Carrie (2002)

Touches You

How sad is this?

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

In the made-for-TV movie "Carrie," our young naive outcast (Angela Bettis) is tormented by her fellow high-school students. She learns of her telekinesis and begins using it as a tool for vengeance.The 2002 version of Stephen King's "Carrie" is a lot better than it could've been. It was already fighting an uphill battle trying to recapture the same tense and gloriously haunting magic the 1976 movie did. Weak performances and cheesy dialogue by many of the actors doesn't help the situation. However, Angela Bettis's incredible performance as the title character virtually redeems any weakness shown by the other cast members. The one thing that hinders this update is the TV-quality production and cinematography. That being said, the special effects are a lot better than they should've been for a TV-movie made in the early 2000s.Although 2002's "Carrie" is rated TV-14 and includes some questionable content for younger viewers. There's brief nudity, although nothing graphic is shown. The scenes are from the back or a profile of Carrie lying in the fetal position in the shower. There are adult situations, violence and gore, mild profanity, alcohol and smoking, and frightening and intense scenes.If you give the update a chance, you'll find that it really isn't as bad as history remembers it.

The original 1976 Carrie is one of my favourite movies, period. i recently watched the remake with Chloe Moretz but I had a lot of issues with that, namely that they simply got the script of the original and did a technology update with it. I watched this movie and... While I can't praise it as a good movie this is not without some benefits.Based on the knowledge I'll assume you have of the DePalma film, this one is not a complete rehash. I prefer remakes when they are like this because they can offer a different interpretation on a story that has been told already. This one actually does a decent job of it in some areas while in others it fails miserably.To explain in detail, Carrie's telekinesis when she was a child brought down a dozen meteorites on her house in this version. It's over the top and it only gets uttered ONCE after that. You would think that even one meteorite would interest the authorities, a dozen on the exact same few square feet of land at the exact same time would arouse a lot of interest because I see that as nigh on impossible and I know f#ck all about astronomy. You have a few scenes like that which really dampens the movie.Another big problem is that none of the supposed High School kids look like High School kids. They look like College kids if they're a part of any schooling system. Don't get me wrong some of them do throw in a decent performance now and then while others do go a little bit over the top.Now with that said they do a few things better than the 2013 remake. For example, Angela Bettis looks and acts just like someone going through a lot of abuse. She isn't anything on Sissy Spacek but she is miles above Chloe Moretz. With that said She doesn't look all that threatening in the prom massacre scene.One interesting touch to this movie is the fact that it's all told out like a series of police interrogations. That could actually work and it does bring this movie a certain style to it. If there was any complaint with this it's that some of what they say they can't possibly know.I also liked the ending of this (well not like, more find it interesting), the point of Carrie in my eyes is that a monster is created in an abused girl by the environment that she lives in only to die with her mother out of regret. Here I kind of like the idea of Carrie surviving. Usually something like this would have me flip tables but here, I kind of wanted to see where they were going with it.With some of the scene re-enactments in this version... They're weird, that's all I can say. The shower scene where Carrie starts menstruating in the other 2 versions kind of made sense as to why they were bullying her about it, because she thought she was dying and at age 17, that kind of seems ridiculous. Here? They just bully her because she's menstruating. ??? ...So out of the Carrie remakes I have seen is this finally one worth watching? Maybe. I like that it was trying to be it's own thing, I liked the idea of the changed ending and the people handling the way Carrie looked did a marvelous job to name a few complimentary things. But it drags, a lot. The over-the-top scenes are far in-between to watch for a laugh, some of the scene re-enactments are weird and the High Schoolers look old enough to be in College. If you want to see how someone handles the project of adapting Stephen King's novel differently (the key word being differently), check it out of curiosity.

The problem with remaking "Carrie" is two-fold. First off, the original Brian DePalma film is such a defining classic. Any additional version will be compared unflatteringly to that original. Secondly, the story follows a clear, well-known formula. Every version of "Carrie" has to end with the main character wreaking telekinetic havoc at the prom. The question of remaking "Carrie" becomes whether or not the performances justify telling a story everyone knows the ending to. This was the question facing the 2002 television version of "Carrie" and is the question currently facing the brand new, Chloe Moretz-starring remake.So, do the performances justify the film? Kind of. A screening of "May" is what convinced the producers that Angela Bettis was the perfect choice for the role of Carrie. No doubt, the two characters are similar, disenfranchised loners who strike back violently against their tormentors. However, Angela Bettis makes Carrie not only very different from May but different from Sissy Spacek's Carrie. Spacek played the character as a wounded animal. Bettis' Carrie, meanwhile, plays like a PTSD victim. She keeps her head down, taking abuse silently. She's more spastic, seemingly going into seizure like trances. Bettis' naturally nervous qualities are played up, her eyes and forehead twitching. However, this Carrie has a secret rage burning inside of her. She bottles up her anger at the world. A more bitter or even sarcastic side shows through during her interactions with mother or schoolmates. Spacek's Carrie was a poor girl who snaps suddenly, unexpectedly. Bettis' Carrie is a ticking time bomb. The differing interpretation allows Angela to make the part her own. It's a very good performance from a great actress.Patricia Clarkson also goes in a very different direction from what Piper Laurie did in the original. Laurie played the role as over-the-top, high opera. Clarkson goes in the opposite direction. Her Margaret White rarely raises her voice. Her threats are quiet and subtle. She doesn't have to yell and scream to make her point. She plays her religious fanaticism as a frightening truth, someone who believes unerringly. Clarkson is excellent, far more believable then Laurie's campy theatrics. It's the only true advantage the 2002 version has over the 1976 version.The 133-minute long film, originally aired in two halves over two nights, hews more closely to Stephen King's original novel. It reinstates the epistolary format, a police detective interviewing the surviving high school students about what happened that night, the events recalled in flashback. The narrative reshuffling does little to change the flow of the story. Carrie still gets her period in the girl's changing room, freaks out, discovers her powers, faces her religious fanatic mother, gets invited to the prom by Tommy Ross, has pig's blood dumped on her, goes nuts and kills a lot of people. Several missing scenes from the book are reinserted. Small meteorites fall from the sky when Carrie is born. When she's six years old, after an encounter with the neighbor's daughter, the same thing happens. After the massacre at the prom, Carrie walks through Chamberlain, Maine, destroying most of the town.I'm not sure how to feel about the extended run time. In some ways, it allows the material to breathe more. A few of the additional scenes add nice character development. Chris Hargensen has a scene where she interacts with Carrie alone, that shows Chris to have some depth as a character. When Kandyse McClure's Sue Snell talks to Carrie about make-up, it's humorous, expands on the two's relationship, and provides more insight in Carrie's opinions. The pre-massacre prom scenes are surprisingly good. Carrie and Tommy Ross talking in the car is unusually sweet. Miss Desjarden's monologue to Carrie about post-high school life is wonderful as well, especially Carrie's reaction to it. As Carrie and Tommy dance, Angela gets a great moment, expressing gratitude to the young man. The detective subplot doesn't add much but the cop looking through Carrie's completely empty, unsigned year book is rather heartbreaking. Then again, several scenes are unnecessarily extended. The pig bleeding scene goes on far too long. A moment of Carrie freaking out in class, shattering her desk, adds nothing. The principal talking with a lawyer has no effect on the rest of the film. Though Emilie de Raven's Chris is less blatantly psychotic then Nancy Allen's, her boyfriend Billy becomes a cold sociopath for no particular reasons.The biggest problem with 2002's "Carrie" is that it can't compete with the 1976's version thrills. The CGI-filled prom massacre lacks the visceral punch of the original. DePalma's unique style ramped up the intensity. David Carson's comparatively flat direction adds little. The rampage through town is well executed but seems superfluous. Carrie's powers are often overdone, with her cracking desk, throwing bikes through the air, or wrapping a truck around a tree. Considering Carrie's obvious anger, her not having any memory of the rampage is a cheat. Laura Karpman's score isn't bad, blatantly recalls Pino Dinaggio's work at times, but isn't as impressive.Of course, the ending is different. For some reason, producer Bryan Fuller decided "Carrie" would make a great set-up for a series. Carrie White survives and goes on the road with Sue Snell. The series would have been "The Fugitive," with a telekinetic teenage girl as the protagonist. This, of course, was a terrible idea. If 2002's "Carrie" maintained the book's ending, it perhaps would have been a stronger film. As it is, it's not a bad effort. It can't compare to DePalma's version and is frequently mediocre. Still, the two lead actresses lend what otherwise would have been a forgettable product some elegance.

First off, there's a sad desperation in the reviews that praise this remake because it's more faithful to the book. That is not always a virtue, and I found the flashback sequences annoying, simply because there was no tension; there was nothing these characters could reveal (except for Sue, which goes to the absurd ending). Similarly, there is no need to be truer to the pig-killing scene. It's awful enough done briefly. As for other elements...Clarkson is a better Mama, for sure. The Carrie, not so much. The evil Chris, great, and there's not much you can do with the gym teacher beyond what any actress will do (although I missed Betty Buckley's kind of creepy reminiscence at the prom, indicating an ugly duckling agenda of her own). BUT. The prom inferno was terribly done. Sloppy, and not in a realistically good way. Worst of all is both Sue Snell character and actress. This lone, sympathetic character came across as annoying and not all that nice, and there is then even less basis for the rescue ending: I understand you have extraordinary powers and are deeply troubled, so let's get you to Florida? All in all, not worth watching. While the original is flawed, it was De Palma's territory, and it works as glorious camp/horror.