Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General' started by Gnaghi, Oct 31, 2002.
Well it is a different film.
I saw this being filmed last week here in Toronto. Kind of excited to see how it turns out. Be interesting if this time around it followed the book more closely.
Plus, we may get a (very much needed) remastered SE blu ray of the original because of this.
The first remake went so well, how can this be anything but gold?
So now we get a Carrie remake every 10 years?
Talk about out of ideas....
Let the poor girl R.I.P. already!
I'm not being snarky on this, I'm genuinely curious as to why people want a Carrie that's closer to King's somewhat flawed novel. You're not the only person who's mentioned this, and I'm puzzled as to why anyone thinks the book is better than DePalma's movie.
I know Carrie goes on to destroy the town more in the book, and to that I say "So what?". You've never seen explosions and destruction in a movie before? More importantly, I think it alters the focus of Carrie's anger. In the film (and I sat "the", because there is only ONE film version of Carrie in my world), DePalma concentrates it to just the school and her mom, the two sources of Carrie's torment.
You also have the lame-ass death of Carrie's mom in the book, and without that amazing speech that Piper Laurie delivered.
Finally, there was a lot of reference to Carrie's powers earlier in her life. DePalma wisely eliminated that (to the point of deleting a childhood flashback scene) and coincided the power with her becoming a woman. That works on so many levels, it's fantastic. I hate the idea of Carrie always having the telekinetic power. It's so much better when you look at it as the power she now has as a woman.
Just so this is not a Matt89 hate-fest, I do agree on the need for a new Blu-Ray. I have to keep my old DVD, as none of the fanatastic special features made it to the Blu. And the transfer on the existing Blu ain't all that great either...
No, according to what passes for her tombstone, she's burning in hell
My mistake, that was supposed to read R.I.H., not R.I.P.
I love Chloe Moretz and Julianne Moore, but seriously, what Paff said.
Amen to that Paff... I used to think I was the only one who preferred the movie to the book.
But as for the remake, I like the casting so far.
I'm still waiting for an adaptation of It, b/c honestly the miniseries didn't cut it for me. I loved Tim Curry, but that was about it.
I agree with everything you said. I never meant to imply that King's book is better than DePalma's film. DePalma is one of my fav directors (I still say Blow Out is one of the top 5 best movies of the '80s - just my opinion). Carrie is also my favorite horror film, I just think that it would be interesting, if done properly, to see Carrie destroy the town or something.
I actually hated the novel, I have no idea how King was able to sell it as his first novel. It's actually pretty poorly written IMO.
Seriously. What was up with all those parentheticals? And every time the suspense got ratcheted up, King would throw in some excerpt from one of those books supposedly written about the incident. It doesn't work as a faux-reality story.
But I was thumbing through the book last night, and did get one thing wrong in my previous post. Margaret White's speech is indeed in there, and Piper Laurie did it practically verbatim. So that part is not DePalma improvement, that's pure Steve-o
I had high hopes for Chloe Moretz after seeing her breakout performance in Kick Ass. But now she seems helbent on becoming the queen of ill-advised and unnecessary remakes. First Let The Right One In and now Carrie? I'd put both of them high on the list of films that didn't need second stabs--EVER.
I hope they have a similar monologue in the remake, because that's one of my favorite parts of the movie.
I love them too -- plus it has the director of Boys Don't Cry so I am curious. That said, Julianne Moore has made a lot of bad movies but she's made a lot of good too.
Don't forget Dark Shadows.
I actually like the book but completely agree that De Palma made the definitive movie version and filming things "just because they were in the book" is not a valid argument. Margaret White's death in the book worked well enough in a literary way but De Palma changed it brilliantly to work on film. Such a visual scene wouldn't have been so effective on the page.
I'll argue with Paff that the book and movie actually reveal Carrie's abilities exactly the same way. Carrie knows nothing of her powers until getting her period in the lockerroom shower. In the book she does recall an incident from her childhood that she had previously believed to be just an act of God but now wonders whether she caused it. But King's Carrie wasn't telekinetic as a child, or rather, wasn't aware of her power then. Just as in the movie she causes the lockerroom lights to explode, the principal's ashtray to fly off the desk and the teasing little boy to fall off his bike and then starts connecting the dots about her ability.
I guess I'm in a minority but I actually really like the cutaway/wraparound elements in the book. King presents Carrie White's story as a local tragedy that drew national attention and the interviews, commission report excerpts and other asides helped flesh out the events in an interesting way. Any time there's a tragedy we're always left to wonder why and how. The media interview the perpetrator's family, friends, co-workers and wonder if any of them had an idea something was wrong. We seek expert opinions to try and explain the behavior. We form commissions to investigate what happened and offer advice on how to prevent future tragedies. I'm sure King was inspired by the Warren Commission report on JFK's death and the national and media reactions to that tragedy as well as the deaths of MLK, RFK and the Kent State killings. But the book reads just as fresh today after tragedies like Columbine, 9/11 and James Holmes the "Batman" shooter. King could have told the story in a linear fashion but I believe these other elements actually give the reader a "you are there" aspect a straightforward novel would have missed. All that said, De Palma was wise to eliminate these elements for his film as they would not have translated well to the screen.
The one thing I wish De Palma had included from the book is Carrie working to strengthen her powers. In the book when she first suspects she might be causing these things to happen she tries to lift a hairbrush with her mind and exhausts herself after barely lifting it off the dresser. By prom night, she's moving multiple pieces of heavy furniture around the living room while she nervously waits for Tommy to pick her up. In the film, we see Carrie restore the broken mirror in her room and slam some doors and windows while arguing with her mother but you never really got a sense of her "owning" her powers. By the time the prom happens we've almost forgotten she has any powers at all. One more scene of her practicing her new-found powers would have developed that part of Carrie's story better.
As for this new remake, I'll see it but there's no way to NOT compare it with De Palma's version.
when i read the book, a long, long time ago, i thought it was dull as hell, and a chore to get through, despite the fact that its under 300 pages. but hey, what did i know then? i thought the movie Carrie was boring as well! I watched it again a few years ago, and it practically had me in tears it was so powerful. so, who knows what i might think of the book now? but i expect i'd agree with the general sentiment here.
Stephen King books translated verbatim to the screen almost never work well. Most literary works are heavily adapted (and rightfully so) for the completely different medium. Translate a book exactly as its written, and it's generally going to have a hard time being as enjoyable as the book.
King and others have tried it before with disappointing results. The Carrie TV film from 2002 was more faithful to the book, but often quite boring and uneven on screen.
Maybe we'll get a remastered Blu-ray of the original film from this one, that'd certainly be nice...
This thread inspired me to watch the incredible 1976 film tonight. Said it before, I'll say it again. Best horror film ever made. It's got everything. Once again, I rooted for Tommy and Carrie to make it, once again, I hoped Sue Snell would get Miss Collins' attention, and once again, my heart rate spiked as that bucket of blood is about to drop. And I had to turn on the lights as the final credits rolled, 'cause I was a bit uneasy...
You just can't improve on this film. It's horror perfection.
It's my favorite horror films as well, saying that I'm hesitant to say that it's the best. The second half definitely but Do you not find the first half to be a bit inconsistent compared to the second?
Also watched Carrie the other night, finally on Blu. While it wasn't a great blu, it was no where near as bad as reviews had me thinking it would be. For a 20 year old plus film that was low budget to begin with, I thought it looked good in many spots. Maybe I'm becoming a glass-half-full kinda guy. I always forget how dope the movie is too, besides the heinous fashions and hair, it stands the test of time.
The bad news? I looked up the cast list on imdb for the re-remake, and there is a "Young Carrie" role, so the flashback(s) are probably gonna be part of it.