NBC's Carrie

I've got a bad vibe about this one. There hasn't been much press besides the commercials that hardly show anything. It also took them a while to nail down the airdate, almost like the network didn't know what to do with it. I've also heard conflicting reports about how long it is -- 2 or 3 hours?

But what the heck, I watched Carrie 2, and it didn't kill me. I'll check this one out. I might bail halfway through though, like I did with the Firestarter mini-series.

You know, I saw a print ad for this. Eh. That's all I can say. I was just contacted by someone who's got the entire series on tape...maybe I can get a quickie review out to you guys before Monday. Let ya know if you're wasting your time or not.

Why not? If King has shown he can improve on Kubrick's The Shining so much, why not give him a crack at DePalma? I'm sure the results will be just as satisfying.

</sarcasm>

You know, the chances that this will suck are high. If we send one person, like an ambassador, to watch it and report back, we will lessen the overall ratings the film gets. That way, if it really does suck, they will realize they won't make any money if they do more and stop it all together.

Just a thought.

I'm going to try to watch it today. I'll let you guys know how it is.

My reactions to Carrie (SPOILERS!)

Pretty good. Nice direction by David Carson (Star Trek: Generations). The movie did drag at times (3 hours was probably too long) but it was miles better than Stephen King's tedious Rose Red.

It's too bad that commercials had to break up the action (especially during the climax) but at least a made-for-TV movie has the opportunity to built towards good act breaks. When I've seen the original Carrie on TBS or TNT, the commercial breaks during the climax are really unforgiveable.

I bring up the original here because it's unavoidable. DePalma's Carrie is entrenched in my mind. Remaking that film is tricky, because DePalma had very specific approaches to certain scenes. His camera-work screams "look at me!" sometimes, but that's what makes it great.

For this remake, director David Carson seems conscious of what has been done before. He found new and different ways to shoot certain setpieces like Carrie's shower scene, the prank at the prom and its aftermath, and Carrie's final confrontation with her mother. None are disappointing, but DePalma's shots are the ones that will stay with me forever.

The script's framework device is a fresh way to present the story, with a police detective investigating the mysterious events surrounding the prom. I only wish there was some closure to this storyline. There are some other changes from the 1976 version, but I haven't read the book, so I don't know which is more true to King's book.

How's the acting? Great! Kandyse McClure channels Amy Irving (including her hair) with attitude. Angela Bettis is terrific as Carrie, although she seems even less able to cope with the world than Sissy Spacek ever was. Her freak-outs are convincing, but she seems a little too calm during the gymnasium mahem. I understand what she was trying there, but catatonic just isn't as scary as Sissy Spacek's wide-eyed twitching. Entertainment Weekly said the woman playing Carrie's mother was "underplaying" the role, but I thought it worked. The role of scary religious mother doesn't imply mandatory scenery chewing! (With all apologies to Piper Laurie.) And Rena Sofer as the gym teacher? Very easy on the eyes. Oh, and she gives a strong performance, too.

Carrie's telekinesis manifests itself more often in this version. Sometimes the effects may be a tad too CG for a critical audience, but the good outweighs the bad. I love the way we see how Carrie is actually safe from fire and electricity-charged water. There's a fantastic "impossible" floating camera shot over the town that gave me chills. But the non-effects shots of a post-holocaust Carrie walking in silhouette through the fog were the ones I found truly scary.

You're on crack, dude. Sorry. From what I'm seeing, this has to be the most embarrassing King adaptation of "Carrie" since the Broadway musical. I might go out on a limb and say that the musical was more enjoyable (at least it's fun) than this shite...

No wonder why NBC just dumped it in this black hole of a time slot.

I hope not - one [bad] Carrie sequel is enough.

I liked it! Bettis done good.

I didn't watch the whole thing, so I can say 100% what I saw of it, but from what I did see it looked a lot better than I had thought it would be. Bettis was a great choice for the role, she played it nice and creepy towards the end.

I'd have to see it in full to really give any kind of critical opinion, but at least it didn't make my eyes bleed like I thought it would.

ehhhh ... It was ok, worth watching if you are into horror, esp King ... Bettis was very good as Carrie though ...

What kills the feel for me are obvious CGIs, and this film had 'em ...

Not bad, but nothing special ... Certainly not as bad as that piece of crap remake of THE SHINING ... holy shit that sucked ....

I liked it. It was a tad heavy on the effects side. Much more TK than I remember from the original. The "heart squeeze" shot was unnecessary. Overall not bad. Been too long since I've seen the original/read the book to make the compare.

Unwatchable. I tuned out after the Amy Irving character is making a speech about religion where she makes a howl-inducing analogy between DaVinci's The Last Supper and the "Dogs Playing Poker" painting. It might be the worst example of writing I've ever heard in any medium.

Coming on the heels of the ridiculous scene where the stones falling on the White house looks like an outtake from Armageddon, thanks to the most gratuitous CGI I've seen in a while and I just couldn't take the nonsense anymore.

The only reason I tried to watch it in the first place is because in anticipation of May I wanted to see Angela Bettis' performance. She seemed fine but it wasn't worth suffering through this piece of garbage.

At least The Shining remake had a legitimate reason to exist by reinstating the aspects of the novel Kubrick excised (which were considerable) and Steven Weber's performance was a nice counterpoint to Nicholson's over-the-top version of Jack Torrance.

This, however, is just an embarrassment.

I hadn't planned on watching it but low and behold it was on while I studied... I stopped studying. The T.V. Done did it's job and had me watching. I dug the ending. Hated the commercials during the climax, but still it was pretty good as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't turn anyone away from watching it. I would however turn people away form the Shining remake... iky...

Didn't see all of it, but the lack of Sissy Spacek is improvement enough for me.

By the way.. wasn't one of the mega bitches the girl from "Ginger Snaps?" Forgive me... I'm not up on my 'names'

Yeah, Katharine Isabelle (Ginger from Ginger Snaps) was one of the bad girls. For that reason alone I will be watching this remake a few times.

I thought it was pretty good.

Was that the girl with the amazing eyes? Sheesh, I gotta see Ginger Snaps.

David Keith was in there as the detective. He now has the distinction of being in both a Stephen King telekinesis movie and a Stephen King pyrokinesis movie (Firestarter).

Does anyone know if this movie was produced as a possible backdoor pilot? The talk of a sequel got me thinking of a sort of "Fugitive" series that could spin off from this. Aside from being totally against what King originally had in mind, that could make for a good show.

"They're all gonna laugh at you!"


Yes I did, plenty of times. WHat the hell was with the stones flying from the sky? I thought I was watching the Smallville pilot for a moment. The idiotic looks from the neighbors was priceless.

No suspense whatsoever in the use of her powers.

The crazy Jesus-freak mother seemed watered down. Piper Laurie was missed.

Sissy Spacek was/is one of the ugliest creatures alive, (however, she will never hold that title entirely as long as Shelly Duvall lives) but that was the point, you felt sorry for her. This new Carrie was "meh."

Waste of time.

...and no one was bothered by the fact that it was shot on video and was completely hand-held?!

Ouch.

I saw people complaining about the "poor quality" HD video on another board today. Gosh, I didn't think it was bad at all. I liked the camera work, the lighting, the use of color. I really didn't give any thought to whether it was video or film. I can usually tell the difference if I concentrate, but I just didn't think about it this time. I think you can get away with HD on television more than on the big screen, though. HD looks great on a show like Lexx, but Spy Kids 2 felt like a big TV show to me.

Sissy Spacek may be different looking, but there are times in the original where she's fairly attractive. And then she gets covered with blood and damn she's freakin' evil! During that chaotic scene she presides over the mahem with the power of a classic silent film star.

Being a die-hard fan of the original I'm surprised I haven't posted about this until now. I'll start by saying that the original is, was, and will always be miles ahead of the remake, IMHO, of course. Still, I can't say I hated the remake.

The stones from the sky, if I remember correctly, are alluded to in the book, as is the scene with the topless neighbor.

I thought Margaret White was extremely underplayed. There was no religious fire in her eyes as there was in Piper Laurie's. Hell, I thought I was a sinner when I watched her on screen! (Incidentally, wasn't the mother in the remake the same woman who played the warden's wife in The Green Mile?).

In all fairness to Bettis, she had a hell of a lot to live up to as does anyone who is cast as a lead character in a remake of a popular film. I applaud her efforts but I still think Sissy Spacek brought more believability to the character. She and her mother even had the same accent. (Don't know why I mentioned that...)

As for the looks of Carrie, I think they made a good choice with Bettis because she isn't a supermodel. I didn't see any of the ads so I saw her for the first time when the movie came on. When I heard about the remake I was sure they would cast some blond hottie that we were supposed to believe wasn't one of the Beautiful People. Bettis's transformation from girl-next-door to girl-next-door-with-a-lovely-hand-made-prom-dress was actually pretty good, I thought. What made Sissy Spacek a little more believable is that, although she too was no supermodel, you could see the beginnings of Carrie's belief in herself that was both because of yet apart from her "gift." I think Bettis's portrayal lacked that aspect.

***SPOILERS AHEAD***

I didn't like the Sue Snell character in the remake. She struck me as nothing more than some smartass teenager who really didn't give a rat's ass about Carrie any more at the end of the film than she did at the beginning. Sure she helped her escape but you never really got a sense that she learned anything from her own mistakes. Not saying that Amy Irving didn't emanate "essence of smartass" as well but there was a definite moment that she began to see her own behavior in the shower as deplorable and she made genuine efforts to amend.

I thought Tommy Ross in the remake was bland. (Sorry about lack of names. Just don't know too many of the new ones). Also, he so much as admitted to Carrie that he was only doing it because Sue asked him to.

Prom night in the remake wasn't too bad. While Carrie's terrorizing of the town and not just the high school was interesting, although a little too much CGI for my taste, it seemed a little too over the top for me. In the original, she was focused and there was a definite purpose to her actions. Also, there was none of the "amnesia" as portrayed in the remake, which I find to be a plus. Also, I wanted to see Margaret White crucified in a doorway. Hell, I'd like to see Martha Stewart crucified anywhere!

I did like some of the humor in the remake. I found the Last Supper/Dogs Playing Poker speech rather funny. Also, when Tommy shows up to pick up Carrie and the furniture crashes behind her.

All in all, the remake was o.k. Not as bad as I feared but nowhere near the quality of the original. I know that a lot of my complaints about various portrayals really reflect more on the director than the actor's. They were acting as instructed.

Sorry about the length of this post. I cited Carrie in a previous post as a definitive film for me so I guess I was almost compelled to run off at the mouth about it here. I have always loved the original film and always will. It was one of the first movies which I have accumulated double digit viewings.

Thanks for taking the time to read this. All of this, of course, is just one man's opinion.

mahduk

Sissy Spacek wasn't SUPPOSED to be attractive--that was the POINT! Actually, in C2: THE RAGE (ugh) I thought the fact that the TK girl was a total hottie really took away from its effectiveness. Well, that and the Home Improvement kid.

WRT rain of stones, wasn't that in the book, or at least referenced? No, wait, I might be thinking of The Haunting (1963), when the professor mentioned the main character's psychic abilities--he says something about a rain of pebbles when she was a kid, and she vehemently denies it, saying it was the neighbors trying to make them look bad. Still, there is precedence.

Didn't watch the TV movie. How can it be good without that hunky John Travolta, I ask you?

Note to self: start reading entire thread before posting.

Thanks mahduk, for making the points I wanted to make before I made them.

I found this "remake" or "update" or whatever you want to call it TOTALLY unnecessary & damn near appalling!
You mean to tell me this director had actually done a feature film? I haven't seen STAR TREK: GENERATIONS, but obviously that little odd - even theory MUST have held true with it! Judging by what I saw with CARRIE, I had assumed that the director was just some TV hack for hire who's previous career high might have been one of those "a very special episode's" ( GAG! ) of FAMILY TIES or TOUCHED BY AN ANGEL or some other dreck like that!
For cryin' out loud, if they were going to sink the money into a 3 hour CARRIE, why not at least do a complete "reimagining" or attempt a really faithful adaption of the book? Something, ANYTHING but what they did. Which was shit!
Most of it was pretty much just a poor man's copy ( or ripoff ) of Depalma's classic, but then it would go off & try something different & in the process fail miserably. I could go on complaining all night, but I'll just point out a few things :

- Bettis is adequate at best. She had a couple of nice touches, such as that little crosseyed thing she did, but it was only effective the first couple of times. Then she bloody over did it.

- Clarkson was absolutely awful as Mrs. White. AWFUL!
Sure, there was no way she was going to outdo Piper Laurie in that part, but she didn't attempt to do ANYTHING with it. In Depalma's film Mrs. White was MUCH scarier than Carrie could ever be. Whenever she was onscreen you were always expecting her to do something terribly nasty to Carrie ( & she usually did ). You never got that sense with Clarkson at all. All you were afraid of was that perhaps she might BORE poor Carrie to death!

- How are we supposed to sympathize with a Carrie who is a "smart alleck" to her mother right from the start? In Depalma's film Carrie gradually became more & more defiant out of necessity in reaction to her mother's increased mania & her own growing powers. And yet throughout the entire film, right up to the horrible end, you see that Spacek's Carrie is so painfully just pleading for her mother's love & acceptance.

- How are we supposed to believe that in 2002 Carrie had absolutely NO IDEA what menstuation was when she has a whole stack of "teen" magazines hidden in the closet & access to the internet at school?

- This Sue Snell just didn't work for me. She was nice to look at, but that's all. You never got the sense that she REALLY gave a shit about Carrie or anyone else for that matter. I mean come on, in this version nearly all of her class mates, friends & her lover have died horribly as well as the town having been destroyed, yet here it is in the "wrap around" of the film a mere 2 short weeks after these tragic events & she's blase' & making smart with the cop. Not so much as a tear or quiver in her voice from what I recall. That's just cold.

- The new Tommy Ross? He had absolutely no personality or chemistry with ANYONE. Especially not with Carrie which just kills much of the stories power.
Shit, all this guy did was cause me to chuckle because he reminded me a bit of FEAR FACTORS' host Joe Rogan. I half expected him to pull out a jar of Madigaskar hissing cockroaches & offer Carrie a snack.

- Renee Sofer's gym teacher again, just didn't seem to really care in the least for Carrie. You never got the sense that she gave a damn about Carrie or her feelings. They took most of the relationship between the 2 of them away in thios version. Then they turned around & let her live! eek! WHY?

- Chris & Billy Nolan? The less said about them the better.

- The whole prom sequence leading up to it's awful climax was dull, dull, dull. There was no magic. No sense of dreamlike fantasy, the "ugly duckling's" metamorphasis into a swan for a perfect prom night. Without it the horror to follow loses everything.

- The build up to the bucket of blood being dumped onto Carrie was totally without suspense.

- Carrie catatonic & completely unaware of her power's actions, thus without responsibility for the death & destruction?!! What a piss poor, pathetic, ultra P.C. post Columbine thing to do. A TOTAL cop out.

- The effects were pretty much hit & miss. Some were OK, but on a shoe string budget & with much imagination & inspiration, Depalma made his "Carrie's revenge" sequence a hundred times more powerful & frightening than all the state of the art, CGI bullshit this one threw at us 26 years later.

- Mrs. White's "new" demise was lifted from King's novel & made sense in a commercial TV forum, but it had no emotional impact whatsover. About all it was good for was a quick shot that seemed taken from a typical CSI episode.

- The new finale? UGH! I can't even bring myself to discuss it in detail.

- And before I finish with this little critique, I HAVE to mention the score. Whomever the talentless hack was who scored the remake pretty much just us a severely watered down, generic version of Ennio Merricone's classic score from Depalma's film. Only instead of the completing the ripoff the guy would back off at the last minute, leaving you hanging on a note. It gave me a fucking migraine! Seriously!


With this abortion coming on the heels of ABC's ROSE RED, I have a pretty dismal outlook as far as the future is concerned for King adaptions on commercial television. They've gone from mediocre ( STORM OF THE CENTURY ) to bad ( ROSE RED ) to worse ( CARRIE ). IMO the genre peaked with King & Mick Garris' terrific take on THE SHINING. Everything since then has been one disappointment bigger than the one preceeding it.

Whoops, I forgot about THE DEAD ZONE. That's been well done & enjoyable so far. Let's just hope it maintains it's quality as the 2nd season approaches & that they don't run it into the ground.

And whatever happened to that SALEM'S LOT remake that was announced about a year ago? I believe it was going to be a TNT special movie or mini series. Damn, I must be crazy even asking about it after seeing what they did with CARRIE!

-Jim

I have the feeling that you'd hate any Salem's Lot remake, too.

You seem to dislike Carrie for not being enough like the original, while also dissing it for having too many "ripped off" elements. I think the producers respected the original and then decided to find new approaches to certain scenes and characters. Not every choice was entirely successful, but I found it very interesting nonetheless. No actor would want to totally imitate someone else's performance, so you get a new interpretation. It's like that with the writing, directing, and music, too.

And don't slam the director just because he's worked in television. Sure, in TV, directors are usually hired by show producers to bring a certain vision and quality to a series. They don't have as much control over all the elements (script, cast, budget) but that doesn't make them hacks. I know certain names like David Carson, Rob Bowman, and David Nutter because they've turned out some memorable episodes of Star Trek, Smallville, X-Files, Witchblade, etc. It also sounds ignorant to criticise Carson's Star Trek: Generations work without even seeing it first.

Actually I never called Carson a hack. I said that judging from his finished product with CARRIE, I had assumed that it was done by some "TV hack". i.e. some mediocre director for hire with little or no genre experience.
I've got nothing against directors in the television medium who have a liking of and/or respect for the genre & turn out good work. Men like Rob Bowman, David Nutter, Joss Whedon, Rick Rosenthal etc. are all very good directors who can be counted on to give us quality television. Carson probably is as well. Hell, with TV shows it's difficult to keep track. I've probably seen stuff directed by him that I've enjoyed. But again, that wasn't apparent to me by what I saw with CARRIE.

Harsh? Yeah, I guess so. But this update or remake just totally didn't work for me & I gave my list of reasons why.
Apparently you enjoyed it & that's cool. I myself am in a minority class by having thoroughly enjoyed King's & Mick Garris' adaption of THE SHINING. Infact I prefer it to Kubrick's take on it ( though that is still a classic in it's own right ).

*bump*

Katharine Isabelle was in it. That was enough to make me watch it. Besides, it wasn't completly awful. Angela Bettis was really good, as well, and like I stated in the other Carrie thread, I enjoyed this ending more than the originals. The only good thing about that one was the way her mother died.
The 'PERIOD! PERIOD! PERIOD!' scene was quite effective, if you ask me, as well.

Whats the fuckin deal with all these TV mini-series remakes of King novels?

RD

The Shining remake was horrible, imo. Devoid of any tension or frights whatsoever. I missed this thread and seeing the Carrie remake when it first aired but I went and picked it up on DVD and watched it for the first time not so long ago. I thought Angela Bettis did a great job though not quite the Carrie that Sissy was. Still she plays a convincing freak. For some reason I don't remember the mother to be quite as good in the original as she was in the remake but maybe it's just been too long since I last saw the movie. overall the remake was enjoyable. As good as a made for TV movie can hope to be.

My thoughts exactly, a Carrie Remake with Angela "May" Bettis was just done a couple of years ago and aired again last year. I liked it for what it was, a TV miniseries trying to differentiate itself from the movie. However, De Palma's Carrie will always kick ass. The same thing was attempted with "The Shining" remake, a 4-6 hour miniseries re explaining John Torrances pathos as through his alcoholism is Lifetime channel afternoon movie fare indeed. It doesn't get you as charged like Kubrick's version even though it was his vision and not King's- it's 10x better. Another Carrie remake is unnecessary, how can you make take it any further than where it's gone? There are so many King novels/ novellas to make movies out of- atleast ABC had the balls to make Rose Red.