Leofwine_draca CARRIE is the second filmed version of the Stephen King novel, following hot on the heels of an ill-advised sequel version in the late 1990s. Watching this tame TV movie - which has no gore, by the way - and you wonder just why they went to the effort of making it. It's a far, far cry from the 1976 Brian De Palma version, a true masterpiece, of which this is a pale imitation.CARRIE is long-winded and overlong, dragging out all of the boring family drama and pseudo-romantic scenes. It starts with bad CGI meteorites which isn't an auspicious debut and goes on from there. Angela Bettis headlines the production, following on from her turn in the creepy goth horror flick MAY, and the ever-sinister Patricia Clarkson (NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD) plays her horrid mother. Film fans might also spot GINGER SNAPS actress Katharine Isabelle as one of the bullies and David Keith as a cop.Direction-wise, this isn't too bad, although the writing is middling and the happy ending a cop-out. The worst thing about it is the bad CGI. The aforementioned meteorites stand out here, alongside the ridiculous flying "creepy Carrie" kid, but these moments are nothing compared to the wallowing CGI overload of the climax, which is completely laughable.

OllieSuave-007 Based on Stephen King's novel and a TV remake of the 1976 original, Angela Bettis stars as Carrie, a shy high school girl who is a subject of bullying at her school and abuse by her religiously-fanatic mother Margaret White (Patricia Clarkson). Carrie later discovers she has telekinesis, and gets pushed to the edge on prom night by a humiliating prank, giving the perpetrators a lesson they will learn the hard way.Filmed with much suspense and horror, Angela really gave the Carrie character her own unique touch, giving her a even more fragile, vulnerable and timid personality than Sissy Spacek did in the original. Emilie de Ravin and Katherine Isabelle play mean girls Chris Hargensen and Tina Blake, giving them very snotty, cruel and condescending character takes. Jesse Cadotte gave a very sinister and sly portrayal of Billy Nolan; Tobias Mehler gave a more touching performance as Tommy Ross; and Rena Sofer gave a dramatic performance as Miss Desjarden. Patricia Clarkson didn't give as much as a wired and downright crazy portrayal of Margaret White as Piper Laurie did in the original, but she did portray her as someone who is disturbed and depressed.One element I like better in this movie is that the characters had more interaction and/or connection with Carrie, as you could sense more of Chris and Tina's tormenting of her and Miss Desjarden sticking-up for her and communicating with her more (as in the interaction scene during the prom night). You could also sense more of Sue Snell's (Kandyse McClure) remorse and understanding towards Carrie.Another element I like better in this movie is that the prom scene is much more longer and chaotic and has more carnage than the original. I also thought Carrie's revenge on her tormentors were much more explicit and forceful in this movie.Lastly, I like that this movie has more scenes that connect the course of events more closely and that made the plot were relevant, like the police investigation and interview scenes and the one-on-one scenes between Carrie and Chris, and Carrie and Sue. ***spoiler ahead*** I just wished some of the characters who were nicer towards Carrie at the end met a better fate during the prom scene*** Overall, it's an exciting horror story and one of the more tastefully done TV movies I've seen.Grade B+

WakenPayne The original 1976 Carrie is one of my favourite movies, period. i recently watched the remake with Chloe Moretz but I had a lot of issues with that, namely that they simply got the script of the original and did a technology update with it. I watched this movie and... While I can't praise it as a good movie this is not without some benefits.Based on the knowledge I'll assume you have of the DePalma film, this one is not a complete rehash. I prefer remakes when they are like this because they can offer a different interpretation on a story that has been told already. This one actually does a decent job of it in some areas while in others it fails miserably.To explain in detail, Carrie's telekinesis when she was a child brought down a dozen meteorites on her house in this version. It's over the top and it only gets uttered ONCE after that. You would think that even one meteorite would interest the authorities, a dozen on the exact same few square feet of land at the exact same time would arouse a lot of interest because I see that as nigh on impossible and I know f#ck all about astronomy. You have a few scenes like that which really dampens the movie.Another big problem is that none of the supposed High School kids look like High School kids. They look like College kids if they're a part of any schooling system. Don't get me wrong some of them do throw in a decent performance now and then while others do go a little bit over the top.Now with that said they do a few things better than the 2013 remake. For example, Angela Bettis looks and acts just like someone going through a lot of abuse. She isn't anything on Sissy Spacek but she is miles above Chloe Moretz. With that said She doesn't look all that threatening in the prom massacre scene.One interesting touch to this movie is the fact that it's all told out like a series of police interrogations. That could actually work and it does bring this movie a certain style to it. If there was any complaint with this it's that some of what they say they can't possibly know.I also liked the ending of this (well not like, more find it interesting), the point of Carrie in my eyes is that a monster is created in an abused girl by the environment that she lives in only to die with her mother out of regret. Here I kind of like the idea of Carrie surviving. Usually something like this would have me flip tables but here, I kind of wanted to see where they were going with it.With some of the scene re-enactments in this version... They're weird, that's all I can say. The shower scene where Carrie starts menstruating in the other 2 versions kind of made sense as to why they were bullying her about it, because she thought she was dying and at age 17, that kind of seems ridiculous. Here? They just bully her because she's menstruating. ??? ...So out of the Carrie remakes I have seen is this finally one worth watching? Maybe. I like that it was trying to be it's own thing, I liked the idea of the changed ending and the people handling the way Carrie looked did a marvelous job to name a few complimentary things. But it drags, a lot. The over-the-top scenes are far in-between to watch for a laugh, some of the scene re-enactments are weird and the High Schoolers look old enough to be in College. If you want to see how someone handles the project of adapting Stephen King's novel differently (the key word being differently), check it out of curiosity.

Bonehead-XL The problem with remaking "Carrie" is two-fold. First off, the original Brian DePalma film is such a defining classic. Any additional version will be compared unflatteringly to that original. Secondly, the story follows a clear, well-known formula. Every version of "Carrie" has to end with the main character wreaking telekinetic havoc at the prom. The question of remaking "Carrie" becomes whether or not the performances justify telling a story everyone knows the ending to. This was the question facing the 2002 television version of "Carrie" and is the question currently facing the brand new, Chloe Moretz-starring remake.So, do the performances justify the film? Kind of. A screening of "May" is what convinced the producers that Angela Bettis was the perfect choice for the role of Carrie. No doubt, the two characters are similar, disenfranchised loners who strike back violently against their tormentors. However, Angela Bettis makes Carrie not only very different from May but different from Sissy Spacek's Carrie. Spacek played the character as a wounded animal. Bettis' Carrie, meanwhile, plays like a PTSD victim. She keeps her head down, taking abuse silently. She's more spastic, seemingly going into seizure like trances. Bettis' naturally nervous qualities are played up, her eyes and forehead twitching. However, this Carrie has a secret rage burning inside of her. She bottles up her anger at the world. A more bitter or even sarcastic side shows through during her interactions with mother or schoolmates. Spacek's Carrie was a poor girl who snaps suddenly, unexpectedly. Bettis' Carrie is a ticking time bomb. The differing interpretation allows Angela to make the part her own. It's a very good performance from a great actress.Patricia Clarkson also goes in a very different direction from what Piper Laurie did in the original. Laurie played the role as over-the-top, high opera. Clarkson goes in the opposite direction. Her Margaret White rarely raises her voice. Her threats are quiet and subtle. She doesn't have to yell and scream to make her point. She plays her religious fanaticism as a frightening truth, someone who believes unerringly. Clarkson is excellent, far more believable then Laurie's campy theatrics. It's the only true advantage the 2002 version has over the 1976 version.The 133-minute long film, originally aired in two halves over two nights, hews more closely to Stephen King's original novel. It reinstates the epistolary format, a police detective interviewing the surviving high school students about what happened that night, the events recalled in flashback. The narrative reshuffling does little to change the flow of the story. Carrie still gets her period in the girl's changing room, freaks out, discovers her powers, faces her religious fanatic mother, gets invited to the prom by Tommy Ross, has pig's blood dumped on her, goes nuts and kills a lot of people. Several missing scenes from the book are reinserted. Small meteorites fall from the sky when Carrie is born. When she's six years old, after an encounter with the neighbor's daughter, the same thing happens. After the massacre at the prom, Carrie walks through Chamberlain, Maine, destroying most of the town.I'm not sure how to feel about the extended run time. In some ways, it allows the material to breathe more. A few of the additional scenes add nice character development. Chris Hargensen has a scene where she interacts with Carrie alone, that shows Chris to have some depth as a character. When Kandyse McClure's Sue Snell talks to Carrie about make-up, it's humorous, expands on the two's relationship, and provides more insight in Carrie's opinions. The pre-massacre prom scenes are surprisingly good. Carrie and Tommy Ross talking in the car is unusually sweet. Miss Desjarden's monologue to Carrie about post-high school life is wonderful as well, especially Carrie's reaction to it. As Carrie and Tommy dance, Angela gets a great moment, expressing gratitude to the young man. The detective subplot doesn't add much but the cop looking through Carrie's completely empty, unsigned year book is rather heartbreaking. Then again, several scenes are unnecessarily extended. The pig bleeding scene goes on far too long. A moment of Carrie freaking out in class, shattering her desk, adds nothing. The principal talking with a lawyer has no effect on the rest of the film. Though Emilie de Raven's Chris is less blatantly psychotic then Nancy Allen's, her boyfriend Billy becomes a cold sociopath for no particular reasons.The biggest problem with 2002's "Carrie" is that it can't compete with the 1976's version thrills. The CGI-filled prom massacre lacks the visceral punch of the original. DePalma's unique style ramped up the intensity. David Carson's comparatively flat direction adds little. The rampage through town is well executed but seems superfluous. Carrie's powers are often overdone, with her cracking desk, throwing bikes through the air, or wrapping a truck around a tree. Considering Carrie's obvious anger, her not having any memory of the rampage is a cheat. Laura Karpman's score isn't bad, blatantly recalls Pino Dinaggio's work at times, but isn't as impressive.Of course, the ending is different. For some reason, producer Bryan Fuller decided "Carrie" would make a great set-up for a series. Carrie White survives and goes on the road with Sue Snell. The series would have been "The Fugitive," with a telekinetic teenage girl as the protagonist. This, of course, was a terrible idea. If 2002's "Carrie" maintained the book's ending, it perhaps would have been a stronger film. As it is, it's not a bad effort. It can't compare to DePalma's version and is frequently mediocre. Still, the two lead actresses lend what otherwise would have been a forgettable product some elegance.