Carrie : Better than Original

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Better than Original

"The original feels like it takes forever"

It's Brian De Palma. Learn something before looking stupid.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Better than Original

I respect your opinion, but I must disagree. The remake is ok, but in no way, shape or form is it better than the original. The original is haunting, emotional and visually stunning (particularly the prom scene), and the acting and characters are portrayed much better (here it felt like they were mostly delivering lines already made great by the 76 film, but just saying them in a stale, throwaway kind of fashion). The music is also much better in the original, as it actually feels like a part of the film, while the score here is just generic and bland. I did like Moore's performance as Margaret, but I hate the fact they keep toning down the fanaticism of the character (something the 76 film shows in all its glory, and Piper Laurie offers a much more commanding and intimidating presence); I would be pretty damn terrified of Laurie's Margaret, but Moore's I wouldn't be scared as much as annoyed. As far as likeability, I thought Carrie and Miss Collins were pretty damn likeable, certainly just as much as Tommy (even Sue got likeable after a while, when you could see she really wanted to help Carrie out), and even the minor characters had their moments (Sue's mother, the principal, Tommy's friends in the tux shop, Frieda, etc.) and they feel so much more developed, while the characters in the remake I felt were lacking in development (and the guy who played Tommy was really wooden, imo).


As I said, I did like the remake, but the original is definitely the superior film (Even its sequel, "The Rage", is better than this one).



















"Speak of the Devil, and He shall appear."

Re: Better than Original


The remake is ok, but in no way, shape or form is it better than the original. The original is haunting, emotional and visually stunning, and the acting and characters are portrayed much better. The music is also much better in the original, as it actually feels like a part of the film, while the score here is just generic and bland. I thought Carrie and Miss Collins were pretty damn likeable, certainly just as much as Tommy (even Sue got likeable after a while, when you could see she really wanted to help Carrie out), and even the minor characters had their moments (Sue's mother, the principal, Tommy's friends in the tux shop, Frieda, etc.) and they feel so much more developed, while the characters in the remake I felt were lacking in development (and the guy who played Tommy was really wooden, imo).


Pretty much summarized exactly how I feel about the film.

Re: Better than Original

Blasphemy!

Re: Better than Original

I totally agree with you - it WAS better than the orginal, something I thought I'd never ever say after being such a big fan of the original movie starring Sissy Spacek.

The Webmaster
www.wirralwriter.co.uk

Re: Better than Original

It was not better than the original.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Better than Original

reggie, no it isn't better.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Better than Original

hi im reggiecenteno and i love chloe grease moretz carrie 1976 is crap SHUT UP YENDOR

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Better than Original

Nope.

Re: Better than Original

Reamke sucked because it lacked nude woman

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Better than Original

says the retard who likes to bash nostalgia but honestly has no idea that Star Wars episode 4 to 6 and the Excorcists were products of nostalgia too as well and has to go hating on them because of how dated they are what a crazy loser

Re: Better than Original


retard


Nice insult. I guess you don't know what that word even means.


who likes to bash nostalgia


Jokingly bashed nostalgia, but I can't see how anyone can think the original Carrie is some kind of iconic movie even though it's flawed.


Star Wars episode 4 to 6


Wouldn't know anything about those movies.

Re: Better than Original


Carrie is some kind of iconic movie even though it's flawed.



What do you consider to be flawed about Carrie 1976?

Re: Better than Original

Horrible editing.

Bad/bland performances by Amy Irving and John Travolta.

The film not being creepy at all until the pig slaughter scene but yet it's labeled as "one of the scariest creepiest films of all-time."

The prom being a letdown. I'm not saying the prom in 2013 is perfect with flying Carrie (so stupid) but I couldn't take the prom seriously when people were getting killed with a HOSE.

Re: Better than Original

You must be joking. How lame a response. However, I like the fact that you had the "fortitude" to respond to McQween. Carrie 2013 sux major ass!

Re: Better than Original

Editing is okay, not the greatest, but it doesn't take away from the story.

I thought Travolta was great. He played a good slob.

The water hose works, because all water hoses have lot of water pressure and it was used to get people to move away from the exits. It also electrocutes the principal and Mr. Fromm. What would you rather have, banners killing people or paper stars falling.

Re: Better than Original

Thanks for standing up for the De Palma masterpiece, Poseiden gal. That one chick is a dude and has a little barky dog named "Fizzgig". Friggin horrible movie!! Worst so called remake ever!

Re: Better than Original

DePalma's film is a messy film, relying too much on the horror side of things rather than something scarier like bullying.

Be Brave and Never Give Up ^.^

Re: Better than Original


DePalma's film is a messy film, relying too much on the horror side of things rather than something scarier like bullying.


That's because it is a horror film and a horror film is supposed to be scary. Something this remake completely ignored. A high budget with glossier special effects does not equal scary and in this case, there is not one scene that is remotely chilling. The remake dropped the ball on this.


Re: Better than Original

Its not supposed to be a straight horror film. Bullying is a way scarier thing. Hell, I've almost killed myself because of it.

Be Brave and Never Give Up ^.^

Re: Better than Original

I prefer the original it had better acting by the entire cast but I did enjoyed this remake.

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Better than Original

You're saying this movie is so great even 30 seconds in, but the original is boring even though it's the same path except this version, the girls are in a swimming pool and not on the volleyball court. Sorry, but even the first 30 seconds of the remake was a total mess.

Re: Better than Original

So is the convoluted original.

Be Brave and Never Give Up ^.^

Re: Better than Original

Actually, any rationale behind the remake was dubious, since in terms of storyline it was like a scene-by-scene reproduction of original. However, with the passage of time, the original material had become terribly outdated. That the titular character knew absolutely nothing about her own body might just have been marginally believable in the 1970s, but would be completely preposterous today. It was odd that the filmmakers tried to "modernize" the story by introducing, for example, internet bullying, but did not seem to realize that in the age of internet, Carrie's ignorance would just be unbelievable.

The choice of the lead actress was crucial to the film, but Chloë Grace Moretz was much less credible than Sissy Spacek. Carrie was supposed to be shy and uneasy with people, and Sissy played her well. Carrie as played by Chloë instead looked retarded and even abnormal at the beginning. She was like Hit-Girl trying unconvincingly to look weak after losing her mom and dad. She got better when the character became happier after receiving Tommy's invitation to the prom. Piper Laurie and Julianne Moore were both good as Carrie's mother. Again, here the story had become outdated with time. The mother repenting her "sins" for having Carrie? The present decade has more than its generous share of religious fanaticisms - perhaps even compared to the 1970s, but not in that form.

Other "modifications" to the original also made little sense. Carrie had telekinetic powers, but did I not see both of her feet rising above ground? What had she become - a demon or the Antichrist? And what was the point of Sue Snell getting pregnant at the end? It served absolutely no purpose. The filmmakers were not even certain how to end the film: the Blu-ray ending was vastly different from that of the theatrical release.

Re: Better than Original

yes i agree, finally a remake thats better than the original. this one made more sense too, in this one Carrie doesnt kill the Gym teacher, in the original she did.i never understood why. both movies are good, but the remake is much better, it would have been nice however to see some cameos like sissy spacek, piper laurie or john travolta in this one

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Better than Original

Yes. Finally a remake that is better. I usually hate remakes. I asked my girlfriend why we should waste our time to watch this because i was convinced it would never be better than the original. Actually i think this was the first time a remake is better. I saw the original again right after and couldn't find a single thing that was better than the remake. So i'm glad i gave the remake a chance.

Re: Better than Original

You might like Harry Potter movies too.

Re: Better than Original

Tell me how you came to that conclusion? I don't even own a Potter movie.

Re: Better than Original

I gotta agree with you.

While this film is also kinda slow, it is a faster pace than the original.

The ending is still stupid (she killed herself when they have solved all her problems and has all this power?)

The acting is vastly superior and the camerawork is much better done. The original looked like porn.

Re: Better than Original

It's a movie for teeny boppers. The original is more of an adult movie, so kids probably like the remake better since the lead actress is a child herself.

Re: Better than Original


The original is more of an adult movie


"Adult movie", so you admit it's basically porn.

Re: Better than Original

The remake is god-awful. It was just a re-hash of the 1976 movie without the artistry, adding CGI and a "modernised" aspect that killed any sense of terror and was irrelevant, other than for pleasing the young audiences who won't even make the effort to watch older classic (which is still a killer today). Seriously, I can't stand how Hollywood dares to continue to do these bad remakes, and how some people seem to appreciate them.
I won't repeat some arguments that have been well said in the replies, but sorry, the remake is completely useless. De Palma's original is so terrifying and still visually stunning today. Sissy Spacek is hypnotising. She makes it believable that her character is an outcast, thanks to her uncanny beauty and personality. She displays a pure, cold quality that constantly seem to place her on the fringe between kindness and madness.
Look at the prom scene from the 76 movie, her face, her eyes when she gets breaks loose and destroys everything around her. Goosebumps. The one from the remake is just atrocious and cheap. Laughable. And that's the most iconic scene.
I mean, just watch both of those scenes in a row. No comparison. Seriously. Revise your classics. For your own good ;-)

Re: Better than Original

So right. As for the original I am sick of hearing people try to compare this version to that one! To me the 1976 version is so distorted and full of stiff movements and 70 style acting that I never even thought of it again except in the category of the old bad effects horror! The same goes for the shinning. Just because the old generation love those kind of horrors best doesn't mean the younger generation agree!

By all accounts, Chloe Mortez film beats the 1976 and 2002 Carrie by spades as she captured the rage and anger of Carrie(just watch the part where she screams,throwing everyone back, releasing all the pent up anger)while the 1976 and 2002 version turned her into a gargolyte while she's destroying. Both never capture her rage as this version did!

Post deleted

This message has been deleted.

Re: Better than Original

Nope, and stooping to insult me won't help you either. Time to face facts

Re: Better than Original


70 style acting


You mean like The Godfather had? Or Star Wars? Or All the President's Men? Or Apocalypse Now? Or Taxi Driver? '70s style acting sounds pretty sweet actually!


doesn't mean the younger generation agree!


I wasn't born when the original Carrie came out. I didn't even see it until a couple years ago. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy it.

"The good guys always win...even in the 80s!"

Re: Better than Original

No offense intended, but doesn't mean you weren't influenced by family,friends, or a way more talked about love for the first Carrie too. The godfather, star wars, all the presidents men, apocalypse, taxi driver? I admit, I(and none of my family either)love those either. They belong to another error just as much as first Carrie does

Re: Better than Original

So? Family and friends can influence you to go see new movies too. I'm not sure why you think positive word of mouth would negate an older film.

The word "classic" simply means a film that has stood the test of time. That's an achievement. Eventually, some of the movies you like today might become classics. But it does take time. There really is no such thing as an "instant classic."

Another era? It was only 40 years ago, not 100, lol.

"The good guys always win...even in the 80s!"

Re: Better than Original

Look, obviously you enjoy bad effects/cutting scenes horrors from the 70s. My limit is the 80s and No further unless they are non horrors. We have different tastes so I could never presume to try to bend you to mine. I only wrote this thread to make a statement about my/and others view on things

Re: Better than Original

You can try to bend me to yours, it's a free country. ;)

I enjoy what you call "bad effects" because you can see the effort behind them. They managed to do a lot with so little. Today it's kinda the opposite. Plus the old effects utilized the strength of film as a visual medium, and how it can trick the eye. CGI can do this too of course, if used properly. But too often it's used in the most unsubtle and ineffective ways possible.


My limit is the 80s and No further


Why, because they happened before your birthday? So what? That's not much of a reason.


The only semi likable char in original was Tommy


We agree here at least, William Katt's adorable in Carrie and very funny at times. :)

"The good guys always win...even in the 80s!"

Re: Better than Original

Well, there's no winning you so I'll just say no more. As for the line" because they happened before your birthday? So what? That's not much of a reason" its a load of crap. I, in fact, enjoy the bible series made in the fiftys so your line won't work. Its when they attempt to pull off bad horror effect movies like Carrie, that I draw the line. So do a lot of other people I know.

The old movie appeared just to be a dumb, stiff, bad effects films that has the main actress acting like a wooden pillar instead of the enraged, fed up teenager that Chloe pulled off. Sissy speck in no way captured Carrie's anger and made it seem as if Carrie had no clue what she was doing(as she appeared to be in a coma like state), and she killed her teacher too which shows no sense of justice whatsoever as the teacher was kind to her.

Chloe showed pure emotion and anger(there's no other way to put it)and you could see she knew exactly what she was doing when she held the girls down to get trodden under and when she deliberately threw Ms Desjardin to safety, showing she wanted the rest of the school to suffer that night, not her.

If you can show me from logic how Sissy Speck portrayed all this in the 1976 version, I will offer an imediate apology. Don't grasp ag
Thank you

Re: Better than Original

The way I see it, I don't need Sissy's Carrie to spoon feed to me that she's enraged. All she has to do is give that cold, calculated stare as she's trapping people inside the gym and you know it. She no longer has any feeling for the people in the room, but that's not the same thing as having no emotion.


and she killed her teacher too which shows no sense of justice whatsoever as the teacher was kind to her.


There is a point to that. In her skewed perspective, she thinks everyone is laughing at her, has betrayed her. Her mother has been feeding her those kinds of poisonous thoughts. Plus, as a bullied child, she's used to assuming everyone will always hate her. Also, while the teacher was ultimately kind to her, even she was annoyed at Carrie at various points in the film, which Carrie could probably unconsciously pick up on (which makes the film a lot more nuanced than it could have been, btw).

Sending the teacher to safety would be a very rational thing to do. But in that moment, she is not rational. She is overcome by pure emotion.

Plus, having Carrie save the teacher sounds like the studio trying too hard to make sure we still like Carrie. Movies from the '70s weren't as afraid to give you characters that you both loved and hated at the same time.

I don't think the original Carrie is perfect, btw. A lot of the editing and pacing choices are kinda sloppy. That doesn't mean a remake is automatically going to make me disown the original.


I, in fact, enjoy the bible series made in the fiftys so your line won't work. Its when they attempt to pull off bad horror effect movies like Carrie, that I draw the line.


Fair enough, sorry if I misunderstood. Ironically, I'm not a big fan of those '50s Bible epics, heh, but there you go, different tastes. :) And do you think all practicals are bad? I'm just curious. Some are good, some are bad. Same with CGI.

"The good guys always win...even in the 80s!"
Top