]

Originally Posted by Stuart Feedback Andrews

bigmac64? How do you know the movie will hit all these same story beats?

Just a guess, based on the importance those moments have to the story (both the novel and the movie) and how iconic DePalma's film made them.

The new script could bypass these story beats, but I doubt it. Again, just my opinion.

[Stuart Feedback Andrews]

Originally Posted by Meli Hooker

She had me at "cunts."

Yeah, she stole the show. No small feat considering her co-star was Nic Cage in one of his more entertaining roles of late.

[Mike Tank]

Originally Posted by Stuart Feedback Andrews

Yeah, she stole the show. No small feat considering her co-star was Nic Cage in one of his more entertaining roles of late.

Apparently, myself and Scott McLaren were the only 2 people on the planet who loathed Kick-Ass.

But I won't deny that Moretz is talented, so I'm sure her interpretation of Carrie White will at least be an interesting one.

[Meli Hooker]

Originally Posted by Mike Tank

Apparently, myself and Scott McLaren were the only 2 people on the planet who loathed Kick-Ass.

But I won't deny that Moretz is talented, so I'm sure her interpretation of Carrie White will at least be an interesting one.

For some reason, re-watching isolated clips from Kick-Ass I can understand more why you wouldn't like it. It's a cheesy, fun flick and while I loved Mortez' antics as Hit Girl it's totally over the top. If you already aren't into that schtick to begin with, I could see that really grate on your nerves for the rest of the viewing experience.

Back to Mortez playing Carrie - she's talented, but I am skeptical about whether she can pull off the nervous, world-weary Carrie. I think Sissy Spacek is gorgeous, but she has an obvious talent for playing a weird, awkward social reject.

I didn't like the American remake of Let Me In as a whole, but in particular I just think Mortez is too cute and charming a girl in that role and struggled to be frightening. Eli as a character (in the book and the Swedish film adaptation) does charm a bit, but with an underlying grotesqueness and unsettling nature that I don't think Mortez could pull off.

I dunno, we'll see. That's the only potential fault I find is that Mortez is too damn cute!

[Mike Tank]

Just read on Worst Previews that the Carrie remake is going to be a "found footage" film.

Any slight hint of interest I may have had in seeing this thing just went into the toilet.

[Dark Mark]

Originally Posted by Mike Tank

Just read on Worst Previews that the Carrie remake is going to be a "found footage" film.

That could work...I'm kidding.

[orpheus]

Ugh! Does this board have a facepalm smiley?

[Scotty]

The chances of this surprising me are so slim, it's tempting to condemn it straightaway. But I'm choosing to hold out hope and do my best to focus on what's important.

[Mike Tank]

Originally Posted by Scotty

But I'm choosing to hold out hope and do my best to focus on what's important...

Religious zealotry has never been hotter.

[Meli Hooker]

Originally Posted by Scotty

The chances of this surprising me are so slim, it's tempting to condemn it straightaway. But I'm choosing to hold out hope and do my best to focus on what's important.

She's still got it! YOWZA

[spookykat]

Don't know how this is going to be..
As Gore-Met mentioned how many times is this movie going to be done.
I don't think Ms. Moore can top Piper Laurie's performance. She was intense and frightening. I remember when it first came out and she hid Carrie in a closet.
I don't know, is it me, or was the 70's the best time for religious horror?

[Mike Tank]

Here's Entertainment Weekly's exclusive first look at Chloe Moretz as Carrie White and Julianne Moore as Margaret White in director Kimberly Pierce's upcoming remake.

Thoughts?

[Morbidfilm]

[Mike Tank]

It didn't do much for me, either.

[Rat's Eyes]

Originally Posted by Stuart Feedback Andrews

Yeah but how long are we gonna keep name dropping THE THING or THE FLY to justify this endless spate of unimaginative retreads?

They never should have been name dropped in the first place. I'd even go so far as to say it's insulting to Carpenter and Cronenberg to mention those films when talking about the remake trend. The Fly was brilliant because there was a true, creative arist at the helm. Cronenberg brought some real radcial and unique idea's to that film as apposed to the fucking hack anti-artists who crap out all these remakes of classic, original films. I feel for the younger generation of horror fans. If anything I hope it will make them seek out the original films and realise they don't have to accept this garbage.

*Edit* Another thing, I like Julianne Moore, but Piper Laurie is untouchable in that role.