MovieChat Forums > Carrie (2002) Discussion > This movie was terrible and a disgrace t...

This movie was terrible and a disgrace to the original


Now I know the truth.

reply

Yes, horrible remake, didn't do any justice to the original or novel imo.

Matthew 5:11
If you Love Jesus Christ 100% Copy and Paste this into your profile!

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Movie wasn't half as bad as everyone makes it out to be. It had Katharine Isabelle, Emilie de Ravin and Patricia Clarkson so I rest my case. If you didn't at least enjoy the plot I'm sure you enjoyed the shower scene with Emilie and Katharine ;) Also I thought Patricia did very well as the mom.

I think this is most likely one of my favourite films of Katharine's, simply because she was absolutely gorgeous. I think it was somethin to do with the filming technique, the soft edges and the apparent glowing of the skin. You gotta admit that it was a very pretty film and very interestingnly done. As there was a sharp colour contrast at certain points, albeit subtle. Just look at Carrie's home. It was probably one of the sharpest sets, vivid with harsh colours. Devoid of any of the glowy edges and glowing colours.

I think it got across the point that Carrie lived in her own little world, the soft edges and blurred glowing skin. She too glowed and yet she wasn't even gorgeous. So are we merely seeing a projection of the entire film of what is in her head?? Or are we truly third person.

I personally think we are seeing the entire movie via Carrie's perspective via her head. It would account for the interesting aspects of the cinematography. You have to have little expectations for TV films they aren't meant to be taken as seriously as big budget or even independant films. They need to be appreciated for what they are and judged alone on their own merrits.

Of curse this film will never live up to the original movie, the upcoming remake or the Novel. They should all be looked at as individual pieces of art. I personally enjoy this remake just for the acting of some of my favourites such as Emilie & Katharine. They are the reasons why I watched it and bought it. I also enjoyed it for it's more natural make-up scheme of the actresses. It was a nice change to see the natural faces of the talent vs the more precise make up of the main stream movies. I get so tired of constantly seeing such made up faces on movies. It was nice to see such a back to basic premise.

reply

It wasn´t a happy ending. It was just a better ending but still harm has been done nad will haunt everyone, including Carrie (or especially Carrie, since she is willn have to hide for the rest of her life).

reply

I liked this ending much better than the 'arm out of the grave' nonsense.

So since the ending is the same as book, the rest of the film can be completely different? Because the 1976 version had almost nothing to do with the novel.

Do a favor to the world and kill yourself you biased hypocrite.

reply

Wasn't terrible but did pale in comparison to the original.

reply

I agree but nothing really beats the original. I will say that it is better than other remakes and at least different. I think this film is one of tge reason why I won't see the new remake. For me what done is done. Why try to recreate the wheel.

reply

I concur, you couldn't PAY me to watch this film again.

reply

i wouldnt say it was a disgrace to the original, it was a decent remake, but the ending couldve been better; if they had retained the novel's ending rather than going for the cop out happy ending it would have been better. As it is, i like both versions of the story, but in the long run still prefer the original classic.

am pretty excited for the new remake coming out though.

BTW bradster67, its a little extreme and somewhat immature to call someone an idiot just because they disagree with you on a movie.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I was very underwhelmed when I saw the original for the first time. It hasn't aged well. There were some good things about it but it could have been so much better

I much preferred this film. The writing, character development, pacing and structure of the story were much better done. All the actors - aside from Patricia Clarkson - captured their characters perfectly.

I'm gonna die of long hair!

reply

They had Carrie live on this ending, not for the happily ever after thing, but because the producers wanted to make a spin off TV series.

The premise of these series was to have Carrie being a fugitive in Florida and deal with the fact that she killed her own mother and over 200 people, of course, her powers would have been a major plot for the series, and she would get help from Sue.

However, the TV movie had bad ratings, so the producers didn't go with it.

This whole premise of course, is a corruption from the original novel and Brian de Palma's film, but on an "alternate universe" point of view is not half as bad, to be honest, it sounded better than what they are doing with Bates Motel.

This remake wasn't so bad either, granted, it is not the best version, but it did have some interesting things on it, that were well executed, at the end of the day it kept most of the essence and events of the novel.

I haven't watched yet the new version with Chloe Moretz, I can say however that even though I like Moretz's movies, I believe she is miscasted as Carrie, she is too pretty for this character.

Christianity's GREATEST ally and BEST friend throughout history is Satan

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]