Sorry guys but this was better than the original. The original feels like it takes forever and the are only a few scenes worrh watching and the rest of the movie lags, but this was enjoyable right from the first 30 seconds. The only semi likable char in original was Tommy. In this one kids are being kids and bullies, but some DO feel guilt,and most of the adults are personable. Totally worth it.
shareThe 1976 film is much better if you saw it in 1976, or near then. A lot of it looks quaint now. I still think it's a splendid film, and it certainly helped Stephen King's career. It was going to be a long time before you saw an adaptation of a Stephen King story that was nearly as good as Carrie in 1976.
share100% wrong. This and the 2002 versions are much better and more true to the book.
I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.
This and the 2002 versions are much better and more true to the book.I know it's pointless to ask, but just how EXACTLY are the two remakes more true to the book? I mean specific examples, please. Let's see how long this takes... share
I can name a few ways: the 2002 one has the rain of stones, which is what the book started out referencing. It also has the town destruction, ruined by awful CGI, but it's still in there.
In the 2013 version, Carrie's character is truer to the book in that she does the prom killing coldly and deliberately. In both Spacek's and Bettis' version, she's in a kind of trance that allows the viewer to excuse her monstrosity. In Chloe's version, she's more powerful, and in the book she was very powerful, though not quite in the same ways. (She was communicating telepathically with people and could affect things far away and out of her sight, and to do that, she was clairvoyant). She raised herself on the bed in this movie and the book, which implies she can raise herself when not on the bed. You also have the rain of stones, and you have the birth of Carrie very similar to what's described in the book. Not to put too much on it, but Chris is the only character besides Carrie and Margaret who is described physically. And she's described specifically as a brunette.
Also, Chloe was actually the right age for the part. Though she is far prettier than how Carrie was described, she was physically closer to the book's description than either Spacek or Bettis. And she looked younger, when Carrie was obviously a late-bloomer.
Chris' father enters into the plot in this one.
And Ms. Dejardins was the most faithful to the book yet, and she survives the prom massacre, as she did in the book. (She also survives in the 2002 version).
Fair enough. Personally I don't think these elements are so important as to warrant the 2013 remake better or even as good as the 1976 version. I think the earlier version has a more natural and organic sense about it, while this one always seemed more perfunctory and Hollywood. I also think the original cast (most of whom were unknowns and later became stars) was exceptional. I also disagree how Spacek's Carrie seemed to be a victim of her own powers, committing atrocities in a fugue state of some kind. In the movie, Spacek seems pretty aware and deliberate but it's far more subtle -- the remake girl comes off as Godzilla laying waste to Tokyo. The main problem I had with this movie (and most remakes) is the sledgehammer effect where everything needs to be spelled and beaten into the viewer, and the special effects and gore have to ratcheted up to the nth degree or it's not horror. Very few remakes are special in their own right -- 2004's Dawn of the Dead, 2006's The Hills Have Eyes, and 2013's Maniac being among the exceptions.
You only like the original because it's what most people like and you don't wanna face the fact that the two remakes are BETTER because they remain true to the book which is very important
I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.
You only like the original because it's what most people likeMy goodness you must be as clairvoyant as Carrie to know so much about a person you've never even met. Maybe I like it because it is, in fact, better.
U might as well beat your head against a wall. You are "arguing" with someone who thinks Kristin Stewart is talent..... enough said!
shareThe three films definitely have different directorial approaches. I don't know exactly what you mean by calling De Palma's "natural and organic." That movie appeared to call attention to itself as a movie much more than the other two did. Natural and organic to me would be one in which the movie viewer would see and hear exactly what an observer in the world would. But De Palma's employment of slow motion, the stab music to tell you Carrie's using her power, and other such devices make that absurd. So, you can't be meaning that.
Now, if you're saying "natural and organic" meaning not so dependent on expensive special effects inserted out of sight of the actors and the director, I'd say yes. The cost of that, however, is that, De Palma had to do things that called attention to the fact that you're watching a movie.
I myself agree with you that Spacek's Carrie wasn't in a fugue state (in fact that possibility never occurred to me until I came to this group). However, I had to concede Spacek's Carrie is open to that interpretation. So much so that the 2002 version took it and ran with it. Carrie in that film was unambiguously in a fugue state. I can argue that Spacek's Carrie just had a creepy stare. Even so, the 2002 version couldn't have gotten Carrie to a trance from Stephen King's novel without Spacek's creepy stare giving them the idea.
"the remake girl comes off as Godzilla laying waste to Tokyo."
Also, Sue's pregnancy is included
I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.
Which is not in the book.
In the book, Sue has a pregnancy scare because her period was late. But Carrie's death scene then ends with Sue getting her period, late. (And the way it's described it can't be a miscarriage.)
So, there was a pregnancy scare but no pregnancy.
Therefore, the 2013 version is not completely faithful to the book. In fact, I don't think any of them were remarkably faithful to it. They really can't be as a movie since in the Carrie long scenes alone where the only action is her thinking.
I won't argue because you obviously missed the whole point of my post. Please reread it and try to say something relevant.
shareI'm with you, freeist. You're right. The remakes are more true to the book, making them better than the original. The original cut and changed too much
I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.
Thank you, but that's not quite my drift. They all altered the story to about an equal degree but in different ways. As I said above, none of them were remarkably faithful.
However, that's not the only measure of how good an adaptation is.
True. But this and the 2002 versions were closest and best
I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.
I don't know how to measure "the closest." I didn't notice it any closer than any of the other ones. It introduced a lot of things that weren't in the book. The police investigation replaced the White Commission and all epistolary material. Sue had a line, "He's been very cooperative ever since I began to sex with him." Tina Blake says and does thing she definitely doesn't do in the book, and almost overshadows Chris as the antagonist. Then it has Carrie doing the rampage in a trance. Totally not from the book.
No, I didn't see much difference in any being the closest. As for the best, I'm afraid I can watch either of the other two versions without much of a problem, but I have a hard time getting through 2002 version.
Also, closest to the book is not necessarily the same thing as the best. Though in the case of Carrie, I wish they'd do the town destruction.
They did the town destruction in the 2002 version
I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.
That's true, a very poor and dull town destruction where Carrie's vengeful and vindictive but in a trance so she's still nice. Okay, never mind that.
However, Carrie still took a bath at the end, not in the book at all. She strangled her mother's heart, not slowly and viciously, but automatically in self-defense.
Then she survived. Hardly faithful. I know they were trying to make it into a TV show. That might be an excuse, but at the same time, making her the heroine of a TV show is about as unfaithful to the book as the film could have possibly been. No other version has been that unfaithful. I realize that was their intent all along, and that's the point.
Sorry, I can't score the 2002 movie as being faithful to the book, and in every other way, it's not as good.
It's wrong to claim that being more true to the book automatically makes it a better film. Film adaptations can differ from their source material for all sorts of different reasons. Often, what works on the page simply doesn't work on film, so changes have to be made. There's nothing wrong with doing that. A film should be judged on its own merits, good or bad - not subjected to a page by page analysis against its source material to decide how close a copy it is. Films and books are different media and should be treated as such. A great film could be made from a poor book, and vice versa.
Personally, I actually preferred this version to the original, for many of the reasons outlined in this thread. I found it far more engaging and entertaining. The only thing I didn't like about it was the casting of Carrie herself. I felt Chloe Grace Moretz was too pretty to be seen as such an outsider in that environment, and as a result there was nothing particularly surprising about her transformation when she gets dressed up for the Prom. I just don't think Carrie, as played by Moretz, would be treated in the way that the character is treated in the film (actually that's also an issue with the story itself, as I've often felt that a lot of people in the Carrie story act in ways that they would never really act in).
The TV movie of The Shining was more faithful to the novel than the Kubrick film. Was it better than the Kubrick version? No, it was bloody awful.
Just because something is more 'true' to the book doesn't make it a better film.
Was it a millionaire who said "Imagine no possessions"?
[deleted]
This remake failed on so many levels. It's sad they had to make this trashy remake with a girl who doesn't even look like Carrie.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
THE ORIGINAL WAS NOT TRUE TO THE BOOK, GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS!!!! THE NEW ONES ARE BETTER AS THEY ARE MORE TRUE TO THE BOOK!!!!!!!!!
I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.
THE NEW ONES ARE BETTER AS THEY ARE MORE TRUE TO THE BOOK!!!!!!!!!
------------------------
Why is it important that the movie be true to the book? If this new and infinitely-worse-in-every-way version is more true to the novel, then it is just possible it's because the director of the movie had nothing new or interesting to say and that this movie was made only for the purpose of making a fast, cheap buck before word got out how bad it is. On the other hand, Brian DePalma is his own "director", so to speak. He is not going to be restrained or hampered by considerations of fidelity. He is a true master stylist, and this is my favorite movie of his. He is so edgy and funny and cruel and clever, and when DePalma is really freewheeling like he is here, he cannot be touched. There isn't one boring scene in the entire movie (my all-time favorite, btw), and Sissy Spacek gives what I consider to be the all-time best, or at the very least, my own personal favorite performance. She acts without ego. I have seen this movie more times than I care to reveal, but I have looked at every minute expression on Sissy's face, and there is not one blink that betrays her sensitive, sweet, heartbreaking and - finally - terrifying portrayal of Carrie White. The other two girls were so bland, I thought, especially in this one. Chloe Moritz is about as interesting as "Saved by the Bell". I think the only ones who could ever find her appealing would have to be no older than 14 years. She is aimed strictly at the junior high school crowd.
I thought the book was good, very enjoyable and certainly better than the two later movie versions. But the 1976 movie was actually an improvement on Mr. King's book. And it is the 1976 version that has become iconic and will be remembered for far longer than the other two, which were instantly forgettable.
Spacek....acts without ego....... I have looked at every minute expression on Sissy's face, and there is not one blink that betrays her sensitive, sweet, heartbreaking and - finally - terrifying portrayal of Carrie White.
______________________
Spacek is an absolute marvel Mr. Hutch and I love your simple and assertive manner with words and descriptions, yet you get deep to the core. You can feel this fine tuned and possibly even great performance and let it touch every cell in your being.
Chloe Moretz.....I think the only ones who could ever find her appealing would have to be no older than 14 years. She is aimed strictly at the junior high school crowd.
_______________
Bear in mind Mr. Hutch, that Moretz was the same age—15—as Carrie was in the novel, whereas as Spacek had about 12 years of maturity and experience over her, when she did her take on Carrie. I have watched this remake about 7\8 times and while Mortez may come over as a tad bland compared to Sissy, she does convey a subtle sense of desperation\depression with her take on Carrie, that I didn't see in Spacek. If it wasn't for Spacek's performance—which no one can touch—I would personally prefer to watch this remake, which I feel is an improvement in 'some' areas, of De Palma's cheesy sequences. Bearing in mind, I am not that fond of his CARRIE-76' overall and to be fair, he was limited to what he could do, due to the technology of the era.
I read the book, before I saw the film and in my mind's eye, I saw a darker and more sombre setting and atmosphere. I didn't really get that from any of the film adaptations and I suppose they all fail in this department, for me.
[deleted]
Budget would have played a big factor. I did read somewhere, that he had to scrap the town destruction scene. De Palma was given a bigger budget for THE FURY-78, after his success and while a similar thematic film, not as popular. It perhaps did things better, that CARRIE could have done, if he had the money.
share[deleted]
While I am not overly fond of CGI effects they use today—and they do have their place and work for some films—if DePalma did have more money to work with, the technology could still make the film appear quaint or dated. It would have been miniatures\models and back screen\blue screen projection and opticals, which can look wonderful when done right; but likely not so impressive, compared to today. I think with a film like CARRIE, which needed some effects, it is still an intimate tale and they need to be used appropriately; which I found they were more than adequate in this remake.
share[deleted]
The kaleidoscope effect always reminds me of what they used in 8mm porn films
_________
It was a bit cheap and cheesy looking, like I commented earlier. I also didn't care much for the split screen. It worked better in DRESSED TO KILL-80'.
I thought De Palma's prom scene and build up to the blood dump was impressive, as for the chaos and mayhem.....blah!!! The spooky shots of Spacek were fine though.
[deleted]
as for the chaos and mayhem.....blah!!!
[deleted]
[deleted]
Any director who remakes a classic is damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
________________
I question whether CARRIE-76', is actually a classic horror\drama\thriller, or whatever genre it is. It does have a cult following. Spacek gives a classic performance; but is that enough?
[deleted]
Aside from the film being critically acclaimed, I don't know if it's considered a classic.
________________
Exactly! That is why, with a remake of a film like CARRIE-76', you can pretty much do with it what you want, as the original film, left plenty of room for improvement.
Films like ALL ABOUT EVE-50', THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY-66', ROSEMARY'S BABY-68', or even WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE-62'—a camp classic—to name a few, would be difficult to improve upon or make better, as they're already pretty much perfect the way they are, flaws and all. A part of and an embracement of the era in which they were made. The flaws are an inherent and crucial part of their finished product. I see CARRIE-76', as having more fallible and tangible inconsistencies. This remake didn't quite have the same quality of performace, (for the most part); but it was like a touch up or more polished version of De Palma's. He apparently was on the set too, during the blood dump sequence.
The remake is not polished and it was a giant leap backwards. Carrie '76 can not be improved or made better.
shareThe remake is not polished and it was a giant leap backwards.
___________________
Leap backwards to where? It was pretty much the same film as De Palmas'; but the script was changed, from what was originally planned. The film was more polished, in the sense that it was technically more sound. This is not to dis-credit De Palma, as he is a great technical director and more of an auteur than Peirce; but quite frankly, I thought visually, this new version looked very good and it was able to do things that De Palma couldn't, mainly SFX wise. I laugh, when I think of Carrie rolling Billy Nolan's vehicle and the cheesy shot of her eyes and the rip off "Psycho' music, then the car rolls and explodes. There was a better pay off for that Hargensen b!t@h and the sociopathic dou@hb@g Nolan, in this remake. Each to their own though.
Carrie '76 can not be improved or made better.
_______________
That is a subjective opinion. We don't know if it is going to get remade again and how well.
rip off "Psycho' music,
Um, Carrie 2013 ripped off Carrie '76, so
_______________
That wasn't the original intention and while I was initially disappointed to hear, that it was basically a remake of De Palma's version, I ended up taking it for what it was, not for what it wasn't. I still see virtue in it. Since I am not that sold on De Palma's version, it is easy for me to accept this new one. I can understand though, why those that feel it is a classic, would be caustic about it. Even if the 'Carrie' remake was a different film and faithful to the novel, there would still be detractors.
The book came first. So that's why its important. If the movie came first, then that's different. They can make it however they want. But if it's based on a book, it needs to be true to the book.
I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.
The movie Brian DePalma made has had and even longer lasting impact than Stephen King's book, his first. The 1976 movie was enormously popular, earned 2 Oscar nominations and put the likes of DePalma, Sissy Spacek, Nancy Allen, Amy Irving, Betty Buckley and John Travolta on the map. The remakes were unnecessary and instantly forgettable.
So, whatever Brian DePalma's instincts were, he was right to make "Carrie" the way he did. Look at it another way, if he hadn't turned out such a popular movie, it wouldn't have resulted in this new remake that you are so fond of. You should be grateful for the 1976 film.
Yeah, and the remake stayed true to the '76 movie and not the book.
shareNo, its closer to the book.
Be Brave and Never Give Up ^.^
The two remakes are closer to the book.
I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.
[deleted]
No. The 2013 version was very true to the book only in a modern updated way
I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.
[deleted]
Regardless of which version I choose to watch—and they are all flawed in some way—and how faithful to the novel they are, or if one has an aspect that is better than the other; it is THE STORY that is compelling, and that is basically the same.
shareYES, IT IS. I'M IN CHARGE. IT IS TRUE TO THE 2013 VERSION MOVIE IS TRUE TO THE BOOK,ONLY MODERNIZED!!!!!
I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.
If they had included the young Carrie rain of hail\stones sequence and had 2 buckets of pigs blood and more characterization of Billy Nolan and a big woman playing Margaret White and a longer sequence of the town destruction, then it would be more like the book. As it was, they used more from the book than De Palma's version, in a condensed sense.
The deleted rain of hail\stone sequence was how they were originally going to open the film; but I think it was a good choice to open with Margaret's birth of Carrie. It could have worked, if they included the "Young Carrie" sequence, when Carrie was researching in the library about TK and made it like a flashback\memory recollection sequence.
[deleted]
.....and the White Commission investigation and Carrie fleeing the prom after the blood dump......
____________
I have downloaded the original script for this remake and I don't think the White Commission scenes would have worked that well and would have been distracting, jumping backwards and forth.....like they utilised the police investigation, in the 02' version. Carrie's fleeing worked fine in the novel; but wasn't exactly necessary. In this remake, Carrie does actually look set to leave, as she steps of the stage and then remembers Tommy which sets her off. It was alluded in the novel, that Carrie had forgotten about her powers due to the ridicule and this is what they would have been implying here.
.....they just used stuff from Lawrence D. Cohen's original script that DePalma didn't.....
_______
Which Cohen would have lifted straight from the novel and made some changes. I think another poster has commented, that Stephen King liked some of the changes and ideas.
..the newer stuff in this version in this version was not taken from the book. Like Carrie being able to fly, or stomp cracking the road etc. Or levitating the car and throwing it and a thoroughly unrepentant Chris at a set of gas station pumps.
_______________
This is what they gave us, in lieu of the town destruction and much of Carrie's energy, was directed towards that Hargensen b!t@h. Carrie was portrayed as quite unrepentant too, during the prom destruction and payback on Chris & Billy scenes. This wasn't quite unlike the book, where Carrie is drawn as less sympathetic during her reign of terror, over Chamberlain.
[deleted]
... a big problem I had with the remake in that Carrie barely reacts to the blood dump which is suppose to finally devastate the character on an emotional level.
________________
I can see Spacek now, in my minds eye, and the look of absolute WTF confusion and dread on her face, with her hands almost clutching up to her face. This was extraordinary; but there is only one Sissy Spacek and that is what makes her unique. Moretz appeared to have more of a look of bland despair on her face and when she stepped of the stage and then went back and knelt beside Tommy, there was grief behind it. I agree it wasn't as potent; but different and if it could have been directed another way, it wasn't thought of at the time. I don't mind the differences, but Spacek does take the pip.
DePalma got round by not having her drop electrical cables on the wet floor while she was in the room.
_______________
The 02 version, had Carrie push the water away from around her and in the 13' remake, she levitated Ms. Desjardin and herself. I suppose you could say, that is how they got around it. Something new here.
Stephen King's comments were directed at the finished film not the original script.
_____________
The finished film, was still based on what was in the script, albeit modified. He could have still liked it, if De Palma had left in the stuff that he decided to take out. I think that is my main beef with De Palma's version, that it wasn't long enough and I feel he could have expanded it a little more. I don't mind Travolta's presence in the film, but I feel he was wrong for Billy Nolan. Too much charisma and he was also an interesting character, that none of the versions appeared to get right. More focus on Hargensen.
No one has got it quite right, in my opinion, but 1976 comes out tops for the performances and the style.
________________
I doubt they will bother to do another version, anytime soon or later, due to this one being a bit of a dud at the box office. It is going to have to have some rare magic, with the right actors cast and the script and direction, to get it to work better than any of the 3 gone before. For all those fond of De Palma's version, I would say they needn't bother, as it was done right the first time.
[deleted]
....the 2013 version really pushed it for me. I thought it just came off as silly having Carrie fly/float off the stage.
________________
I liked how Carrie's powers were more fully realized here. The energy emanating from her was so strong and powerful, the levitation appeared feasible to me. You may have seen De Palma's THE FURY-78', in which there were 2 teens with TK powers. Andrew Steven's character was able to levitate, although it didn't appear save him from his lame death, when he fell.
[deleted]
It's certainly not the film that was promised.
________________
They reneged on their promise and were likely worried that it may have failed, if filmed as originally intended. They needn't have worried, as it didn't end up being a smash, regardless. The producers should have had more integrity.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Rhetorical or not, I am answering. I own the book and I love it.
I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.
[deleted]
Then you'd know full well that the 2013 version isn't any more like the book than the 1976 version.
__________
I think you are going to have a difficult time markb..., trying to convince KristenStewartForever of anything that means applying a little common sense. He, most likely 'she', is silly, young and immature and has along way to go.
[deleted]
Shut up!!! I'm a he!!! And I'm in charge here!!!
I love you, Kristen Stewart. :) You are so beautiful and talented. I would love to perform with you.
No way is this better than the De Palma film. I agree with most other people in that the lead actress was too pretty and not odd enough. Moritz was as suitable for the Carrie role as Vince Vaughn was for Norman Bates. I also didn't like the scenes showing her discovering telekinetic powers; they seemed too X-Men-ish..Carrie goin all Magneto.
I've seen waay worse nowadays re-makes of horror classics but this film just felt extremely unnecessary.