Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Carrie (2013)

Any word on if this remake is good or bad?

The cast list on IMDB makes me think it's gonna suck.

Although, Julianne Moore looks fierce as mama White.


by Anonymousreply 9510/18/2013

The NY Times profile of the director was hilarious. She gives Courtney Love a run for her money in the Name Dropping sweepstakes. She seems to think she's owed a big career because she made Boys Don't Cry 20 years ago. It was a big ball of delusion and looking at the cheap CGI in the trailer I'm not expecting much.

The original Carrie is as close to perfect as a movie gets. A remake was not necessary.

by Anonymousreply 110/03/2013

I hope it tanks. Looks atrocious.

by Anonymousreply 210/03/2013

The CGI purple-brown sludge that is the pig's blood in the remake looks really cheesy and fake.

I think it will be passable. But certainly nowhere near the gothic, stylish triumph that the original was. Even the soundtrack by Pino Donaggio is one for the ages. How do you top that?

by Anonymousreply 310/03/2013

Agree with R1. The original was flawless. Unfortunately, Hollywood is devoid of creativity and risk averse so they just recycle movies that already made a lot of $$$.

by Anonymousreply 410/03/2013

Chloe is too pretty for this. That's a big problem, not to mention the ludicrous wig they've given her. I'm looking forward to "It" for the big screen!

by Anonymousreply 510/03/2013

totally unecessary

by Anonymousreply 610/03/2013

The one difference in the remake, Carrie is shown destroying most of the town after she leaves the prom.

by Anonymousreply 710/03/2013

The commercials look awful, particularly the effects. And the girl playing Carrie is awful too. She's so obviously straining to act it's cringe-worthy.

Another thing that bothered me about the trailers, is Carrie's and her mother's house. It looks fairly nice and they come off as upper middle class. Not sure why that bothers me other than it seems like the lazy default kind of house for your run of the mill movies.

by Anonymousreply 810/03/2013

Any reviews?

by Anonymousreply 910/16/2013

Why would Moore want to be in this movie ? Surely she does not need the money.

by Anonymousreply 1010/16/2013

How many offers to you realistically think she gets, R10? She's in her 50s and interesting roles are going to be increasingly few and far between.

I actually question why Chloe 3 Names would do this. Sissy Spacek IS Carrie and always will be. Its about as thankless a task as an actor playing Forrest Gump or Hannibal Lecter.

by Anonymousreply 1110/16/2013

Maybe R11, but Julianne has always had awful taste in roles. A quick glimpse of her filmography confirms that.

by Anonymousreply 1210/16/2013

[quote}Why would Moore want to be in this movie ? Surely she does not need the money.

That was my first thought a dozen years ago, r10.

by Anonymousreply 1310/16/2013

All right, three thoughts after seeing that trailer:

1 - Julianne Moore seems to be the only real actress in this. She wisely plays it as far removed from Piper Laurie as she could, so as to avoid comparisons. Unfortunately playing it straight only seems to make the part really boring.

2 - With one look (no pun intended) Sissy Spaceck could scare or move you (literally or figuratively) more than this Chloe No-triple-Name apparently can in the whole thing.

3 - Thanks to expensive CGI, Hollywood doesn't need to do something as complicated as shooting blood from a bucket. At least I assume that's what that bizarro thing at 2:15 is supposed to stand for.

by Anonymousreply 1410/16/2013

The people who greenlight movies like these dont care if they're good. It's product. And they have it down to a science. If it is marketed right it will earn enough in the opening weekend to make it profitable before bad word of mouth spreads. Look at the box office charts and see how dreadful movies like Insidious 2 are closing in on $80M. Most of it made in the first several days.

by Anonymousreply 1510/16/2013

Reminds me of that horrible remake of [italic]The Women[/italic] Diane English directed a few years ago.

by Anonymousreply 1610/16/2013

[quote]The one difference in the remake, Carrie is shown destroying most of the town after she leaves the prom.

That happened in the first remake too (the one with Patricia Clarkson as the mother).

And I agree with the poster upthread who said that Chloe whatsername is too pretty for the part. Why not go for something different, like a fat black Carrie in a school of perfect little white girls, along with a Baptist Bible-bangin' mother?

I'd watch a Gabourey Sidibe-Viola Davis version of Carrie in a minute.

by Anonymousreply 1710/16/2013

You think Moore's filmography is bad, look at DeNiro's from the past few years.

by Anonymousreply 1810/16/2013

I will see this just for Julianne Moore. Seriously.

by Anonymousreply 1910/16/2013

I find this Chloe person very unappealing.

by Anonymousreply 2010/16/2013

[quote]Peirce recently took De Palma to dinner to compare notes on the making of their respective versions of “Carrie.” “We were talking about the pig-blood dump,” she said. “I asked him how he did the scene. He said, ‘What are you talking about?’ I explained that we went through five-gallon, four-gallon and three-gallon buckets. We tried a five-foot drop, a three-foot drop and a four-foot drop. We had a butterfly opening, we had three cameras and on and on. And he said: ‘I don’t know. Jack” — Fisk, the art director — “was on a ladder, and he poured a bucket of blood.’ And I asked him how many takes he did. ‘What do you mean? We did one.'"

by Anonymousreply 2110/16/2013

Wait a few years and they'll remake it again with Will Smith's daughter.

by Anonymousreply 2210/16/2013

[quote]I'd watch a Gabourey Sidibe-Viola Davis version of Carrie in a minute.

I actually think that is an amazing idea.

by Anonymousreply 2310/16/2013

I saw the original when i was a kid and it scared the shit out of me. I still have not watched again to this day. I could not sleep alone in my room for weeks. Seeing Spacek even scares me.

by Anonymousreply 2410/16/2013

I hate that stupid viral stunt they did in the coffee shop to promote it. Misses the entire fucking point of the film.

by Anonymousreply 2510/16/2013

I was thinking about how the book itself was like the original "bullying kills" horror story...and the idea that someone who was pushed beyond her limit could actually destroy a school and kill dozens of kids. It seemed like a nightmare scenario that was strictly for those with lurid imaginations then.

If King wrote it today, it would have a "ripped from the headlines" quality. Sigh.

by Anonymousreply 2610/16/2013

The director told L.A.'s FRONTIERS magazine that she wanted to make the movie a superhero origin story.

She wants to be more faithful to the book, don't call it a remake because it's a "reimagining," blah, blah, blah, and oh! She wanted to made Margaret White more "complex and sympathetic."

Boring. If Margaret White's not a monster, who is?

by Anonymousreply 2710/16/2013

R24 I had a simliar experience except I didn't even watch it as a kid. The previews, poster, radio ads and book cover freaked me out too much. I didn't see it until I was an adult.

Maybe I'll see the remake on cable. I hate that Chloe girl, she looks like a 40 year old divorcee and there are a couple of moments in the trailer where she gives what looks like a seductive glance. Very weird.

Julianne has two kids to raise and a chiseler of a husband. Of course she needs the money.

by Anonymousreply 2810/16/2013

One modern update to the story that helps the audience understand Carrie's rage: her original humiliation in the gym showers is caught on cell phone video and posted onto a social media site so that her humiliation lives on in viewer counts. Then during the pig's blood scene, that video is played again at the prom. Blood + Video = she can't contain her rage any longer.

by Anonymousreply 2910/16/2013

[quote] during the pig's blood scene, that video is played again at the prom. Blood + Video = she can't contain her rage any longer.

The horrible sequel The Rage: Carrie 2 already did this, in 1999. In that movie, the bullies filmed the Carrie substitute having sex with a guy and played it at a party.

I hate how remakes are marketed now - the same stuff about gritty reimaginings is trotted out each time. They should all do what De Palma does - when people accuse him of treading similar ground to Hitchcock he throws up his hands and admits it.

by Anonymousreply 3010/16/2013

ha r24, 28 - same here. I remember being a kid in rural Michigan and seeing the cover of the paperback book at the grocery store. This was around the time the movie came out. It had the infamous image of Sissy drenched in blood staring out with that piercing haunting gaze.

That night my mom gave us vanilla ice cream with Hershey's syrup all over it and it made me sick to my stomach because it reminded of the cover of the book. No one could understand why I didn't want dessert, especially because I was such a sugar fiend.

by Anonymousreply 3110/16/2013

We're all going to laugh at it ....we're all going to laugh at it ...we're all ...

by Anonymousreply 3210/16/2013

I should have known this movie would get red...

by Anonymousreply 3310/16/2013

The original was a practically perfect thriller. Why even try to retool it?

by Anonymousreply 3410/16/2013

While a terrific movie, the original was *not* flawless (e.g., the boys-trying-on-tuxes-for-the-prom-with-cheesy-music montage always takes me out of the movie).

And no, Julianne Moore will not automatically rule as "Mama" just because she's Julianne Moore. If the movie bites, it bites, and no amount of Moore chewing scenery will be able to save it (and before you people start wailing: I do like quite a bit of her work, so this isn't a slam on Moore. It's simply ridiculous that people often act as if their favorite performer will automatically elevate or salvage a questionable production).

by Anonymousreply 3510/16/2013

R15 nails it. It doesn't matter if the movie is necessary or not.

by Anonymousreply 3610/16/2013

[quote]And I agree with the poster upthread who said that Chloe whatsername is too pretty for the part. Why not go for something different, like a fat black Carrie in a school of perfect little white girls, along with a Baptist Bible-bangin' mother?

[quote]I'd watch a Gabourey Sidibe-Viola Davis version of Carrie in a minute.

Hmmm... now, *this* would be promising. The purists would shit their pants; however, this would have been an intriguing reimagining of the work.

by Anonymousreply 3710/16/2013

The tuxedo scene and the optical effect when Carrie flips the car are the only two moments in the original movie that I don't like.

by Anonymousreply 3810/16/2013

One reason I detest horror remakes are that today's glossy big-budget films never seem to have an edge to them. They feel too safe - you can just picture 50 crewmembers standing around ensuring the lighting is perfect. Think of how terrifying the original Halloween was, or even Blair Witch Project (if you watched it before the hype, sadly I missed that experience). Too many cooks spoil the broth.

by Anonymousreply 3910/16/2013

Will be on SyFy in no time.

by Anonymousreply 4010/16/2013

They did, R30! The clips of the prom scene in the remake remind me a lot of THE RAGE.

Is the remake in 3-D?

by Anonymousreply 4110/16/2013

Looks like it's gonna be a BOMB!

Under 40% at Rotten Tomatoes.

by Anonymousreply 4210/17/2013

Why do an expensive remake of a classic if you're not going to improve on it?

by Anonymousreply 4310/17/2013

Is Sue Snell black?

by Anonymousreply 4410/17/2013

She was in the made for TV remake, R44.

by Anonymousreply 4510/17/2013

That quote from #21 upthread is what's wrong with film today. Their anal-retentive obsessiveness pounds out any realness. The grit is buffed smooth as a granite countertop.

If I was the director I wouldn't admit the inability to do a scene on the cheap in one take.

As much as I like Julianne Moore, I think she's too wispy to do the part justice. Actors like Annette Bening or Jesscia Lange have that sad, pent-up rage quality necessary.

I would have cast Carrie with a young bi-racial actress, to amp-up the shame and detachment between the two characters.

by Anonymousreply 4610/17/2013

Cinderella/Carrie Mash-Up trailer.

by Anonymousreply 4710/17/2013


Are they remaking "Carrie" or "The Blob"?

by Anonymousreply 4810/17/2013

It was a bad sign when there were no early reviews sent out. It was another bad sign when they shifted the release from early spring to now, to try and pass it off as a "Halloween themed" film.

by Anonymousreply 4910/17/2013

I swear to God she only has one expression in her little bag of tricks.

by Anonymousreply 5010/17/2013


If the director wanted to be "more faithful to the book" she would have made Carrie an unlikable,fat dog.

by Anonymousreply 5110/17/2013

Do you think we'll see full bush and jiggling titties during the opening credits? AND Edie McClurg?

When you really consider it..the 70s were FAR more edgy when compared with today.

by Anonymousreply 5210/17/2013

[quote]Do you think we'll see full bush and jiggling titties during the opening credits? AND Edie McClurg?

The fact that Edie McClurg was playing a high school girl was one of my favorite parts of the original. Just a couple of years later, she was already playing middle-aged women!

by Anonymousreply 5310/17/2013

The 70's had much less technology and had to rely on two things absent today from "mainstream" Hollywood for the most part: originality and talent.

by Anonymousreply 5410/17/2013

Remakes by and large suck big time. I don't think this will be an exception.

Carrie was not "an unlikeable, fat dog" in the book. Early in the book she's described as unattractive, but later it's revealed that she isn't a hideous monster and in fact looks very good at the prom. And she's not unlikeable at all. She's just a depressed, lonely, mistreated young girl with no one to help her.

Margaret White was described as a large, muscular woman (she got the muscles from her job slinging laundry), the antithesis of delicate, tiny Julianne Moore. The descriptions of her abuse against Carrie are horrifying in and of themselves; she slaps her in the face using her whole arm to land the blow, kicks her and strangles her. When Carrie is three years old she comes close to killing her for the "sin" of seeing their next door neighbor's body in a bathing suit. She takes Carrie inside, "throttles" the little girl and goes to the kitchen to get a knife to CUT OUT HER EYES. It's then that Carrie's "power" manifests itself in earnest, causing a rain of stones and ice to fall out of the sky onto the house.

The constant child abuse and bullying in King's book is more awful than the violence Carrie wreaks after she gets blood dumped on her at the prom. He based the character of Carrie on two girls he knew in school. Both were treated abominably in school and came from strange families. Both died premature deaths.

by Anonymousreply 5510/17/2013

Chloe didn't exactly knock my socks off in "Dark Shadows."

by Anonymousreply 5610/17/2013


All that OCD hand wringing about the fuckin' blood and they STILL end up going with awful,fake-ass CGI.

by Anonymousreply 5710/17/2013

Modern movies have no.depth & desire to develop characters. Totall Recall remake, terrible. Missed the camp of the original

by Anonymousreply 5810/17/2013

Has Julianne been doing any press? I haven't seen her name listed for being on any talk shows.

by Anonymousreply 5910/17/2013

They're all going to LAUGH at you!

by Anonymousreply 6010/17/2013

Is Priscilla Pointer in the remake?

by Anonymousreply 6110/17/2013

Phila Inquirer gives it 3 stars in tomorrow's paper. Calls it unnecessary but "fine"

by Anonymousreply 6210/17/2013

I don't know....this prom scene clip looks terrifying.

by Anonymousreply 6310/17/2013


Somebody should have said that to this movie's director.

by Anonymousreply 6410/17/2013

I have a friend who worked on the film in Toronto and it was a strained set. Apparently the director was in over her head and argued with crew. It was disorganized.

I don't think she's the right director for this. She may understand the relationships, but she has not proven herself as a suspense or horror filmmaker.

Chloe is miscast. She doesn't look innocent and vulnerable.

by Anonymousreply 6510/17/2013

The initial release date was March 15, 2013, that tells you something.

by Anonymousreply 6610/17/2013

A truly pointless remake.

by Anonymousreply 6710/17/2013

They went to at least two, if not three film editors. That should tell you something.

There are a few flukes in the directing business, Peirce is definitely one of them.

by Anonymousreply 6810/17/2013

They should hurry up and remake it then if this one didn't work

by Anonymousreply 6910/17/2013

[quote]I don't know....this prom scene clip looks terrifying.

It looks horribly scary.

by Anonymousreply 7010/17/2013

Pierce got licky. Boys Don't Cry had an interesting lead performance. Otherwise it was just annoying lesbo drama.

by Anonymousreply 7110/17/2013

lucky^^^ but I guess licky applies too.

by Anonymousreply 7210/17/2013

Could u imagine the humiliation if every couple years they just keep remaking every shitty Julianne Moore film?

by Anonymousreply 7310/17/2013

Julianne Moore SPOILERS!!!


Julianne Moore sings!

Julianne Moore carves on herself!

Julianne Moore is forced back into the closet!

Julianne Moore looks scary in her fright wig!

Julianne Moore sews!

Julianne Moore is the best thing about this remake...


the bad kids are all just dull and bland.

by Anonymousreply 7410/18/2013

R63 the prom scene was good. Just back from the 12:00 showing.

It was OK. Certainly not as good as the Spacek version but it was OK.

by Anonymousreply 7510/18/2013

I've not read any reviews. Will Moore get a razzie an oscar or nothing either way?

by Anonymousreply 7610/18/2013

The NY Times Magazine interview with Pierce was telling. She blames everyone but herself for her stagnant career and is convinced it is all because she's a woman. No bitch, it is because you SUCK.

by Anonymousreply 7710/18/2013

I just saw it - here's my take:

Chloe is fantastic - Julianne is amazing, of course. The material for both is really thin - there's not much to do but be the scared girl and the slightly off mother - I did like that they dipped a bit more into the abuse angle rather than just doing a fundamentalist slant.

The movie did a good job too of showing that Carrie's mother wasn't crazy per se - she'd been living for years and years with objects moving on their own, plates and mirrors cracking, and strange sounds no matter what she did - yeah, she was a bit unnerved.

There's way, way, way too much CGI. Like a ridiculous amount. And yet when you would WANT there to be, like at the end with the whole town, they pull way, way back. Looks to me then that it wasn't designed into the story - that after it was edited somebody said "we need more floating objects and moving things" but couldn't do it whole scale because of the last third of the movie. It's not good.

Ultimately it's biggest problem is that it's the same exact movie. It doesn't do anything you're not already familiar with, and hits the beats pretty much in the same way - except in places where it SHOULD do that, like the shower scene, and then for some reason it gets nervous and backs away. It's a very, very timid movie.

by Anonymousreply 7810/18/2013

R65, wonder if we know the same people? They filmed in a house near mine. Moore wasn't happy, Peirce was completely at sea and often compared the dailies to boys Don't Cry, and Chloe Three Names had to be worked around.

by Anonymousreply 7910/18/2013

The girl who played Sue Snell reminded me of a tall, blonde Ali MacGraw. Gorgeous but just not a lot there.

by Anonymousreply 8010/18/2013

"The material for both is really thin - there's not much to do"

Yet... Brian DePalma managed to make an engrossing, classic 90 min. thriller out of it.

by Anonymousreply 8110/18/2013

They shoulda gotten Hilary Swank to play Margaret!

by Anonymousreply 8210/18/2013

The material is thin? The torment and anxiety of high school is a subject with limitless possibilities. ESPECIALLY these days with the reignited debate about bullying. You have to be kidding me.

by Anonymousreply 8310/18/2013

Whoopi Goldberg said on THE VIEW this morning that it was excellent. One of the best movies she has ever seen.

And no one was on there promoting it, so her word is obviously true. But even Mario Cantone gave the original props by doing a Piper Laurie impression.

by Anonymousreply 8410/18/2013

Whoopi has a habit of playing devil's advocate on every topic under the sun. I wasn't going to see it anyway, but now I'm even more convinced it's shit.

by Anonymousreply 8510/18/2013

Jeeze, R84, talk about the kiss of death.

by Anonymousreply 8610/18/2013

But was it EXCELLENT excellent?

by Anonymousreply 8710/18/2013

R81, don't be such a bitch. I meant that what's on the screen for them in THIS version isn't much. Go jerk off to DePalma now, and also see if you can find a time machine to take you back to when he was relevent.

by Anonymousreply 8810/18/2013

w&w, R87...well played.

by Anonymousreply 8910/18/2013

No tits or pussy in this one.

by Anonymousreply 9010/18/2013

Supposed to open at number two. "Gravity" will be number one three weeks in a row.

by Anonymousreply 9110/18/2013

"Whoopi Goldberg said on THE VIEW this morning that it was excellent. One of the best movies she has ever seen.

And no one was on there promoting it, so her word is obviously true."

Are you a total retard? Whoopi Goldberg's "word" is not "true" about anything. Whoopi Goldberg said that what Roman Polanski did "wasn't RAPE-rape." Whoopi Goldberg said that Michael Vick tortured and killed animals because he was brought up in an environment (Newport News, VA) where it was considered normal to torture and kill animals. Whoopi Goldberg said she would ok with leaving her kids alone with Michael Jackson. Whoopi Goldberg says that Mel Gibson is not a racist. Whoopi Goldberg is a big fat braying idiot. If she says a movie is good, then it MUST be a steaming pile of shit.

by Anonymousreply 9210/18/2013


((((((((((Anyone here?))))))))

by Anonymousreply 9310/18/2013

It actually wasn't bad. Not anything special, but lots of fun. The pacing is far too fast though. You barely get to know many of the characters.

Chloe was really good. She broke my heart several times. Julianne was good, but needed a little more crazy. The Ansel guy that plays Tommy is so adorable. Not traditionally handsome, but gives off this sweet vibe.

I've seen far worse remakes.

by Anonymousreply 9410/18/2013

I got cast in a Kimberly Peirce movie. First thing she did was send out notice that she thought all the actors, male and female, were too beefy and she wanted everyone to lose weight.

I immediately sent word back that I would gain weight for the role and hope to be fired and paid anyway. Didn't happen alas. She was okay as director... but still a bit of a twit.

Fought with Hilary non-stop on the first one, female lead in this one would stare ahead as Kim yacked and yacked. The male lead was a sweetheart, though, as was the DP who had once directed a far FAR better movie and was slumming here.

by Anonymousreply 9510/18/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!