I seriously don't get it, i think this was an ok movie, better than i expected. Way better than most horror films these days.
Sometimes it seems that either people are trolls, or they just have to feel better about themselfs dissing everything :D
So if someone doesn't like this movie they are a troll? lol. Why all the hate?
shareNever said that ;) I said it feels like people just hate for hating everything that's a remake. Julianne Moore was good in this, Chloe Moretz was good. That girl who played Chris really was a bitch, and i liked her body language, she really was annoying. Reminded me of those spoiled kids that i went to school with. Her facial expression when they sneaked in the the prom area. She really seemed to honestly excited.
This isn't the best movie ever, but i personally can't see why people say this sucks as much as they do. I would like to hear some reasons, so i could look at the movie and think about them myself, if i've missed them. Something other than "well, this just sucks!".
Lazy, done for cash rehash of the original movie which brings very few new ideas, casts a hot supermodel as the school's ugly duckling, and tried to paint one of the main hate sinks (Chris) in a sympathetic light for no discernible reason. Throw in some dodgy CGI and seriously subpar performances (Greer, Wilde) and it's even worse
I'll give it Moore, who was pretty great, and Elgort, who's likeable. And I suppose Russell is inoffensive
It's better than the original.
shareCritics from Rotten Tomatoes
Carrie (2013) 48%
Carrie (1976) 93%
Viewers from IMDb
Carrie (2013) 5.9/10
Carrie (1976) 7.4/10
"The (1976) film received two Academy Award nominations, one for Sissy Spacek in the title role and one for Piper Laurie as her abusive mother."
That's the popular opinion.
>("They're all goin' to laugh at'choo!")
INTRUDER ALERT! INTRUDER ALERT!
You may want to change your handle if you want to be taken seriously-otherwise we'll think you're just a dumb *beep*
shareI think the most vocal detractors are the ones who heard about this new version from early conception and spent over a year hearing from so many people involved how much this was not a remake of the movie and would closely follow the novel. I was very interested in seeing what the cast/director would do with the version we were initially promised, and the end result was pure disappointment for anyone who really wanted a faithful book adaptation. I also thought the performances across the board never rose above "adequate" and I was immensely disappointed in Moore, likely because that's the one I was really looking forward to. Ordinarily I say a film should be judged alone, but if you want that to happen you can't spend a good 15ish months promising something then not deliver.
When you're 17 a cow can seem dangerous and forbidden...am I alone here?
The movie held back, as they usually do with Kings work. I like Chloe and think she's a good actress, she's okay in this, but chalk that up to writing. Is she prettier than the Carrie in the book, of course. However, how she looked in the book was not the reason she was bullied. She's described as a girl who'd be so pretty if she didn't eat so much chocolate and had some confidence.
Think about if she put on 20-25 for the role, would it make the performance or film better?
I didn't think this was bad, if it came out first, then the Sissy version, people would like this better. Its problem is its just a rehash with better effects and less 70s downtime. Neither are close to the book, but at least with the original, its more understandable with the time in came out.
A rehash with better effects?
shareThe 1976 version is regarded in high esteem by film critics and viewers, especially the performances by Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie which both earned them Oscar nominations. Its only natural to compare the two films. People who liked the 1976 version will find it difficult to like the newer version.
share