Review: Carrie

by Trevor Kirkendall

★½

One day, moviegoers are going to realize that remakes really are a gigantic waste of time. Not only a waste of the moviegoer’s time, but a waste of the studios’, the directors’, the producers’ and the talents’ time. Yet, people still pay money to watch the same movie that they probably already own in their DVD collections. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Now, we have a remake of the classic 1976 horror film “Carrie”. The studio even knows it’s doomed because they’ve advertised it as a “reimagining” of the original novel rather than a remake. Their slick advertising techique is quite transparent, and its pretty evident from the beginning that this is nothing more than a simple remake.

Carrie White (Chloë Grace Moretz) is a shy, quiet and troubled teen in high school. Most of the other students don’t really care for her. Carrie’s mother Margaret (Julianne Moore) is a very strict and religious woman, and she doesn’t even want Carrie attending the public schools. One day after gym class, the other girls in the locker room ridicule and embarrass Carrie.

The bullying is lead by one of the popular girls, Chris Hargensen (Portia Doubleday). Her friend Sue Snell (Gabriella Wilde) also participates, but quickly realizes how wrong this is and stops. Gym teacher Ms. Desjardin (Judy Greer) breaks up the commotion and sides with Carrie.

Chris is banned from the upcoming prom for her stunt. Sue, feeling sorry for Carrie, asks her boyfriend Tommy Ross (Ansel Elgort) to take Carrie to prom instead. Carrie reluctantly agrees despite her mother’s insistence that she doesn’t go. Chris plans for vengeance against Carrie with her boyfriend Billy Nolan (Alex Russell). What her classmates don’t know is that Carrie has a special ability where she can move things with her mind. And what would any sane person with this ability do when someone gets on his or her bad side? I think most people know what happens next.

Nothing new is brought to the table in this version of “Carrie”. I wish I could say this wasn’t a remake of the 1976 film since the source material is based on a Stephen King novel, but it’s hard to see it that way. The book has been readapted, but it’s far from a reimagining. It’s not a shot-for-shot remake but it might as well have been. More inspiration seems to have been drawn from the 1976 film than the novel.

It’s disappointing to see someone as talented as Moretz participate in a remake and bring nothing new to the role. Remakes probably wouldn’t be so awful if they find some way to make it different and unique. Moretz as Carrie White is no different than Sissy Spacek in the same role. Spacek’s portrayal is one of the classic performances in the history of horror films.

Too watch Moretz copy Spacek’s performance is egregious. She’s talented beyond her years and is one of the most gifted teen actresses working in Hollywood today. She wastes her time with “Carrie” and utilizes none of her talent in bringing this role to life. To say her presence here is a disappointment is an understatement.

Moore is the only bright spot. She does portray the role a little differently than Piper Laurie. Moore is always solid in everything she does; not surprisingly she shines here. She’s evil, but doesn’t believe what she’s doing and how she’s raising her daughter is wrong. It’s difficult for someone to successfully pull off an evil role like this, but Moore is such a great and rare talent. She has no issues here.

Director Kimberly Peirce (“Boys Don’t Cry”, “Stop-Loss”) is just as guilty of copying from the original as Moretz. Brian De Palma helmed the original and really brought the horrific imagery of the original King novel to life. He deserves all the credit for the famous scene everyone knows from the original. Peirce tries to make that one famous scene her own. While the effects might be a little sharper (thanks to 2013 CGI), it’s not as effective. Outside of that, everything else feels bland and very similar to the original.

As a reimagining, “Carrie” fails. As a remake, it still fails. There’s nothing new that we haven’t seen before. I don’t understand why there’s a market for remakes these days. It seems that if Hollywood isn’t making a sequel to something, they’re remaking old properties. Was this remake really that necessary? Most aren’t but this one certainly wasn’t. It’s a lazy attempt at remaking yet another horror film. What’s really disappointing is waiting the entire film until the prom expecting something massive and getting nothing different.

To me, remakes are for people who want to see the same story they’ve already seen before, and for studios too cheap to buy new ideas from writers. If that’s the case, studios need to find property that’s good but not well known. At least then we’d be treated to something different. It’s hard to remake something everyone has seen. And if moviegoers really want to see the same story they’ve already seen before, why not just watch the original? In this case, that might be a wise decision.