Carrie, a Estranha

I do not care how many of you read this and think "What a moron." Because I am not, I am right. Anybody can call themself a Stephen King fan because they've seen all his movies. Well, if you've never read his books then you're not a Stephen King fan, you're a horror movie fan. I read Carrie for the first time when I was 10 years old. It was the scariest, most f'ed up book I had read. (Remember I was 10, before Carrie I read Goosebumps and Freckle Juice) And my dad told me there was a movie. I had heard of it before, of course. So, I rented it. Sissy Spacek, Piper Laurie, and John Travolta were good, but the thing is they were the hottest stars at the time. Travolta was a teen hunk from Kotter and Sissy was your "girl next door" type. The original is a classic, I will never deny that. It's one of the best horror movies of the 20th century. Even though the acting was superb, Spacek wasn't the perfect Carrie, because she is pretty. Carrie was awkward and weird looking. Bettis is attractive, but in a creepy sort of way. Clarkson was a much better Mrs. White, because Laurie portrayed this wild, gospel radio type woman yelling out Christian nonsense. Mrs. White was described in the book as a insane woman with a sane face. Okay, let's be honest, Travolta sucked in Carrie. He was playing the role he ALWAYS did in the late 70s, a stupid, pretty boy. The guy that played Nolan in the remake portrayed him as a insane, extremely psychopathic. And Chris and Billy's relationship in the original wasn't as convincing. In the book, they were kind of a match made in heaven, they were both sadistic and cruel people. The only things I have to say about the original is Amy Irving was a better Sue, and the original Miss Desjardins was better too (the gym teacher). All in all I thought the remake of Carrie wasn't as classic as the original, but was more according to the book and they picked the characters well. 9/10

It seems to make as much sense to remake a great movie like Brian DePalma's 1976 horror/suspense masterpiece CARRIE for television as it did to make a sequel of it in the form of THE RAGE: CARRIE 2 three years before, but that's what has been done. A lot of bells and whistles have been added to this television remake, but in the end this CARRIE is still in the shadow of the DePalma original.

Angela Bettis (GIRL INTERRUPTED) has the unenviable task of stepping into the shoes (and the prom dress) of Sissy Spacek in the title role of a New England teen tortured at school by cruel classmates (because she doesn't belong) and at home by her religiously fanatical mother (Patricia Clarkson, in the Piper Laurie role). Soon, she discovers she has telekinetic powers; and when the most gruesome of gags is played on her on prom night, all bets are off.

Though looking much more glazed in the eyes than Spacek ever did, Bettis gives a fairly good performance as Carrie; and Clarkson's portrayal of her uprighteous mother is much more low-key, but no less threatening, than Laurie's portrayal. The special effects, however obvious they might be, are also quite good. But in the end, the reputation of the 1976 original, with its combination of psychological horror and teen-angst drama, still hovers over this remake. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the pig's blood scene. It doesn't have the same jarring emotional impact this time around--not so much because we've seen it before, but because here it looks slightly laughable when the blood gets poured onto Bettis. Because of DePalma's use of slow-motion in the original, the blood hits Spacek like a tidal wave.

I give the CARRIE remake a '6' just for trying. I only regret that its shortcomings as a film have less to do with its execution as a film than the fact that the original movie still resonates much more fully.

Carrie was originally a nerdy girl who was tormented over and over. Next, she was a goth who was videotaped having sex. This time, she's an epileptic girl struggling with life as a whole. Instead of doing a third one, the people decided to do something that people would rather see- remake the original loosely and transform it into a polished version of the book. While I do love the original, this one is closer to the book. There are a mere three things that I hated- the ending was stupid and Patricia Clarkson was too toned down for the role. They should have gone with a direct clone of Piper Laurie's flawless version of the character. Also, th pig blood dumping scene sucked this time. Ironically, all of the original's blonde characters are brunette here, and vice versa. The ending sort of copied the graveyard sequence at the end of the first one, but isn't as scary. But as a whole, this third in a blooming series was quite good and worth a few watches.

Why not just watch DePalma's 1976 adaptation? While this remake was made for TV, which sometimes can brand a film as belonging to a lower class, it is a more faithful adaptation of King's novel. Have you read the novel? Many of the complaints you have about the "changes" made for the TV adaptation are major occurrences in the novel. Even the way in which the main action is interrupted by interviews, follows the structure of the book. While I like to judge a film adaptation of a novel separate from the novel itself and not on how well it sticks to the story, I found the flow of the novel much more interesting than the almost slasher genre quality of DePalma's film, and subsequently found the remake just as interesting. Pick up a copy...it's a quick easy read and maybe you'll see the remake in a whole new light.

The most horrifying shot is the tableau at the end of the first bathtub scene near the end of the movie. (The second bathtub scene near the movie's end has more to do with turning this TV movie into a TV series--the plan that never came to fruition.) The three hour length of this TV version is well suited to amplify the drama and extend the finale rampage. The disaster effects are good. The different take on Margaret, Carrie's mother, is problematic. On one hand, she becomes more realistic and sympathetic, but on the other, nobody really wants to tone down a human monster whom we would rather not see as so human. Most cast members give fine performances including, but hardly limited to, the actors in the roles of Carrie, Sue, Billy, Tommy and Chris. Although Billy is surprisingly the one who seems to be possessed by evil; so where did that come from? I think this version is as good as the original in some ways, not as good in others and yet better in still others. A second crack at turning Stephen King's story into a film developed some of the story line more fully, which is to be expected with three hours.