Another pointless remake or an improvement on a classic?

I wish I could say I enjoyed this film, but I sure didn't.  I'm not going to say it was terrible, but it brought nothing new to the table and I found myself very bored and disinterested.

As is usually the case with horror movies involving high school kids, this was poorly miscast with the majority of the "kids" being played by actors not even in their teens.  I don't get it, I don't appreciate it, and it always takes me out of the movie, because it's so obvious these aren't teenagers here.  Only Carrie was actually a teenager in reality.

But hey, somehow this turned a healthy profit when you factor in overseas BO.

Not for me.

Grade - C-

I actually kinda liked it, though I think a lot of that might have been the "surprised it wasn't the worst thing ever" kind of "like." For me, an interesting movie because I felt like Chloe Grace Moretz was the worst part of the entire thing. She's not a bad actor, but she was just utterly, utterly miscast -- she has a strength about her that makes Carrie totally unbelievable. Other than her, I thought the movie was pretty entertaining (if pointless). It's kinda rare that I feel that way about a film -- that the main actor is the biggest mistake -- so I thought it was interesting to see.

Peirce has a certain eye for character dynamics that De Palma probably doesn't, and the film's at its best in tiny, human moments and at its worst in bigger sequences where we can't help but be thinking about how friggin' amazing De Palma is with kinetic cinematic sequences, and how we kinda wish we were watching the original's staging of these scenes instead.

Nice to see Judy Greer playing something other than the best friend in a romantic comedy.

Surprisingly well-handled, but in the end, didn't particularly add much to my life. I dunno. Pick this one up before Elm Street 2010 or some garbage, for sure. But don't even THINK about watching it before the original. And De Palma's entire filmography. And Boys Don't Cry.

Quoted from Dreamscale ...an improvement on a classic... ...I enjoyed this film... ...I found myself... ...get it... ...appreciate it...

Another great review.  Thanks for the tip, Jeff.

Jordan

Quoted from Nomad Another great review.  Thanks for the tip, Jeff.Jordan

Hey now Jordan...don't be pulling a Stevie with altered quotes!   ;D ;D ;D

Not a good movie by any means, but not terrible either.

I liked it.


--Steve

This movie was so unnecessary. After watching De Palma's version I thought I wouldn't even give the remake a watch because it still holds up so damn well. My curiosity got the best of me though in hopes they might do something even slightly different. The remake, however, really adds nothing, there is potential to make this a really dark and gritty character piece but this ends up way too glossy and CGI-infused. I wish they had done something different with the story, I think some surprises would go appreciated, because the story has been told so many times. Generations have changed and the story line could utilize that, but simply adding iPhones and youtube doesn't really evolve the story.

The big ending is only effective if you care about any of the characters and I really didn't care about a single one, not even Carrie. The movie was so terribly miscast, it's unfortunate. I think Julianne Moore did what she could but I would have loved to see someone like Jessica Lange take on that role. As for Carrie, Chloe Grace Moretz did not sell it for me, this is a role where an unknown could have really sold the deal.

The movie isn't terrible by any means, it's watchable but it just seems like a missed opportunity and more than anything had me asking, why?

Quoted from kev Generations have changed and the story line could utilize that, but simply adding iPhones and youtube doesn't really evolve the story.

I was thinking this too.  I can buy the opening in King's novel and even in DePalma's film version.  It was a different time then.  This time around, the teens in the shower tormenting Carrie over her period, feels off.  It's 2014 not 1976.  I feel the reaction should have been different and they should have went a different route with how Carrie was bullied.  I think that was my only gripe.  I didn't look at it as another remake but as another adaptation.


--Steve

Add the voice of another big horror fan who did not hate it, exactly, but did not get much from it.

The biggest problem for me was Chloe Grace Moretz.  I like her just fine.  Hit Girl is one of my favorite characters in the last several years.  But she was really wrong for this role and it drags down the whole production if you can't buy into the lead.

That girl from the True Grit remake...(googles name)...Hailee Steinfeld...or that girl from American Horror Story...(more google)....Taissa Farmiga...those would have been better choices.

Why aren't there more famous girls with names like Susan or Mary anyway?

Quoted from Dreamscale Hey now Jordan...don't be pulling a Stevie with altered quotes!

I didn't alter anything.  I just removed the superfluous words and revealed your true feelings.

I too wasn't blown away by the new Carrie, but I didn't regret watching it either.  I thought Julianne Moore gave a nice performance but everything else was just run of the mill.

I look forward to seeing the remake of the remake in the near future.

Jordan

Haven't seen it, or the new Robocop.  But they both fall into the same category of "Why the hell remake this when you have no possible chance of improving on the original?"  Sure it's a money grab, but the original Carrie and Robocop were directed with such remarkable style that the best you could possible hope for is, as Jordan said, "run of the mill."  

Yep, have to agree with everyone here...other than Steverino.   ;D ;D ;D

The cast was so poorly cast.  Chloe is a fine young talent but here she definitely was not right.  The other "teens", or I guess all the ANtags were so redonkulous it made it so that I too didn't give a rat's ass if they lived, died, got decapitated, or turned into a quivering mass of jelatinous liquid...which makes me wonder...why go R rated when the violence was so little?  If you're going to cast 20 somethings to play teens, you might as well have the female hotties disrobe, right?

Oh shit..why spend anymore time thinking about it.  Waste of time all the way around.

I think this was a well timed remake(with all the bullying news in todays media), and thought the acting was pretty great, especially Julliane Moore. But man, the special effects were awful! Good movie.

~Zack~

Too similar to the original. I don't see a point in watching it as it offers nothing new.

OK, last night I watched the original for the first time in years.  Actually it's been so long it was almost like watching it for the first time really.  I have the 3 disc set -- Carrie, Rage:  Carrie 2 and the made for TV version (I think) of Carrie, the last 2 of which I have not yet viewed.  I'll have to check them out.

Anyway, I'm definitely leaning toward the original over the "remake."  Sissy Spacek is amazing, Travolta's fun to watch, and DePalma does a great job not just directing but with a super low budget.  The ending is definitely scarier and more effective than the ending in the remake.  It's also been a while since I read the book, so I can't fairly compare the two films.  Did the 2013 version do a scene for scene remake of the original or did it do it's own adaptation of the novel?


--Steve

Quoted from Guest Did the 2013 version do a scene for scene remake of the original or did it do it's own adaptation of the novel?

Not a scene for scene remake, but it's pretty much the same. More effects in the remake, it's more flashy, especially toward the end.

I saw it in a cinema when it came out, there wasn't much of a reaction from the crowd.

I feel that the remake missed out on an opportunity with the ending.  


While I thought the car frozen in the air was cool, they could have done a lot more with the budget they had.


--Steve

Eh...
Totally missable.

King stories rarely do much for me, first or second rehash.

Quoted from RayW King stories rarely do much for me, first or second rehash.

I've always said that Stephen KIng novels don't translate to film nearly as well as you'd think.  Probably because they're so rich in detail and character and it's tough to transfer to the screen.

Quoted from Dreamscale I've always said that Stephen KIng novels don't translate to film nearly as well as you'd think.  Probably because they're so rich in detail and character and it's tough to transfer to the screen.

I have only read one King book, but once I read through some detailed synopsis of some of his book. I noticed that a lot of things get changed in the movies, endings, characters get dropped and so on.

The third time around isn't the charm (Carrie was remade once already as a 2002 TV-film) -- while I gave this one a chance, to me, Carrie doesn't hold as much power as she used to. We have had many films with characters with telekinetic power. It still has its moments. I agree with some comments here in that there wasn't enough done with the film, considering King's last chapter of his book. (an anti bullying message)...so yes the 2013 had nothing new to say or do.

I didn't think the film was terrible. But it did miss the boat by a country mile. If you are going to make a film version for today's audiences, then do it. Don't cop out.