File: 1382056465909_carrie-spoilers.jpg (8.17 KB, 223x105)
>>325422>There were a few moments where I thought her body language and facial expressions were a bit over the top. She doesn't look naturally weird and creepy so she might have been trying to overcompensate. Other than that, I thought she pretty much nailed it.
Yup. She was really cute when over-expressing herself though. I really liked her in that first volleyball scene.
>I knew she would probably die but I didn't feel very emotional like I thought I would.
In this movie's version, it didn't seem like she died. It seemed like she was buried but still alive.
Not much in terms of body shots but her face when she does it is oh so senzual
that bit alone woulld be worth the price of the blu-ray
Mr. Black (fbb8) 325667
File: 1382127467788_767687.png (259.21 KB, 395x400)
I need to see this
Anonymous (ce74) 325673
File: 1382127844595_sad_frog.jpg (7 KB, 316x202)
>tfw you can see Carrie only in late November
Mr. Black (fbb8) 325680
File: 1382128707443.jpg (84.35 KB, 625x414)
Yep. I'd watch a bootleg because i'm so excited but i really want to see it for the first time on a big screen, and i don't want to be a shitty fan and not support her movies.
AsianG (ce9c) 325703
You see a close up of her face and shoulders with the water slowly softening her hair. She brushes her hair back with both hands.
You see a shot of her rubbing soap on her thighs.
This movie was pretty disappointing to me, I thought Chloe fit the role, but I felt like the movie needed to be longer in some ways. It felt like it just go to the prom too fast. Didn't feel like Carrie was being tortured enough.
Everything after the blood dump just seemed so underwhelming too. The way she was doing people in felt muted somehow.
I felt like the movie Chronicle did these telekinetc sequences much better and it's a PG13 movie.
Cubia (5c61) 325769
File: 1382157555691.jpg (79.3 KB, 825x550)
I enjoyed it, I didn't get emotionally attached but i did feel sad for Carrie but not until the drive home it did not impact me until then.
I really can't remember the first movie only saw it once but i really enjoyed that it was not just the pig blood and video that made her go berserk but the boy dying. (from a bucket that fell what 5 feet?…dude played sports right?)
I also liked how in the bath as she is washing off the blood it was like she was waking up and just then realizing what she had done which was great how all her actions seemed to happen while she lost consciousness leaving nothing but her fury until it all came rushing back.
It wasn't super duper omg this movie! amazing…It felt really short like a episode of Kill La Kill but Chloe was great, there were bits of comedy that were nice, Julian moare was great as the crazy Catholic up there with the lady from The Fog & the lady in the first Silent hill. Other Teenagers were well forgettable but i though it was nice what the girl and the boy tried too do it was heartwarming. Bitch face and the others were pretty spot on evil people but only Bitch face's death really felt satisfying
File: 1382168107916_carrie2.gif (4.18 MB, 960x396)
As she's crawling on the shower floor screaming, there's a couple of panty shots there too.
anonymous (aca7) 326193
Right off the bat, the shower scene wasn't done that well. It just wasn't convincing and didn't hit hard enough. That's the scene that is supposed to set everything in motion and it didn't work. The hatred Chris had for Carrie seemed unbelievable, as was Sue's immense guilt-tripping. They should have shown more of Carrie getting bullied.
exactly..when i was watching the scenes with Chris part of me felt like she was getting railroaded in this version…it almost felt like this is what has to happen to move the movie along…i also felt some of the scenes telegraphed or foreshadowed what was going to come…
>>326195>Chloe just doesn't look intimidating
Couldn't disagree more
Both and Kick-ass and on 30 rock she came across as intimidating
As she did here in certain scenes
I think the problem is that they played her as a symphatetic character instead of trying to make her look like a monster
Anonymous (ce9c) 326197
Having never seen the original, the starting scenes were pretty good.
I felt like the casting of Chloe was totally fine. I just watched the original's shower scene and this new one had more realistic reactions from everyone.
The scene felt like light hearted jeering at someone who doesn't know what a period is, at least compared to the original where the girls were yelling with gritted teeth really quickly.
They really needed to take time though to show why Carrie was being bullied, instead of rushing to the prom scenario. Maybe have her interact with that guy in the library..
I feel like adapting so strictly to the book is just foolhardy.
Anonymous (ce9c) 326198
Yeah they tried to make her sympathetic. But you can still make the character lose control and go fucking nuts and still have sympathy, I'm surprised they didn't do that.
Just take a look at this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OWwOfql2ZA
You never see her totally losing it. She just makes this weird concerned looking face and she's strangling her mother. Wouldn't it have been better to have genuine rage?
For movies with bullying and telekinesis the character imo needs to go absolutely ape shit and die in a climactic scene. We obviously don't get the first part, but we also get this anti-climactic ending where she just dies in a house? So dumb.
Look at this for comparison: (spoiler for Chronicle)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsjUUpJbBhw
Sucks man. The beginning parts of the movie were alright, but it just goes so fucking fast to the Prom.
I think we might be talking about different things.
If you're saying "Carrie" did not look intimidating because they didn't make her lose her shit then I agree.
If you're saying Chloe can't be intimidating then I totally disagree
BTW I just realized that guy from chronicle is also in Carrie
Anonymous (ce9c) 326200
I'm sure she can, it's just that she didn't do it in this movie, and or just wasn't told to by the director.
I mean the mom/telekinesis scenes don't have to be rage oriented either. Maybe she could have teared up without the strained looking face while choking her mother. Like I mean actual visible tears and not just sad eyes.
shep (712b) 326201
I agree, I didn't buy Carrie's bullying in this one whatsoever. This Carrie is noticeably beautiful, shy but not really weird, and also has an air of confidence about her… She was afraid yet continuously stood up to her mother & I think Chloe just naturally exudes confidence on screen. Which is all fine, but like you said, they needed to explain to the audience more thoroughly why Carrie was getting bullied and Chris was so committed to hating her. She kept saying things like "She's been asking for this" "She has it coming" okay, but why?
As for Sue, her devotion to making it up to Carrie just came across as bizarre to me. I don't even remember seeing Sue throwing tampons and calling Carrie a freak, they just told us that she did later. If you want us to empathize with Sue's guilt, show more of Sue actually being cruel and being a bystander. But no, 5 mins into the movie Sue is a guilt-ridden mess and it seemed forced.
Anonymous (ce9c) 326203
THe sad thing is, I was actually on board with the movie and how they dealt with her hotness until I realized the Prom would be coming in the next 15 minutes.
In the opening scenes she is pretty, but I was pretty convinced that she 'fit' when she had that swimming cap on. It just made her look so adrogenyous and you could see that her body isn't as balanced as those other titty monsters.
Even in the shower when she looks like a cover model taking a shower, I was still okay with it because she just acts so weird towards her period. Still buying it at that point.
They make one mention about Carrie and how she was acting weird since the 6th grade (Chris says it). I'm looking at the book now, and it says that she did all this weird awkward shit in the past.. They should have slipped this in visually somewhere. I don't know.. anything at all would have been welcomed.
The original movie doesn't really take the time to do these things either. I think I just hate the way the story and book is in general.
shep (712b) 326206
Yeah, that minor sex scene felt out of place & pointless. They could have just shown Sue and Tommy outside of the vehicle half dressed and we'd know they just had sex with the same result.
Also Carrie showering in the beginning was so oddly sexualized. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed it.. But from the faces she was making I half expected her to begin masturbating when she went down below with the bar of soap. She was enjoying that shower a bit much. I guess Kimberly Pierce couldn't help herself!
And the prom kills were violent and gorey simply for the sake of it, gave me torture porn vibes. I would have preferred just seeing large amounts of people burning and being electrocuted, would have been more effective and unsettling rather than the bizarre bleachers death, getting trampled by high heels and attacked by electric wire snakes? kkkkkk
anonymous (aca7) 326207
Also Carrie showering in the beginning was so oddly sexualized. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed it.. But from the faces she was making I half expected her to begin masturbating when she went down below with the bar of soap. She was enjoying that shower a bit much. I guess Kimberly Pierce couldn't help herself!
yeah i know..The actresses made such a big deal about having a female director as opposed to a male director especially in filming the shower scenes but looking at the opening shots in the pool and shower and knowing what we know about Kimberly Pierce it's almost the same as having a male director
Anonymous (ce9c) 326217
Maybe it was an important sex scene in teh book, but I didn't get the feeling like it all that special when watching this movie. I didn't feel very connected to Sue at all really.
Yeah I took look at the book, and it just it is really rushed and not up to par with King's other books.
In books like Needful things, you can see him building characters so meticulously. Or even in Shawshank and Green Mile.
Fuck, The Stand as well. I know they aren't horror books per se but I thought the character building would be there even in his early works.
This just leads to the question of why they would copy the book so closely. Just. Make. A. Good movie.
shep (712b) 326219
I honestly wouldn't call the novel rushed. It's short and fast-paced, but I feel that it tells us what we need to know about everyone. It's a lot easier for books of course, since they're so detailed and personal. But it doesn't excuse the movie. When I finished the book I didn't feel underwhelmed or that the book needed another 50 pages, unlike how I felt when I finished the movie.
You're right the Sue/Tommy sex scene may be important in the book since they exchange I love you's for the first time, but there was no relevance like that to the sex scene in the film.
Anonymous (ce9c) 326220
She was way more endearing to me in Kick Ass 2, and she literally only had 3 minutes tops to do it. But it worked anyway.
I'd chalk a bit of the credit to the great soundtrack though.
I agree, her being sad in Kick Ass 2 worked for me. Pretty amazing since scenes up to then were pretty upbeat.
Anonymous (c513) 326226
Even if it weren't for the inevitable comparisons to the original, this film would at best been mediocre.
"Also Carrie showering in the beginning was so oddly sexualized."
Yeah, I was rolling my eyes at this one. You could tell Kimberly was enjoying this just a little too much. Sad, as it's really the only attempt the whole film to do something interesting with the camerawork; if there were any doubts beforehand that her earlier films were carried by their performances and not her directing, this should settle the debate.
Totally agree with the sentiments that very little effort was put into fleshing out the characters and their motivations. I "get" that Chris would blame Carrie for her punishment, but not from anything the film showed me, that's just me doing the work the film is supposed to. Same with Sue's guilt, but as so little effort went into this, it makes whatshisname's (I was so underwhelmed I forgot the boyfriend's name 2 hours after leaving the theater) insistence on taking Carrie to prom to make Sue feel better seem unbelievable.
The additions to Margaret were pointless, if not detrimental. She's crazy enough, why does she also need to be a cutter, and also too stupid to understand pregnancy, and also want to kill Carrie at birth? This is just too over-the-top, and unnecessary. Of course a crazy fundamentalist is going to think her daughter is a witch when she sees her levitating shit, you don't need to dial up the crazy to ever more absurd levels.
This is the first performance of Chloë's I've seen that I felt was really bad. She's way too confident to sell the character's crippling shyness, and it always comes off forced. Her sad eyes at killing her mother was also hysterical, and what was with her selling the telekinesis? Was she trying out for a Jedi role in Star Wars? What's will all the gesticulation? Sissy Spacek was way better at this.
Anonymous (ce9c) 326229
Im sure she nailed a few people that didn't really do anything to her.
Guy in bleechers
She still choked her gym teacher
But you're right, she really should have more clearly went nuts.
Anonymous (4f39) 326230
File: 1382231613578_battle_angel.jpg (69.14 KB, 1070x465)
What do you guys think of chloe playing Alita if they ever make Battle Angel?
Anonymous (c513) 326246
Guy in the bleachers was friend of Chris's boyfriend, and was recording Carrie after getting blood dumped on her, I believe. Girl she set on fire was part of the shower group, also close with Chris. Fire Girl (lol, did these cats even have names?) is one of the two girls to get whipped by the electric cords, other one was one of the girls from the shower incident. Gym teacher she chokes at first, then pulls her to safety; they're pretty deliberate about letting you know Carrie's sparing her as a favor of looking out for her.
Also, I was fucking dying about Carrie being able to tell Sue was pregnant, and what gender it was, and why in the hell that was put in the middle of the sequence of her pulling the house down around her and her mother. I guess that was supposed to be a mirror of Margaret not knowing she was pregnant with Carrie, but holy shit does it come off silly.
Anonymous (ce9c) 326261
Yeah the pregnancy thing.. ONTOP of Sue walking across town right to Carrie's house right after the mom dies.
Is this Man of Steel, where characters appear at key cinematic moments across town?
Anonymous (ce9c) 326576
Didn't you see that guy doing blowjob motions at her?
They do know she's attractive, they just don't like her.
QuietGrace (bf86) 326621
Maybe, I just thought he was being a dick pun intended
That moment The Rage: Carrie 2 "Prom" scene is way gorier than Carrie 2013https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Cv-H2D33Gg
THE NEW EXPLODING GIRL MB (f0df) 326635
a review I wrote for the local newspaper.
The new version of “Carrie” starring Julianne Moore and Chloë Grace Moretz was worth every penny of the ticket price and not only kept me entertained but engaged to the very last earth shaking scene. But while I watched it I understood that it would be taken differently by different people. I remember being blown away by Brian de Palma’s 1970s version of “Carrie” because his stylistic approach (which showed how well he emulated Hitchcock), made his “disco” version a hoot. But it was a very Hollywood film and it started people in their late 20s and 30s playing teenagers.
The new version is one in which obviously a corporate decision was made to do a remake to make safe cash for the shareholders. Yet I have noticed that some remakes use an interesting approach in which the Corporation seems to say “We will hire some young filmmaker who has made a mark for themselves as having a distinctive voice to do the remake and hope they can make it spiffy.” That is as close to a sincere desire for quality a corporation is capable of! These films usually look good, but fall flat. Kimberly, however, was able to bring more than a “look” to the film because she found a relevant theme in Bullying, and fleshed out the female characters to represent this. And, moreover, Chloë’s Carrie was more than a punching bag for her mother, she was inextricably her daughter. Kimberly’s success with all this is the reason I enjoyed the film so much.
But what you have to understand is that de Palma was making a HORROR film and Kimberly was making a film about the human horror of abusive relationships with Science Fiction elements. This means that her film is switching focus from scene to scene from human relationships, (which is why people dismiss it as the Lifetime TV version of “Carrie”), to re-presenting, (albeit excellently), the action scenes of the first film. It is like you have two styles reflecting content that slightly disengage. In fact, Kimberly’s action scenes are more coherent than De Palma’s excellently framed and staged sequences because her special effects are matched one-on-one with each change in Chloë’s Moretz’s amazing ability to express emotion.
And yes, Chloë did a wonderful job because she always brings her Full Game to a project! Yet at several points she reached for something she didn't quite get to because she is so young and that was that. This may be a problem of the material too, because Sissy Spacek, in her 20s, had a range of experience that even the real Carrie, if she had been a real girl, wouldn’t herself had in her emotional toolkit.
This movie works for me with the “Two Caveats”:
about the fact that there is two film-types which we switch back and forth between, (the natural solution being that make a mini-series in which you would be able to meld the two, human level and science fiction elements),
and the fact that you are having appropriately aged people playing extreme emotions that may be a little beyond a young actors toolkit.
So, I must to give this movie a B.
The, perhaps surprising, bottom line is, that if I had a choice of watching the De Palma film or Chloë and Kimberly’s film again, I know I would get more out of the New Carrie. Unlike the splashy Disco version, Chloë’s Carrie is grounded in a reason to care. Do go see.
Anonymous (7584) 326637
They explained in the movie why everyone hated her. She had been telling them all about how they were going to hell if they didn't accept God into their lives since the 6th grade. Carrie was raised by a religious fanatic so that makes sense.
Had nothing to do with her looks why hated her. Tommy even said how beautiful she was in the movie.
Anonymous (c513) 326659
Exactly, they tell you. In one throw away line. That isn't supported by anything else in the film, and point-of-fact is contradicted by Carrie's behavior in the entire film; at no point does she ever bring up religion to the other girls, in fact doesn't interact with them at all, and makes it a point to cover up her mother's claims, to say nothing of the fact that she argues with her mother about this constantly.
This is a failure of basic film-making; show, don't tell.
Anonymous (ce9c) 326668
Totally agree. Though to its credit, I don't think Carrie in the original spoke up about religion either to the other kids.
This is totally needed if it's not just a bunch of people picking on her, but a large group of people who think she's a jesus freak.
I'm thinking if they played her more like one of those Westboro baptist Church kids it would be highly believable-toned down ofcourse. She would reveal her true feelings to that computer guy in the library and that would let the viewer see her humanity and empathize with her.
Because as it is in the movie, all your sympathy is supposed to come from the period scene and her interactions with the mother.
Both movies needed like 10-20 minutes of this.
QuietGrace (bf86) 326683
I thought that computer guys would have more an impact to the story. I got hints that he liked her so I figured there would be more to it than that scene then straight to the prom, where he died.
This makes me ask, is the book worth a read? Im aware its Stephen King and hes one of the great story tellers of the 20th century but I want to know is the book a good read so I can get deeper into the characters
OK, just watched the CAM version (which was actually pretty decent for such an early CAM).
Couple of things I need to ask, as the CAM version seemed to be missing parts once the blood dropped.
The blood dropped and then the video jumped and Tommy was lying dead on the floor, how did he die? Then there must have been more footage missing as the destruction seemed pretty short after Carrie picked the gym teacher up and dropped her on the stage the video skipped again, and it was at the car scene, which also cut off right as the slow motion shot of Chris going through the windshield was happening, what happened after that slo mo part?
The last 10 mins once Carrie was home again seemed complete, for whatever reason it was just the prom stuff that was missing parts, annoyingly.
But anyway, aside from the quality and problems with the version I watched, I actually loved Chloe's performance and thought the movie was OK, but it wasn't as good as I'd hoped, obviously I'll go see it at the cinema when it gets released here and I'll probably get a different feel from it that way, but I couldn't wait 5 weeks, I had to check it out.
The_Bememother (fc7f) 326745
File: 1382328006783_peoples-choice-awards-2013-chloe-moretz-red-carpet__oPt.jpg (28.16 KB, 450x661)
What a horrible turn of events in Chloe Grace's career. I read a few reviews today and all I can say is some of those guys kind of hate it. Underperforming is what people are saying about the butts in seats. Here are two amusing ways you will be able to view Carrie more than once: 1) pretend it's an origin story for one of the X-Men and turn it off 5 minutes before he ending. 2) bemuse yourself by pretending Carrie has a high midichlorian count and is a Jedi on present day Earth. Drinking game possibilities: every time this film reminds you of the masterfully directed superior original adaptation, take a drink. PEACE! *LoVe* and Katy Perry~
Anonymous (7584) 327029
File: 1382410982131_ChloBoobies1.gif (3.82 MB, 622x282)
Anonymous (7584) 327030
File: 1382411033346_ChloBoobies2.gif (5.31 MB, 622x282)
Anonymous (7584) 327173
File: 1382461612621_ChloeSexyShower.gif (2.32 MB, 622x282)
Anonymous (7584) 327175
File: 1382461665223_ChloeWashingBelly.gif (2.67 MB, 622x282)
Anonymous (7584) 327177
File: 1382461708526_ChloeWashingLegs.gif (1.6 MB, 622x282)
it debuted better than KA2 and it performed better so far
so how the hell did you reach that conclusion?
Anonymous (7584) 327249
> and it performed better so far
Actually it looks like it is only going to do as well as Kick-Ass 2 domestically with $2 million more in the budget. It's intake took a 67% drop on the Monday.
If it only makes as much foreign as Kick-Ass 2 as well then it will have trouble being successful.http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=kickass2.htm
Anonymous (e727) 327297
Okay, I watched Carrie today and then came home and watched the original again for comparison.
First let me say this, if you are in this thread, you really should take the time to watch both movies.
I liked the new one better. Great performances by Chloë and Julianne..supporting cast was good too. I really liked Ansel as Tommy better than the original dude.
But here's the issue, I was never super impressed with the original and that was my initial concern for Carrie 2013. I was hoping Kimberly could bring enough to far exceed the original, because it was going to take nothing less than that to really impress the critics, but the new one only improves in places that were glaringly lacking in the original (which I'm thankful for). Let me explain.
Both films are almost identical in length. I don't think this is an accident, but I also think Kimberly limited herself too much by trying to keep them similar length. The original had a few drawn out scenes that we really didn't need to see, and jumped too quickly through rather important plot points, like for instance since I had never read the book, I was confused when I first saw the original even to the end and was never certain if Tommy and Sue where in on the joke of tricking Carrie or not. DePalma just didn't spend enough time building their characters to emphasize this enough and it was a major confusion for me. Thank goodness Carrie 2013 finally cleared this confusion up for me. The additional time spent exploring the mother/daughter relationship was also very welcome to me. I've heard some complaints about the movie jumping to prom too quickly, well have you seen the original? All I'm saying is Kimberly utilized her time much more efficiently in the end, but I'm bothered that she seemed to tie herself to the time of the original because I think if she had given herself a little more freedom in that regard it could have possibly worked even better.
Performances wise it was nice to see that Chloë and Julianne both put their own signatures on the characters. Sissy and Piper were both heralded for their performances, but here's the thing, Piper's performance was way overrated imho. Julianne nailed this for sure and I'm glad, because the original Margaret really didn't click with me at all. Sissy's performance as Carrie was excellent, so Chloë was going to have a much tougher time exceeding Sissy's already excellent performance. Luckily Chloë didn't try to go the route of emulating Sissy's performance and instead brought her own unique signature to the role. I liked seeing a slightly stronger more confident Carrie and it was a nice alternative interpretation on the book.
Both endings were kinda cheesy. I guess in hindsight I preferred the ending of the original, but again I just didn't care for either one.
I preferred the darker atmosphere in the original particularly in the White household. I think it matched itself better to the horror genre.
The CGI helped in several places in the new film. It really helped emphasize a more violent repercussion of anger from Carrie at the prom and afterward. It was nice to see the stones rain down on the house.
The opening scene with Margaret thinking she had cancer also made me wtf because that was just absurd lol..I don't know if that was in the book but it really didn't flow.
After hearing Chloë talk about all of this continuity and how it bothers her I wonder if what I saw in the shower/period scene also bothered her when she saw it. I'm talking about how after Carrie freaks from finding blood and is laying in the floor screaming and crawling away that their is a clear shot right up her towel and she is wearing white panties. Assuming Carrie was completely nude in the shower there was never a possible time she could have put on panties and even if she were wearing them in the shower, it's impossible they that wouldn't have been blood stained. That scene the way it was shot would have given us a clear view of rainbow land for sure, but I wonder if Kimberly was wtf'ing herself for not catching it sooner as to get a different take/camera angle. I'm guessing a reshot of that scene just wasn't in the cards so she just had to go with it. Bummer.
So, in ending, I do get why critics called it an unneeded remake, because for me the changes made did make for a better film, but were not great enough topple what many consider a classic…and with the disdain for remaking movies, you can't just deliver a little better or just as good, or you are guaranteed to get hammered for it.
File: 1382570020751_17_years_old_Carrie.jpg (37.3 KB, 843x480)
I've just seen the movie and immedietly read imdb, wikipedia and this thread about it, for my upcoming article to my blog.
Everyone here wrote interesting thoughts and helped me remember things from the film, or shed new light on certain events in it, so thank you all!
Because it's damn late now, I try to be short with my opinion.
I didn't really liked it, but cannot exactly tell why.
1. I couldn't attach emotionally to any of the characters.
Though I liked all of the performances, even the two most sympathic characters, Tommy and Sue were too far away. I couldn't feel any attachment to Carrie either: Chloë's beauty doesn't distracted me very often, but you can't be really sure about anything with her. For example, if you watch the movie, you'll gonna ask: Why is everyone hating her so much? What did she do? I've read your explanations, so no need to remind me about the reasons.
2. I knew what was gonna happen.
This sounds extremely stupid, but really, the little things I wasn't expected to see where the only ones that actually entertained me, like Tommy's jokes and happy attitude, Margaret's self-mutilation or Carrie's flying.
Some pros: The actors were good, all of them, I especially liked Ansel Elgort; enjoyed the small things like the principal being afraid to say menstruation or the scene where Chris falls into her own trap by calling her dad in; the effects were cool and it's nice to see that they've put in the stone rain.
Some cons: The three showings of the blood splash is dumb, the ending is dumb and it can't be labelled as a "dream-sequence" like in the '76 movie; lots of the characters' motivations were unclear/not founded enough.
Back in August, lots of people were going "KA2 is bad, it's bad bad bad", and when I've walked out of the cinema, I thought "holy fuck man, THAT was THE MOVIE" and since that I'm looking forward to see it again, when it comes out on blu-ray. But after Carrie, I was coming home and felt ashamed of myself, because I haven't liked it enough and those things popped into my head, that I didn't liked about it, it's flaws.
Honestly, I haven't expected anything, but this wasn't an exactly good movie-experience - regardless, I will watch it again when it comes out on torrent.
asiang (ce9c) 327961
File: 1382642895733_lift.png (460.39 KB, 807x578)
Was this scene in the movie?
It looks like she's lifting Tommy up. I don't know who else woudl be wearing jeans and sneakers.
She's lifting Sue in the air, right before she pushed her out of the house (as the stones were falling)
but I don't remember that scene in particular being in the movie
Anonymous (7584) 327972
File: 1382643867753_Flying.gif (1.43 MB, 622x282)
That scene was in the movie.
asiang (ce9c) 327980
I wish the movie was as creepy as this commercial made it out to be.
It's also like the only really great advert out of all of them..
That classic movie voice shit on one of them was unbelievably cheesy.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHC8vihrCvY
I wish it was creppy, period
it was too much teenage drama and all the thrill seeking crowd will not go to see this
BritneyBitch! (d101) 328118
So.. I just saw Carrie.. Overall: When you love a song and you hear it a lot till you get sick of it but then other band do a cover of that song you think is: they ruined it (if is not well done) You can hear it again and I can like the song again because is a good cover, but don't try to imitate a awesome Lennon song doing the same that he did
4 things to point first:
2- Chloe is pretty… who gives a shit, that is not the point in this movie
3- "re-imagine" of the novel my ass… more like remake of the original
4- I will never doubt of Chloe again
The movie stays in Depalma's version it doesn't go to far and it's a shame because it has a great cast to work with… Kim only need it two amazings cast lead and she had it (that is why i gave a chance to the movie)
While the two leading cast do their work the supporting cast bring a "Twlight" vibe to the movie… it wasn't necessary. But at least Kim is effective giving the arc to the support cast (except Billy). That teen drama help us to understand the characters.
Carrie just wanna fit in. She have been abused by her mother and cursed since she born (her mother thinks she is the devil, ironic) and is an easy target in high school, and when she more tries to fit in she embarrassed herself more.
She is the shy and abused girl, she discover her powers, she becomes a woman, she has a chance to be a "whole" person. The scene when Margaret almost catches her using her power is an allegory of her becoming a woman and Margaret goes upstairs with a knife (you have to understand her crazy mind, her girl is now under the curse of the blood) She has the cinderella history, she becomes the monster that we all know, she regrets and she just want her mother back.
Margaret is less demoniac and a little more human, she is a crazy-fanatic religious person who is insulate and loves her daughter, maybe, a "a little" to much. She goes over the top with the religious stuff and everything is sin for her. She just takes everything literal. Abuse her child, she forces her to used the clothes she she makes and educate her in her religious ways.
Carrie is the shy outcast who have never given the chance to fit in. She has no refuge in home and less in school. But when she discovers her powes,r she has a talent, she is something now. She rebels to her mother because she knows that this is the only way to be a normal person. And she could because she is a smart girl, a beautiful girl and she doesn't know it. She feels ugly because she feels ugly and how you see yourself is like everybody does.
This is a story of a girl becoming a woman, it's a tragedy, not a story of an outcast who kills everybody in the prom.
The movie could stand in her own if only Kim wouldn't have used a lot of the Depalma's version. The novel itself has all that we want. I don't understand why Kim did that and got stuck in the older one almost without giving new stuff and only updated it
BritneyBitch! (d101) 328125
Btw i liked the movie a lot! it was heartbreaking saw this girl tryin to be someone and fail when she was given the chance and even when you know that maybe she could be a normal girl and have friends if she had never been raised with a crazy mother… that is how mentally hurt carrie is
But when Chloe and Kim told me about this movie being more like the book.. i was shocked when i saw a replicate of the original… that is why i was disappointed
You haven't really said anything about the film itself
>1. Disappointed>I really like dthe movie
Now I can't understand this. YOu are disappointed with it, but you really like it at the same time?
BritneyBitch! (d101) 328187
Of course… i said i was dissapointed because they promised more of the book but they stuck in the original, this doesn't mean that the movie is bad but.. why do it again if the movie doesn't show nothing new?… you have to go deep to see the new stuff they added
The worst part is that the cast is awesome, Kim could do a lot more with this movie
But the adaptation is good, is pretty well done and is more drama than horror. Has more arcs in the characters, i think Chloe did a more close Carrie from the novel… it has a lot of up and downs for example the drama in high school or the acting of Chloe trying to be an outcast, the fact that is not scary at all… but overall the movie is good
There is so much to tell
>>328750>because they wanted to be true to material (at least in series of events if not character) they just shot themselves in the foot.
If they would have changed a lot in the story, that wouldn't be Carrie anymore. And they have added lots to the characters, because that was the only real place where they had chances to improve. I mean, how could you improve on a story, that is based on a book? You can't make Carrie live happily ever after or not going berserk at the prom, because it's not King's novel anymore then…
The sad thing is, that they did lots of good things, but fucked it up with small idiotic addings, like the three-way-bloodspill or the ending…
>>328763>If they would have changed a lot in the story, that wouldn't be Carrie anymore.
It's what good adaptations do, particularly novel to film ones. Example, another King adaptation, The Shining. It wound up being one of the best not just horror movies, but movies in general in history. You can't directly adapt material cross-medium because different media has different rules and strengths and weaknesses. The story as it is in the novel adapted direct to film simply doesn't work well.
>You can't make Carrie live happily ever after or not going berserk at the prom, because it's not King's novel anymore then…
Why would they ever do that? Then it wouldn't be a good adaptation.
We've got some great examples in our canon of Chloë. Kick-Ass is an adaptation done well. It dropped what wouldn't work, added its own style, took the material and brought it to a different medium in a complimentary way while keeping the important events and characters and plotpoints from the source. And for another Chloë remake of a previously film adapted material, Let Me In, it Americanized the Swedish version. It took the key elements and then built itself around them in its own style.
The problem is that Let the Right One In and even Kick Ass were solid frameworks to build a film around already. Carrie, and most King works, just isn't. That's why most King adaptations become miniseries rather than movies, and the ones that do become movies take liberties in adapting them.
When it comes down to it, it just had the compound of not having good movie material to start from (and then not taking the steps to fix that in translation) and simply not being directed very well.
Well… the only good thing: all that money is only from USA.
I mean… KA2 made a lot of money in the first weeks in big europan countries (for example they made muuuuch money in UK, finaly almost 9M and the premiere was very early)
Bad thing: I guess they spent more money in marketing than KA2, so… they need make a lot of money…
One month to release in big countries in Europe: UK, France and Germany. The should get pretty money, less in Italy and Spain.
Rest don't care.
In 2 weeks we know results from Japan, maybe another good chance…
Anonymous (7584) 329124
Main problem is did they advertise Carrie enough in those countries. I don't think they did.
Chloe is going to be in Vancouver until the end of December so can't fly half way across the world to the UK to promote Carrie even for just the weekend. It is a 12 hour flight both ways. Maybe she will be able to do a phone in radio show like she did with Kick-Ass 2.
Since it will be impossible for Chloe to go to Europe to promote it I hope Sony gets Julianne Moore at least to promote it.
Anonymous (7fa3) 329363
$26 millions till today, maybe will reach the budget even before the 3rd weekend. Not bad.
I wish the movie get $35M only in USA, it would be good.
And another 30 from Europe and Japan it would be so good.
File: 1383039508914_Chloe_28.png (4.68 MB, 2560x1707)
It didn't even make $6 mil over the weekend. And those are actual numbers now, not the estimates.
File: 1383259386870.jpg (17.45 KB, 278x259)
How do you reach these baffling conclusions?
There is no logic whatsoever in what you say, you were already wrong about numbers before and you're more than certainly be wrong here
kick-ass 2 was at $24 by now and it ended up with almost $29 after it finished its run - so a 5 mil difference
carrie is at 27.5 and it started on a higher spot than KA2 and the hallowen should give it a bump so if you think it won't reach 30 you have no clue what you're talking about
I don't have to see tomorrow's numbers
I know this will still be in theaters for a few weeks and it needs just 2,5 mil so reaching 30 is more than doable
I agree with GG, I'm also comparing numbers with Kickass2.
I think probably in a weeks the movie will get 32-34M
Anyway is turn to wait foreign box office, next week first stop: Japan.
SuperJointJustin (1fcc) 330706
File: 1383311012458.png (260.98 KB, 648x431)
There was the original. Superb!
There was the sequel. Stupid!
There was the first remake of the original. Dafuq?
Then there was this one. Outstanding!
While I prefer the original with Sissy Spacek, John Travolta, etc; I do like how they were able to modernize this one without making it look ridiculously cheesy like they did in the first remake. As always, Chloe did a fantastic job even though, understandably due to her age, we don't get to see a frontal as we did with Sissy Spacek. What we did get to see was a really good retelling of a classic. "They're all going to laugh at you!" Which is fine by me since I found the storytelling compelling despite the fact that I generally knew what was going to happen. Julianne Moore as Mrs. White was a good choice. The rest of the cast; eh whatever, but they do lend credence to a watchable movie. Overall I would give the film an A- only because it's a remake, but it is a very good one with Chloe Grace Moretz and Julianne Moore making a convincing and intriguing mother/daughter duo.
yeah, they will easily pass 30 mil this weekend
I just hope the movie manages to get as much as possible until thor gets here
AsianGuy (054a) 331146
File: 1383421879041_car.png (258.29 KB, 616x611)
I think the prom scene is alot better now after seeing the clip on youtube.
For some reason it just feels decent now, but didn't seem as good in the theatre.
Still, they should have elaborated on the town destruction a bit more while she walked back to her house.
I don't think she should have taken a shower and looked so comfy after doing all of that either.
Anonymous (7584) 332864
File: 1383811907654_ChloMo_05.jpg (7.15 MB, 3516x4620)
Carrie is being released in Japan tomorrow so hopefully it gets a huge opening box office due to Chloe's fanbase there. Japan has been a major part of other movies foreign box office.
Looking at the huge amount of money that China brings in for every movie I am surprised that Carrie and Kick-Ass 2 won't be released there.
Assume it could be the religious aspect from Carrie and it was blocked from being released in China because of that.
It will be released in Hong Kong though which didn't make Kick-Ass 2 much money.