Thursday, November 7, 2013
Movie Review: CARRIE (2013)
Carrie White, a shy girl who is shunned and teased by her peers and sheltered by her overbearing religious mother, unleashes her power of telekinesis while creating havoc upon her classmates at senior prom when she's finally pushed too far.
The long awaited remake (second remake & third film adaptation) has finally come out for our viewing pleasure. The anticipation of this film was a lot better and more exciting than the actual film itself. What a shame. I've actually had high hopes for this movie. Which is a big compliment since I never have high hopes and I bitch any chance I get when I catch news of a new remake of cult classic horror film.
I respect the fact that they wanted to set this movie in present day to attract audience of the younger generation, which makes sense and I understand their thinking behind it. However, I do not like how they pretty much had the same dialogue from the original movie along with the same scenes that were shot-for-shot. It came off like you were watching the original movie but with a much younger cast. They added a couple of new scenes to make this remake stand out from all the other adaptations including the original but that didn't do the film justice since the original dialogue and shot-for-shot scenes overpowered the rest of the scenes.
The acting overall wasn't that great. This film had two big names starring in it so I would expect their acting to be amazing. Eh. Chloe Grace Moretz landed the role of Carrie White, the role any young actress her age would kill for. Unfortunately for Chloe, they should of got a different actress for the iconic role of Carrie. I'm not saying Chloe is a terrible actress because she's not, she's far from it. However, she didn't shine at this role and she didn't do a good job at bringing the character to life. The sad part is, if this was the very first film I saw her in then I would of thought she was a horrible actress. Thankfully this isn't the first film I've seen her in so I know she's not a horrible actress.
My theory as to why she didn't do a great job is because she was trying a little too hard to surpass Sissy Spacek's performance in the original. But let's all be fair, there is no way any actress could do that. I think she wanted to make this film her own and make everyone think of her when they think of Carrie White and it came off as forced. I had my doubts when they chose her for the role and my doubts were right. Julianne Moore on the other hand did an amazing job as Carrie's mother, Margaret White. I adored Piper Laurie's performance as Carrie's mother in the original so I am very pleased that I wasn't disappointed with Julianne.
I didn't expect Moore to be horrible cause she's a wonderful actress but I didn't expect her acting to shine through as much as it did. You would expect this movie to be Chloe's movie since she plays the title role and the whole movie is about her. Nope, this movie was Julianne Moore's movie. If she wasn't cast as Margaret White then I think this movie would of got a lower rating then it did. She made this movie her's and did a great job. She did such an amazing job that you'd wish she was in every scene. I was surprised at how great she was. It's pretty awkward knowing that your costar who doesn't have as much screen time as you, doing a better job in the movie and making more of an impression than you.
Gabriella Wilde did a great job as Sue Snell along with Ansel Elgort who played her boyfriend, Tommy Ross. Tommy Ross was the most likable character in the movie and he's the type of person that everyone would want to be friends with and date. Portia Doubleday put the itch in bitch as her role of Chris Hargensen. She was the typical rich, spoiled little brat that just so happens to have Daddy's credit card everywhere she goes. I couldn't help but gag every time she was on screen, which is a good thing. Alex Russell who played Sue's boyfriend, Billy Nolan also did a great job and put the ick in dick. Haha I love those jokes. ;) I wasn't too impressed with Judy Greer's performance as the gym teacher, Ms. Desjardin. I also thought her acting in this movie was forced and it came off as fake. I like her in other movies such as '13 Going On 30' but I didn't like her in this movie.
Now onto the main event of the movie, the prom massacre. While watching this movie I had high anxiety waiting for this scene to come. The biggest scene of the movie and the one that had the most expectations. I couldn't wait to see what they had done with it and how it was going to play out. Having anxiety and excitement for this scene, it was a huge disappointment that the prom massacre scene was a huge letdown and very underwhelming. It wasn't scary, it wasn't big and it wasn't a blow out as it should of been. It left you thinking "That was it!?" and feeling ripped off. Chloe's facial expressions and hand movements throughout this scene looked REALLY stupid. I understand that Carrie uses her hands to control her power in the novel but the way she did it was dumb. Also, the fact that she flew out of the gym was the dumbest part in this scene.
Kimberly Peirce's direction of the movie wasn't bad, I just wish she made this movie more of her own. I read in an article that she had a vision going for this remake but I don't think her vision was expressed that much in the movie. There are three things that I really, really, REALLY wish they would of fixed in the movie and it irritated me the most.
1: Chloe Grace Moretz was way too pretty in the movie. Her being bullied in school would of made more sense if they made her ugly in the movie. A super pretty girl who's super religious being the most bullied girl in school sounds stupid compared to a ugly girl who's super religious. Now, don't get me wrong. I DO NOT condone any form of bullying but a girl being bullied in school because she's not pretty or popular and she's super religious (along with having a overbearing religious mother) makes more sense. I know they could of fugged her up but chose not to. Come on, Hollywood. Shape up!
2: I don't like how they threw out Sue's subplot at the very end of the movie. (Don't worry, I won't spoil it) They didn't even develop it very well and the way they put it in there made it seem like they were just trying to add more things to the movie before it was over. It also made me feel like they just put it in there to have it open the door for a sequel and we don't need that.
3: While watching this movie I kept thinking that it was PG-13. Every time they would say the would fuck I would be shocked that they actually said that more than once in a PG-13 movie. Then I remembered that it was rated R, not PG-13. I don't know about you all but when I go to an R rated movie, I want it to look like an R rated movie. Not an R rated movie that looks and makes you feel like it's a PG-13 movie. I know this might not be that big of a deal to everyone but I don't think it's a good thing that an R rated movie comes off as a PG-13 or makes you feel like that.
I know I've mentioned before that I was pleased with the end result of this movie, that may be true but I need to clarify that statement. I was pleased with this movie as it being just a normal horror movie by itself. I wasn't pleased with this movie at it being a remake of cult classic horror movie. I can see it being really good if this was the very first adaptation of the film but it's not. It didn't do a great job because this movie didn't need to be remade, there was no point in it. Hollywood horror has run out of ideas for movies and they're lazy so they rather make a pointless remake or sequel that's going to suck rather than be creative and come up with a new original concept for a movie. I said it once and I'll say it again. Lazy fat cats.
I give this movie 3 out of 5 Skulls.