Carrie

Like "Dawn of the Dead", the original "Carrie" story is so good that generally faithful remakes like this are still entertaining even if they are not equal to the original De Palma film. And "film" is an important word in this particular case because this Canadian remake was shot on digital video instead of film. Each year video technology gets closer to reproducing the look of film but in 2002 it still had a long way to go. Video has a sharper more realistic look than film and a much lower contrast ratio, making it appropriate for documentary and historical films but not so good for expressionistic stuff or stylistic horror films in the Hitchcock and Argento tradition. This could have been a fatal flaw had the remake of "Carrie" been a theatrical release or even if it had been introduced to a world of high definition big screen televisions. But most 2002 viewers watched this thing on 19-inch standard definition televisions where these differences are barely detectable.Both the original and the remake stay "generally" faithful to the Stephen King novel so long-time fans will have little to cringe about. On the plus side, the remake does a good job of creating some destruction in the town, something that De Palma could not do for budgetary reasons. On the minus side, the original ending is altered (extended) in a totally contrived way to keep things open for a future television series (maybe Carrie finds her "Tru Calling") for which the producers ultimately could not find adequate financing.Angela Bettis' "Carrie" is virtually identical to the Sissy Spacek version. Her performance is at least as good and probably better but the entire supporting cast is so much weaker that it is hard to judge. Bettis is clearly too old for the role but so is everyone playing her high school classmates so it is not a glaring problem. As Carrie's mother, Patricia Clarkson is a poor substitute for Piper Laurie. This is no surprise since Laurie's performance was the best thing about the original but Clarkson's repressed version of the character takes away from the sympathy factor Bettis is going for. The two of them, however, are responsible for the remake's best moment as Carrie mentally slides her mother out of the bedroom and slams the door after her, but not before she warns her to be careful about keeping her fingers away from the slamming the door.It is a matter of personal choice about whether it is best to watch Bettis' incredible performance in "May" before or after viewing "Carrie". She plays a similar character in "May" (including the sewing skills) but the supporting cast and the directing is so much better, making May a more believable, sympathetic, and terrifying character. But Bettis has one truly extraordinary scene in "Carrie", watch for the cosmetics scene in the drug store midway into the film. The camera stays tight on her face for several minutes and the emotional range she cycles through renders any dialogue unnecessary. She turns a very ordinary sequence into something truly special.The DVD release of the Carrie remake would have benefited from some serious trimming. They needed a lot of padding to get up to a 2 Hour 12 Minute running length (for a three hour television broadcast) and the DVD authors did not even bother to edit out the fades in and out for the many commercials. There are several useless sequences like ten minutes at the local pig farm. Better to have used the time to put some dimensionality into the main villains; the really popular kids do not have the time or the interest to harass classmates at the absolute bottom of the pecking order. King's weakness has traditionally been a failure to adequately explain the motivations driving his villains and the remake had time to address this issue.The main device for upping the running time was the addition of a post-prom police investigation headed by David Keith in a rather nothing performance. This serves to introduce the real story in a series of linearly told flashbacks and therefore could not be carved out of a re-cut version.Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

Readers who were die-hard fans of the novel "Carrie" might emphathize with my level of disappointment after viewing Brian DePalma's movie based on Stephen King's novel. I'd expected so much from that movie, what with DePalma, director of boss films like "Sisters" and "Hi, Mom," and brilliant actors like Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie on board to bring the novel to life. But when I stepped out of the cinema I was scandalized because my favorite novel had been so badly degraded and cheapened. The now-classic novel had been "raped" by that part of Hollywood that caters to junior high school mentalities who get off on gore and the F word.And then, several decades later a miracle happened: Stephen King's "Carrie" was recreated, crafted intelligently and with respect. Just as no actor can replace Gregory Peck in the role of Atticus Finch, no actor can ever surpass Angela Bettis in the role of Carrie White. Bettis not only plays the role, she OWNS it; her performance undoubtedly brought a tear of joy to the eye of the author himself. Equal praise goes to those actors who played the roles of gym teacher Ms. Desjardin and the kids: Sue, Chris, Tommy, Billy, gurgly Norma and Chris' shadow Tina. Their dialogue, behaviors and antics not only do justic to King's characters, but are realistic enough to remind one of her/his own high school days. Furthermore, the movie's special effects, so painfully lacking in the '76 film, are fascinating and scary enough to please any horror-flick fan. In short, "Carrie" is so fine a movie that it almost succeeds in wiping the Z-grade 1976 version from memory.Despite all my goggly praise for this movie, I have two criticisms that keep me from giving it a 5-Star rating: the watered-down charactorization of Carrie's mother and the movie's ludicrous conclusion. The Margaret White of King's novel was a woman religiously fanatical to the point of insanity, however the screenplay has Margaret watered down to nearly the level of Marmee in "Little Women." On hand to play the role is Patricia Clark, an outstanding actor in her own right. Throughout the movie, I felt cheated waiting for Margaret to explode with her characteristic self-righteous fury of the novel and getting nothing but firm scoldings. Especially disappointing was the scene where Margaret tries to drown Carrie with almost no emotion. The scene in the novel where Margaret stabs Carrie rather than drowns her has Margaret reminiscing with great emotion the "sin" of her marriage to Carrie's father and her plan to kill Carrie, the child from her "unholy" liason, at birth. Throughout the movie, we never learn what makes Carrie's mother tick, which is sad since she's such an integral character in the story.Why anyone would spoil an terrific movie with so assinine a conclusion is beyond me. The conclusion isn't even worth a mention. Carrie dies in the novel bleeding to death in a field where Sue eventually finds her, and Sue is horrified when Carrie "invades" her very soul as she transitions from life to death. Why not have used that conclusion for the movie rather than end it with a rubbishy storyline involving secret graveyard burials and Carrie escaping to parts unknown, courtesy of Sue and camouflaged in a blond Beatle wig?Despite these weaknesses, "Carrie" is a movie that will be valued in its own right, even for viewers unfamiliar with King's novel. The movie does Stephen King's novel well-deserved justice, and I'm sure that King himself would agree!

Very good

I love this version of Carrie because it has something the other Carrie does not have, I would even go as far to say I prefer it to the original.

Loin d'être ausii bien que l'original..mais apreciable..un ptit coup de jeune a l'histoire c'est pas mal..Le Casting est simpa..la fin est pitoyable..Dommagepk changer la fin..?Visionner ya longtemp sur M6je voulait voir la fin..jaurait du mabstenir..Dommage qu'il soit disponible que en Sous titré Francais.

I'VE WATCHED WITH INTEREST A NUMBER OF REMAKE FILS AND ALTHOUGH THE THOUGHT WAS THERE , THERE IS ALWAYS JUST THAT LITTLE SOMETHING MISSING.THE FILM ALTHOUGH BASICALLYTHE SAME THE REMAKE SEEMS TO LOSE THAT SUBTLE SOMETHING . FOR SAYING THAT THE ACKTING IS VERY GOOD BUT LACKS THAT SPECIAL SISSY FINNESE.IT IS STILL A WORTH WHILE ADDITION TO ONES COLLECTION IF THAT IS YOUR BAG . IF THAT IS YOUR BAG GO AND BUY IT IT STILL RATES A GOOD VARIATION ON SPEILBURGS ORIGINAL.A GOOD RECOMONDATION FROM THE SCI-FLYER.