Review of Carrie (2013) by Julian T — 25 Aug 2014

As a huge fan of 'Carrie', this was one of my most anticipated '13 films. The original Brian DePalma film is one of the best horror films of all time, and I was very anxious to see what could be done with next generation effects and a creative director like Peirce behind the lens. As excited as I was, apprehension wasn't far behind. The original is almost sacred and Hollywood just loves messing up things that don't need to be messed with. Fortunately I can say that this was a pretty definitive success.

First off, I must touch on the overwhelming negativity that this film has generated from nearly all corners before anyone had even seen it. It has become the hip/cool thing to do to hate on remakes. I agree with the general principle that remaking something is uncreative and something a studio does to grab some money without any real effort. It does speak to the lack of original ideas out there. But seriously, please can it. A remake isn't automatically a bad thing. Some stories can really benefit by being seen through a different lens, told with a different tone, or expanding the mythos. 'The Thing', 'Dawn of the Dead', 'The Fly', 'The Blob', 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers', 'The Mummy', and about 20 more could all be said to have improved on the original in some ways, in cases even become superior all around films. And those are just the horror ones! Honestly, sometimes a remake isn't worthy of all the hate. I will say that it usually doesn't work out (see: 'Amittyville Horror', 'Nightmare on Elmstreet', 'Don't Be Afraid of the Dark', 'Friday the 13th', etc) but stop bashing things you don't have any real reason to bash. Sometimes it actually works out.

Back on topic...

As much as I love the DePalma film, it is not a magnificent adaptation of the fantastic debut novel by Stephen King. Much of the story is marginalized, abbreviated or even cut out completely. This is obviously a necessity when compiling a 250 page book into a 90 minute film, but the flaw (and really the ONLY flaw) with the 70's version of the story is that the parts that were cut out were some of the most interesting parts of the book. Carrie raining meteors down on the White household; Carries complete destruction of Chamberlain; the entire aspect of the events from the point of view of the scientific community during the aftermath; Carrie's incredibly intense death scene with Sue Snell... All of these moments in the novel were moments that made my hair stand up, and none of them were included. When it came to be known that this version of 'Carrie' was to be an adaptation of Kings novel rather than DePalma's film, I was relieved because this is the only area that this film could improve on.

Unfortunately, what we get here is really almost identical to DePalma. Some things are almost verbatim. A few things are added, such as a deeper exploration of Carrie's powers and her early experimentation with them, the meteors are utilized, and Carrie's rampage is slightly more expanded. But overall, it is a cut and dry updating of the original film. I found this disappointing for the reasons mentioned above, but in every instance the retelling of the story is handled very very well. A bit of modernization does a good job of updating the very dated '70s 'Carrie'. It updates the bullying Carrie endures pretty well, going into the cyberspace and technological aspects.

The chief reason this movie is as good as it ends up is because of its acting performances. Chiefly, Julianne Moore is nothing short of incredible. Her Margaret White is chilling, equaling and perhaps even out doing her counterpart Pieper Laurie in the original. There is much more attention payed to Margaret and Carries mother/daughter relationship than in DePalmas, giving the character of Margaret more room to grow. The fact that I don't like Julianne Moore made her that much more believable as such a reprehensible person. As for Carrie herself, Chloe Grace Moretz had some big (check that: enormous) shoes to fill in following up Sissy Spacek's incredible performance. There is no shame in saying she can't live up to it, but she is very very strong as well. Relying much more on her body language, Moretz is really able to capture the fragile nature of Carrie. Her intimate moments are powerful, and she is able to create a creepy presence during her climactic rampage. One thing I really enjoyed about her character that was present in the book was the fact that Carrie MEANT to do what she did. It was a conscious reaction to lash out, and when she snaps, she relishes it. This aspect of Carrie's unhinged nature makes it that much more frightening. The rest of the acting is pretty strong although mostly unremarkable. A good turn by Judy Greer stands out as well.

The tone of this retelling is another aspect this differs from the first. From the first scene, you know the tone is different. It is darker, grittier and more threatening. The cinematography is sleek and fluid, generating some really interesting camera angles and shots. The close up is a bit overused, but not to the point of distraction. Dark lighting really acts to mirror Carrie's mood and it is quite effective in augmenting the tone of the film throughout its run time. Good special effects are used sparingly to make the most impact. The pacing is mostly good, but it seems to stretch some of its moments a little thin while flying through others. The infamous prom scene really zips by, lasting maybe 4 minutes. It feels like this film could have benefited from another 20 minutes as to include some of the aspects mentioned earlier as well as to beef up the amount of anguish Carries tormentors heap on her.

When looking at this film as a whole, it is a really solid, terrifically acted, beautifully shot update on a classic. Could some new ground have been covered? Yes, but it does add a little bit of story all while faithfully modernizing the story. I am not shocked by the low rating critics and movie goers have bestowed it. Not because it deserves it, but because most of said people can't recognize a good horror film from their own genitals even when it ISN'T a remake of a classic. While I still prefer the original film overall, this a very worthy retelling that stays close while offering a modern feel.