MovieChat Forums > Carrie (2002) Discussion > 3/10. Here's why:

3/10. Here's why:

posted 10 years ago by IMDB_Vits
8 replies | jump to latest

As I said above, CARRIE was exagerated in a good way. In CARRIE 2002, the characters are a little more realistic. This includes the title character, who isn’t such a push-over. She does talk back at others, including her mother, from time to time. At first, turning the story into flashbacks while we see the police investigating felt to me like a way to acknowledge that the audience already knows the plot. But it serves a bigger purpose: To show the points of view of more characters and to surprise us with some new plot twists. Unfortunately, none of those changes save the movie. Just like THE RAGE: CARRIE PART 2, this one is also more teen-oriented. And that makes it hard for us adults to relate. The prom scene isn’t as graphic. Not trying to sound like a sadist, but come on! That’s the reason why we get interested in this story: To see some graphic deaths. But there isn’t even any blood (most of the students die by electrocution). Later, she kills her mom by stopping her heart. Does telekinesis work that way? Can you move objects you can’t actually see?

Read more at http://vits-ingthemovies.blogspot.com/2014/12/comments-round-up-decemb er-2014.html

Any thoughts?

[–] bandimal 10 years ago

The questions you pose are best answered by reading Stephen King's book. This movie version is much more faithful to the book than the other two.

Joshua 1:9 ... unashamed.

[–] IMDB_Vits 10 years ago

"The movie didn't explain it? Read the book". Wow, I've never heard that before.


[–] bandimal 10 years ago

"I've posed questions that someone suggested can be answered by going to the source, but I've decided to ignore the most obvious explanations and attempt to ridicule the person who knows the answers." Wow, I've never heard that before.

Joshua 1:9 ... unashamed.

[–] IMDB_Vits 10 years ago

I'm the one ridiculing? You started. Of course I can go and buy the book and read it; I just don't like people using that to excuse flaws. Now, I don't usually books after watching the movie adaptation. I'm even less interested in this one because I've seen 3 movie adaptations. So I wanted a direct answer. I didn't know the answer was in the book; I thought an expert on the subject would tell me.

[–] bandimal 10 years ago

Dude, I gave you a straight answer. You just didn't like it. You never said that you didn't want to read the book. A lot of people don't like spoilers, so I referred you to the original.

And if you're looking for experts, then there are other places to go besides IMDb message boards... such as movie reviews, film theory texts, and well-researched print sources.

But if you must know NOW - here are some of the answers to your questions about the 2002 movie (as I understand the book):
1. In the book, there is hardly any blood. There are explosions, fires, and electrocutions. There is no impaled Momma. Carrie does things with her mind, not with implements. In fact, the book doesn't show Carrie killing anyone with blunt force at all, not the least in the prom. She's actually outside, looking in, traps people in the gym, opens the sprinklers and then pulls the power cords after seeing one person accidentally electrocuted (she thought he looked funny) - without so much as moving a chair.
2. In the book, Carrie kills her mother by stopping her heart. The 2002 movie imagines HOW this is done through the wonders of CGI. The book describes her simply slowing her mother's heart to a stop through telekinesis. Her mother isn't physically touched.
3. The structure of the movie follows much more closely the structure of the book, which is told from multiple viewpoints and anecdotes.

Joshua 1:9 ... unashamed.

[–] i_love_evanesence 9 years ago

Okay. You've made me want to watch this version now.

Now just to find out how to get it.

[–] invertedpenguin 9 years ago

And that makes it hard for us adults to relate.

After reading this thread I gotta say that you may be an "adult" but you're years away from growing up.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]