I was trying to save the horror flicks for the month of October, but those of you that know me, know I can't resist a good horror movie. Usually I just watch them as soon as I can get a chance to view them. Epix was having a free preview weekend this weekend, and I managed to catch Carrie (2013) on it.
Carrie was originally written by Stephen King many years ago, probably back in the mid to early 70's. I know, most of you readers out there are going "The SEVENTIES? Jesus, Did they even have TV back then? Wasn't that during the Civil War?" No, we didn't have TV back then, but we did have magic boxes that streamed movies through the AIR, just like Wireless, only with worse reception. Yes, we called them TV's, but they weren't really TV's, because the North and the South were fighting a war over what to call them. That whole slavery thing was just a cover story. That's right, only here, on my blog, will you learn the truth! No, don't take me seriously. I totally made that up for the sake of humor.
I never actually read the book, "Carrie." At least, I don't think I did. I read a lot of books back in the 70's, because TV consisted of three channels, 2, 4 and 7. Mostly, they had the news on. When the news wasn't on, it was sports. I found neither particularly interesting. I might have read Carrie back then, and just never recalled it. I didn't even turn ten til 1980, so that was a long time ago, to me.
But let me sum up the story, first. And I'm not going to hold anything back, because this story is almost older than I am, and this is the third incarnation of it. If you haven't heard what the story is by now, you don't get out much. If you still have no idea what happens, and want to see the movie, skip the rest of this paragraph. Carrie White is a young teen girl that lives with her religious fanatic of a mother, Margaret. Carrie would be home schooled, except the law forced Carrie to attend public high school. It's no surprise that Carrie has no idea what puberty means, but when her periods happen to start, embarrassingly enough, in the midst of the locker room shower after gym class, Carrie's peers throw tampons and maxi pads at her. Today, this kind of thing would probably be considered mild hazing. Come to think of it, back then it was probably considered mild hazing, too. In any case, Carrie gets freaked out, and becomes the butt of many jokes, and video of her freakout gets uploaded to the internet (back in the 70's, of course, the internet didn't exist, nor did cell phones or hand-held movie cameras, so no incriminating videos appeared in the original story). The gym teacher stops Carrie's harassment, and manages to punish the girls with after-hours workouts as a form of detention. One girl completely refuses to accept her punishment, and the gym teacher manages to get her banned from the prom. Over the next few weeks, one of the girls who partook of Carrie White's humiliation begins to feel bad about what she did, and decides to have her boyfriend ask Carrie to the prom as a way to make up for it. Enter Tommy Ross, quite possibly the only innocent in this entire sordid tale. Tommy asks Carrie to the prom out of love for his girlfriend, who wants to make Carrie feel better. Also, since Tommy's girlfriend isn't going, well, he needs a date, and all. Tommy was completely unwilling at first, but his girlfriend convinced him, cajoled him, threatened him and otherwise coerced him into agreement. In any case, as the prom nears, Carrie begins to realize she is gifted with unusual powers, namely Telekinesis, otherwise known as Mind Over Matter. These powers begin to manifest when Carrie is under extreme duress, which is often the case when home with her mother, but not as often during school hours. Carrie discovers she has these abilities, and begins to try and learn to control them. This is all setup for Prom night, of course. Prom night comes, and Carrie's fanatically religious mom forbids her to go. Carrie has a showdown with her mother, and locks her mother in the "prayer closet" where Carrie has spent so many nights. Carrie goes to the prom with Tommy Ross. Tommy's girlfriend stays home, since her boyfriend is going with Carrie, and the one girl who has been banned from the prom for what she did to Carrie gets super pissed off. She and her friends slay a pig, drain its blood, and rig up a bucket to spill over Carrie when she is named prom Queen, which somehow happens (in the original, the girl who was banned from Prom rigs the election). As Carrie takes the stage, the bucket of blood is dumped over Carrie, and everyone laughs. The bucket falls onto Tommy's head, killing him (or knocking him unconscious in the original). Carrie's rage erupts in telekinetic fury. The doors to the gym swing closed, and everyone dies horribly. Some die by fire, others die by electrocution. Some few escape. Carrie leaves the prom, only to find her chief tormentor trying to escape after dumping the bucket of blood on her. She and her boyfriend try to run Carrie down. Carrie slays them by means of her mind. Heading home for solace after such a horrifying evening, Carrie finds her mother has escaped. Carrie's mother pretends to comfort Carrie, then stabs her repeatedly, believing her possessed by the devil. Carrie, slowly dying, exacts revenge upon her mother via telekinesis, slaying her as well. in death, Carrie's powers fold inward upon her, sucking her house into the ground and leaving nothing but rubble.
It's actually a very good tale, and I recommend anyone interested to go ahead and watch the original 1976 version with Sissy Spacek. I think John Travolta made an appearance in it as well. The acting was frankly much better in that one, and I think the effects were done better as well. Just a personal opinion.
Chloe Grace Moretz plays Carrie in the 2013 remake. She did an acceptable enough job, but I wonder about her use of her hands to convey her use of Telekinesis. She basically does clawing motions in the air when using her powers, which Sissy Spacek never did in the original. Also, Chloe doesn't seem to have that same look of blank fury on her face that Sissy Spacek managed so well in the 1976 version. That look itself was pretty terrifying. It was the look of someone who has been pushed beyond insanity. If I had to picture a nun possessed by the power of satan, I'd think of Sissy Spacek in that movie. The sheer blankness of the look, the coldness of her fury, was terrifying in and of itself. Chloe doesn't seem to manage that look at all in the 2013 remake. Julianne Moore does a good job of playing Carrie's mom. I would say the original actress might have done a better job in the 1976 version, but it's a close call, and frankly, I like Julianne Moore better as an actress. She has some serious acting chops, and never hesitates to challenge herself. The rest of the cast in the 2013 version is ultimately forgettable, except perhaps for the blonde amazon who plays the girl who was dating Tommy Ross, five foot ten inch tall Gabriella Wilde, according to IMDB. She is attractive, cute and well-formed. The original movie, of course, launched the careers of John Travolta and half a dozen young actresses, but I think this remake will probably only help the career of Gabriella Wilde. Everyone else appearing in it was already fairly well established, or forgettable enough not to notice in the future. There's no nudity in the 2013 version, at least none that I saw, though there was in the 1976 one.
I read some reviews that say this version is not as good as the original, and it's true. It was an okay movie in and of itself, but I think the original 1976 version seemed to have more depth to it. Sure, Chloe Grace Moretz looks sexy covered in blood and all (hey, maybe Carrie is where I got my naked chicks covered in blood fetish!), but it was almost like a recap of the main events. Like if a news reporter was covering the story, instead of going into detail about it, and just recapped the important things that happened. The various daily bits and activities that I seem to recall from the 1976 version, just seemed, I don't know, like it was removed from the 2013 remake to streamline it, and the movie suffers as a result of that.
I've also read other reviews of this remake that say if you go into this movie comparing it to the original, it's the wrong mindset. Personally, I completely disagree with that opinion. How can you NOT compare two virtually identical movies? Much like the Omen remake a few years ago, the dialogue was almost word for word, the same as in the original, and the same exact events happened at the same relative pace. Honestly, aside from cutting out the need for a screenwriter to pen a script of the remake, and saving money that way, I really do not see the purpose of all these remakes. Yes, of course, I know it's to make the producers more money, and cutting out the need for a screenwriter to write a new script gives the producers even MORE money to line their pockets with, but aside from that, there seems absolutely no point in constantly remaking these movies. Is there just so little original material these days that the producers have no choice but to turn to old favorites? That's hogwash. There's plenty of original material, but no one wants to take a chance on it, because not a single one of these old, fat producers have any balls left. Their wallets have got so fat, they've crushed their testicles. I have no idea how, having seen the same movie some thirty years ago, someone could actually watch a remake and think the movie was fresh in any way, shape or form. I suppose it's legitimately possible that a movie had been done so badly in the past that a remake might actually be better than the original, but that's never going to happen, because if the original was badly done, it would have done badly at the box office, which means no one would bother to take a chance on losing money on it nowadays. Like I said, producers now will only bet on sure things. I wish they'd grow a pair, or maybe some women producers need to step in and grow some guts to replace the lack of ball sacks. Remakes blow.
Remakes are always going to suck balls compared to the originals, and I'll tell you why. In the original movie, the directors, producers, screenwriters and actors had to take risks to make a good product. Their careers were literally riding on the outcomes of these films. Everyone did their best, from the special effects guys to the sound editors and everyone in between. As a result, the films were outstanding. Actors hit the ball out of the park, and actresses showed more skin than they necessarily had to, hoping to get noticed. The special effects were as good as money could buy for the time, and the technical guys outdid themselves to show off their skills. All those little individual efforts added up to an outstanding film that grossed hundreds of millions and made the film worthy of being remade in the first place. Years go by, and now the remake comes along. You don't need to spend money on a script, because you already have one. You know the movie is going to do well, because the original was such a huge draw. Word of mouth alone will get people coming to the theaters to see the remake, just because of the original. People who have seen the original will remember how good it was, and go to see the remake just so they can relive how great the original movie was, even if the remake sucks balls. Producers don't have to take any risks, and in fact, taking a risk with a successful product is stupid, because you don't know if your effort will pay off, so nobody is going to risk changing the original story anyways. You can get cheaper actors and actresses, or actresses that don't have to take risks. They don't have to put their hearts into it because they know the story is already a hit. There's no need to show any nudity, because you don't need to draw in the male audience. They're already hooked from the nudity in the original. Nobody bothers to put any effort into the story, because they know it will do well. Nobody's career is riding on the outcome of the remake. Producers will just have a few more bucks to line their pockets with, and as a result, they don't need to pay top dollar for the best actresses and the best people to work on the film. They don't need the best. They just need "good enough." They can cut corners, shave costs, leave off hiring people they don't really need, and can afford to hire less-than-star power to put the film out there, knowing full well the original was good enough to draw everyone in. Actors can phone in their performance, knowing full well they don't have to strain themselves trying to make the film good. In short, it is in the producer's best interest, financially, to remake the movie with less quality than the original. Therefore, the remakes will ALWAYS be worse than the original, not only by comparison to the original, but on their own merits.
Let me tell you now, how this version of Carrie might have been better than the original. During the confrontation with her mother, Carrie White mentions that her Telekinetic ability is usually passed down through families, according to the books she was reading, trying to convince her mother that her powers are not satanic in origin. Carrie says that her grandmother probably had them, too and it just skipped a generation. Which made me think. What if... What if it HADN'T skipped a generation? Julianne Moore played Margaret White as a fanatically religious psycho who cut herself daily in an effort to keep herself from committing sin. Personally, I don't remember that from the original movie, so that's kind of new, I think. Self-flagellation, as I believe the fanatics refer to it, but what if... What if Margaret was cutting herself to keep her Telekinesis in check? What if, by focusing her mind on her own pain, she was stopping herself from mentally tearing apart the 'sinners' she saw in everyday life? It would certainly have made Carrie's showdown with her mother MUCH more interesting. Suddenly, Carrie realizes it HASN'T skipped a generation, and Carrie's mom is trying to kill her with telekinetic powers as well! At that point, I can fully picture the house being torn to rubble, as both mother and daughter unleash Telekinetic HELL upon the other. Now THAT would be a risk worth taking, and have made the remake OH-so much more fun to watch. But does anyone ask me how to make the remakes better? Nope! No one does. Why? No idea. I have some pretty goddamned brilliant ideas. I am a genius, after all. Ah well. Maybe someday I'll be known as the King of Remakes, and I'll have reformed the word "remake" from being a naughty word, into something someone will actually want to watch. One can only hope.
Also, I saw Z Nation on Syfy the other night. New zombie survival series. I think they're basing it off the walking dead, since they supposedly refer to some "cop in a prison" giving them directions. Well, that's what I heard, anyway. I don't watch the Walking Dead, mostly because the writing doesn't take any risks, so I didn't even notice in Z Nation if they did indeed refer to the Walking Dead. Z Nation, in and of itself, wasn't that spectacular. The most interesting aspect of it revolves around a guy who was being tested with a 'cure' for the zombie virus while he was attacked by zombies. Bitten multiple times, he not only survived, but didn't turn into a zombie, either. I used to read an internet webcomic where a guy was half-zombie. I can't recall the name of it, but if that's where this story is going, then that is cool. If it's not, then it's not really worth watching, as far as I can tell. Just more running, gunning and special effects set in a post-zombie-apocalypse world. Nothing we haven't seen before. There was a zombie baby (done before) and a few hot chicks scattered in, but possibly the most interesting figure so far is the male lead. He reminds me of Lance Guest from the Last Starfighter, but I can't figure out which actor is playing him from the list of people on IMDB. He gets caught in a room with a buttload of zombies and just goes absolutely psycho on them, beating them to death with a hammer. It's fun to watch, but maybe I am a little weird. In any case, that kind of psycho-kill-the-zombies attitude is probably going to make him the only survivor you can bet on. All in all, I suppose I may watch a few more episodes of it, to see where it goes, but nothing special so far.
In other news, I'm trying to catch up on missed episodes of The Strain tonight. It's got a new take on vampires that has been fun to watch so far. Something the lead guy in the series said finally gave a rational explanation to why vampires burn up in sunlight. UV radiation is often used to kill bacteria, or at least, in all the movies I've seen where viruses or bacteria go apeshit, it has been. So when vampires are exposed to daylight, the UV radiation kills whatever pathogen turned the original human into a vampire to begin with. Of course, why that would cause the people to burst into flame is still a mystery, but at least it's a step in a new direction. Also, I don't think the UV radiation could get through the skin to reach the infected insides, but that's another technicality the whole 'UV light kills the parasites' theory has to conquer.
That's all for this weekend. Gearing up for October Halloween Horrorfest next month! Can't wait for it! 31 days of horror movie reviews! I haven't decided whether I am writing a review a day, or trying to squeeze a whole bunch of reviews into the weekends. Depends how much time I have on my hands, I guess. See you guys next weekend!
No comments:
Post a Comment