Kirkkitsch’s Blog

Carrie 2.0 Unplugged

This is one of many cheap no-case DVDs that I bought. Generally, I’m one of those people who prefers to own CDs (case et al) vs MP3 downloads, DVDs with case/artwork, etc. However, I do have a small collection of DVDs without cases. These are generally movies that I was either curious about, but had never seen and/or movies that I like, but am in no hurry to purchase. Carrie (or Carrie 2.0, as I call it) is one of those movies.

I remember when this movie debuted on television. I’d seen commercials for it and had mixed feelings about it: On the one hand, I’ve always loved the story (book) and of course the original theatrical release, directed by one of my all-time favorite directors, Brian De Palma, circa 1976. On the other hand, the remake followed A LOT of unnecessary, inferior King “re-imaginings”/”reboots” and/or sequels: The Dead Zone (TV), Firestarter 2 (TV), The Rage: Carrie 2 (Theatrical release {big turd}), The Shining (TV), Trucks (TV) and a slew of godawful Children of the Corn sequels. So you can see why I didn’t have high hopes for the Carrie remake. This all under the guise (read excuse) of hardcore King fans and King himself as being “more faithful to the book,” though we know if was just unadulterated greed. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

So, having OD’ed on TV shows, I dug out my orphan DVD Rolodex and flipped through it and decided on Carrie 2.0. The first thing I noticed right away, was that the movie looks cheap. Real cheap. I’ve definitely seen better-looking made-for-TV movies. I expected CGI, but there was A LOT, and it wasn’t great. Good CGI should enhance a film, not take you out of the moment. In addition, even though I like Angela Bettis, her portrayal was a letdown, but in her defense, she had a hard act to follow. It’s not every day that you get to portray a horror/pop culture icon. I realize she probably tried to bring something new to the character, a sense of ‘realism,’ what with Carrie’s “episodes/seizures” (AKA her bouts with telekinesis), but I found them REALLY annoying and distracting.

Though there were elements added to the movie, that were originally in the book, I didn’t feel they really added much to the storyline. So, yes, the TV version may have been more faithful to the book, but to no avail. And why we’re on the subject, if King was so gung ho on staying faithful to the book, why is Carrie STILL not the overweight, acne-riddled teen we read about in his book? I guess some things never change (namely the general public’s lack of interest in relating to/seeing an overweight actress in a key role {and no, this doesn’t include the recent Precious. Totally different demographic}).

However, I did love one aspect of the movie and that was the actress who played the role of Sue Snell (originally portrayed by Amy Irving), Kandyse McClure. I thought she was great and very much reminded me of Amy Irving. The similarities were almost creepy. We’re talking doppelganger.

Alas, that’s all I really have to say about this ‘update’ to a classic movie. And that’s just it, the original movie adaptation is just that: a classic. There are a lot of elements that make it so, mainly the actors, the performances and most notably, the direction and overall vision. So, save yourself some precious time and rent/pop in the original. And if you’re one of these people who wants to use the ‘it’s closer to the book’ defense, stick to reading the book(s). Movies have to maintain something called pacing and time constraints, so if you’re looking for a blow by blow reenactment, avoid these things called ‘movies.’ It’s called an ‘adaptation’ for a reason: because it’s NOT THE BOOK.

1 Comment so far
Leave a comment