Wednesday 11 December 2013

Film: 'CARRIE'

It would have been a tall order to expect anyone to better Brian De Palma's 1976 version of this very early Stephen King novel, which has an assured place in my 'All Time Top 100 Films'. This one doesn't improve on it, and by some margin, but it's still not without some merit.

I didn't know the name of either director Kimberly Peirce nor of the young actress in the title role, one Chloe Grace Moretz, though I now see that the latter did appear in 'Hugo' and 'Kick-Ass'.

The film is the tale of Carrie White who, on reaching puberty with her first period (quite 'publicly' at high school) finds that she has telekinetic powers, which operate both involuntarily when she's emotionally charged or, as she discovers, she can operate at will. She lives alone with her religiously-fanatic and near-demented, Bible-toting mother who is fixated on the notion that we're all born into sin, though women especially grievously so - and who strives to force her daughter to accept it.
Carrie is seen as something of an 'ugly duckling' at school, ridiculed by her female classmates and their boyfriends, when a jape is played by inviting her to attend the school prom at which she's to be cruelly humiliated in front of all.

Moretz, as Carrie, is several years younger than Sissy Spacek was for De Palma, and is therefore closer to being the authentically-aged girl which King had in mind in his story. I thought she carried it off very well.
Julianne Moore (one of the reasons I bothered going to see this) plays her part with most of her religious feelings pent up inside whereas Piper Laurie in the 1976 version was much more demonstrative in her loopiness. I have to say that I thought the latter was the more effective of the two, conveying better the histrionics we still see in current day evangelism.

In the pivotal scene at the prom, De Palma showed off a whole range of cinematic tricks - split-screen, filtered-out sounds, slow motion - all of which worked brilliantly. Some of these are also employed at the same moment by Peirce, though not the use of split-screen. When Carrie wreaks havoc with her revenge for the extreme prank played on her I think that this new film had no alternative but to try to outdo De Palma in spectacular effects, which it does.

Incidentally, I'd hoped that with additional sensitivities of a later generation (so I thought) the pig-slaughtering scene would be a little less graphic than in the earlier film. Unfortunately not so.

By the way, when the 1976 was first released, among the cast was a hitherto unknown name (at least to cinema audiences) of a certain John Travolta. It wasn't highlighted in the opening credits, his name being just included among the rest of the cast. Then, a few years later in the wake of the screen success of 'Grease', 'Carrie' was given a cinema re-release but now with the opening credits re-vamped to show Travolta as one of the  main stars, despite his role not being that big. I think it was on the lines of - "And featuring JOHN TRAVOLTA"!

I only saw this film because of Julianne Moore's presence plus the fact that there was a Senior Citizens' screening for just £3.50. If it wasn't that good it wasn't too much to lose - besides, I have to confess to being a bit curious as to whether it could compare with the earlier version. As it turned out, with no regrets at having made the effort, I give the 2013 'Carrie' a.............6.


22 comments:

  1. Ray,
    I LOVED the first "Carrie". I've seen it at least four times (I think). I would be tempted to see this version of "Carrie" for the same reason you did, Julianne Moore. I'm not sure if I will see it though because I wouldn't want to ruin my very favorable memory of the first. Thanks for this review.

    Ron

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was also my reservation, Ron, that this one might dilute my very positive memory of the first film - but now, a couple of hours later, I think it's consolidated the 1976's superiority.

      Delete
  2. I agree with both of you.
    The first one I loved, and i'd only see this for Moore.
    Maybe I'll wait for it to VOD.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob,
      I almost always wait for the DVD unless the movie is in 3-D. That's why I saw "Gravity" in the theater. By the way, it was EXCELLENT!
      Ron

      Delete
    2. 'Gravity' was indeed a good film, Ron, though seeing it in great 3D as I also did, made it a stand-out experience. I think seeing it only on telly will much reduce its effect.

      Delete
    3. Bob, I think this new film would stand up better to seeing it on small screen than the earlier. I bought a video of it about 25 years ago, and it just can't cope with the split-screen moments. I don't know why they just didn't pull back and show those parts in 'letterbox' format.

      Delete
  3. Loved the book
    Hated the film
    BLOW OUT was so much better

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is the second surprise you've given me this week, J.G. I too loved the book but also the 1976 film. Although I've read the novel AT LEAST twice, more likely thrice, it's over 20 years since my last time and I still don't recall ALL the details. However, I read that this latest film follows the book more closely than the De Palma so for that reason alone it may be more up your street. Though why you take so much against the earlier film baffles me - but that's your entitlement, of course.
      Let's hope my next film will please you more, but you'll have to wait a week for the next planned visit. Okay, I'll give you a huge clue, the film's title contains the word 'Darlings'. Got it?

      'Blow Out'? Is that your farting Winnie again? (Don't bother, I know. I saw it and have forgotten it - unlike 'Carrie'!.)

      Delete
  4. Replies
    1. That was another good De Palma film - though must admit that the first time I saw it, when the killer;s face was revealed it was so contorted that initially I wasn't sure who it was. (I had the exact same experience with 'Jagged Edge'). I've always been one of those who don't always recognise a person when placed out of context - sometimes even having difficulty with my own relatives if I bumped into them outside a familiar environment.

      But it's reassuring to be reminded that our tastes occasionally do concur, J.G.

      Delete
  5. Like you, I'm curious to see this remake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's definitely one for the curious, Mitch - for comparisons sake, if nothing else. It's rather like why some of us bothered to see the Gus Van Sant remake of 'Psycho' in colour - curiosity!

      Delete
    2. I never could get myself to see the "Psycho" remake. Maybe one of these days.

      Delete
    3. I don't think one would see the re-made 'Psycho' for entertainment, Mitch. It's more like an intellectual exercise - to be experienced just once (if at all) then never again.

      Delete
  6. I didn't know this was remade... I think I might wait for the DVD. p.s. don't worry I will remove the comments ;) she wont care honest, she doesn't read English very well. lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It might be better to wait for the DVD, Sol, particularly if, like some of us, you are an admirer of the 1976 film.

      Delete
  7. its gone, don't worry. Have a lovely weekend. Hope its not raining there like it is here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not taking the comments too seriously, Sol, nor what you do with them - it is, after all, YOUR blog, so anything is fine by me.

      It's been raining a bit here, but at least it's still mild. I'm dreading this unseasonably mild spell breaking and turning to more uncomfortable Wintry weather. But I'm appreciating it while it lasts - and, if course, it means the heating bills won't be as high as they otherwise might have been.

      Delete
  8. forgot to say I saw kick ass and kick ass 2. The girl was better in the 2nd one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Saw the first, which was only okay for me - not enough to enthuse about for bothering with the second. Still, your observation is noted. Thanks.

      Delete
  9. have you seen the new hobbit?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Due to go this Wed, though I fear that for me it's likely to be a long yawn, which I'm hoping 3D might make a bit more bearable.

      Delete