Coaxial

NBC's CARRIE!!

Published at: Nov. 4, 2002, 12:33 a.m. CST by staff

I am – Hercules!!

Is a slightly longer screen version of the Stephen King classic a better version? Maybe not! (Anybody remember Stephen “Wings” Weber’s take on Jack Torrance a few years ago?)

Entertainment Weekly gives it a “C” and says:

In the horrifyingly slow remake of Stephen King's high school chiller, Angela Bettis (above) seamlessly slips into Sissy Spacek's prom dress as the telekinetic teen geek, but Patricia Clarkson makes the bad decision to underplay her Bible-crazed mother. Somehow, the story of a social outcast who wreaks bloody revenge on her classmates doesn't seem so entertaining in the post-Columbine era. And on what planet do gym teachers look as smokin' as Rena Sofer?

The Hollywood Reporter says:

Although the 1976 Brian de Palma movie that starred Sissy Spacek was hardly a cinematic classic, NBC's new version, written by Bryan Fuller and directed by David Carson, is no improvement. In fact, the three-hour TV film strips the story of most of its symbolism and ambiguity, turning it into a largely anticlimactic tale of serious payback and glitzy special effects.

8 p.m. Monday. NBC.

I am – Hercules!!





Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Nov. 4, 2002, 12:38 a.m. CST

    first

    by Toe Jam

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 12:40 a.m. CST

    Leave Columbine out of it, you clueless fucks

    by SilenceofFreedom

    I'm so sick of everything being attributed to Columbine. Let it go, it happened. If it still bothers you to watch something because of how wracked with guilt over columbine you are, then don't watch anything.

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 12:40 a.m. CST

    The woman who played the mom in the movie was better

    by magic_ninja

    Much much better...is it too much to ask that a Stephen King story gets a decent adaption to tv?

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 12:42 a.m. CST

    Interested

    by Darth Melkor

    I'll be watching this. I never watch TV movies, but this one caught my interest.

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 12:56 a.m. CST

    Remake madness

    by DyslexicHeart

    why WHY why ? ? ? At least they cast another young, up and coming actress from Texas in the titular role but why even do it at all? At least Alexis Denisoff on "Angel" is kicking ass over everything else on T.V. save for Jack Bauer. "The Sopranos" who?

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 1:41 a.m. CST

    Stephen King T.V movies

    by Feudal Fetus

    I really do think they should leave the King books to the big screen. I mean, can you imagine how creepy an "It" movie could be without the awkward presence of John Ritter and Harry "Night Court" Anderson. Plus, that Shining T.V movie was nothing compared to Kubrick's. But what do I care? I don't watch T.V movies for the same reason I buy Oreos instead of Hydrox... quality.

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 1:58 a.m. CST

    Steven Webber did a really good job with The Shining

    by Eyegore

    I still prefer the original brian de palma movie for a lot of reasons, but I was really impressed by webber's portrayal of Jack Torence. Maybe you have to have read the book to appreciate it. The TV movie followed the book much more faithfully than the original movie.

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 2:05 a.m. CST

    Glad I'm not the only fan of Weber's Shining

    by Gheorghe Zamfir

    I thought the whole, longer TV-movie of the Shining was pretty good, it more than justified the trouble of a remake in my eyes.

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 2:24 a.m. CST

    This movie is EVEN MORE slower that the original...

    by Steal_Dragon

    I am officially standing by my opinion; all tv movies suck. I haven't seen one that was actually good. Way of life I guess.

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 2:39 a.m. CST

    best tv movie

    by 81666

    would have to be FOX's 1997 "Runaway car" starring judge reinhold as ED! now any movie that has a carload of people survive through a 2 hour reckless car drive only to swirve and miss a marching band and his a sand dune... it's GENIUS!!

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 3:04 a.m. CST

    *yawn*

    by Zone Zero

    I'll stick to the book. My imagination provides better special effects, and NO EDITS! And F*** first posters, F*** them up their stupid A**ES!

  • what the fuck kind of movie did the hollywood reporter see? the movie i saw, and see again most Hallowean nights was a classic of cinema, and a masterpeice of the horror genre, the opening scene alone in the shower is going down as one of the greatest openings of any movie ever, not to mention the classic Sissy Spacek, blood, dress, mass murder at the end. BAH! and you actually listain and respect these people? fuck em.

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 5:35 a.m. CST

    This is pointless

    by St.Buggering

    "Carrie" is one of the few film adaptation of a King novel that's faithful to its source, and is actually any damn good. Why mess with it? I understand King's desire to do "The Shining", as he felt that Kubrick missed the point (and I agree). But DePalma's "Carrie" was about as perfect an adaptation as I've ever seen. Back on "The Shining", by the way, I really enjoyed the TV version until the "Return of the Jedi" ending fucked it all up.

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 6:25 a.m. CST

    That short-lipped, mouth-breathing, snot-nosed little punk they

    by Cash Bailey

    God almighty, I hated that little bastard. And find me one person who found the polo mallet more threatening than that big fuck off axe that Nicholson had in Kubrick's version.

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 8:39 a.m. CST

    Pig Blood

    by zer0cool2k2

    I'll have to watch this, given that it's King. but, the reviews have already confirmed most of my biggest fears, too long and boring, and will probably tarnish the memory of the original, which WAS an Absolute Cinematic Classic! (I still wish McFarlane could do a Movie Maniacs figure of Spacek in the bloody prom dress, eyes all crazy). Yes, the TV version of the Shining was truer to what King wanted, but the Film was much creepier. The IT miniseries wasn't too bad, and I probably liked it more because I figured it was just too long for the big screen. Plus, Tim Curry was excellent. The tv adaption of The Stand wasn't even too bad, even with the horrible casting of molly Ringwald. But that catastrophe ABC roled out called Rose Red, now that was some truly unwatchable television.

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 10:18 a.m. CST

    Can Someone Explain To Me Why This and the Horrendous Shining Re

    by NoCureForFools

    well, we all know the answer in re: The Shining -- Kubrick made an absolutely brilliant horror film which surpassed it's source material by light years. being an egotist, this pissed off King, so he had to prove how bad a movie could be and greenlighted the abyssmal made for tv Shining. my inuition is that this Carrie thing is similar: DePalma made a film which bordered on self-parody, but was nonetheless brilliantly over-the-top. now we get to witness the shitty version. for a guy with exceptional intelligence, King can sure be a retard.

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 11:32 a.m. CST

    Thanks for the heads-up, Herc!

    by WarDog

    Guess I'll pass on watching this then. Poor Stephen King. Far too often they fuck up his stories in adapting them to film.

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 12:31 p.m. CST

    Kubrick improved the ending, but not much else

    by Stephen Dedalus

    If there's one thing about Kubrick's "The Shining" that makes it more frightening than King's original, it's the ending; much scarier, very in touch with Kubrick's cynical view of mankind, and it doesn't try to be upbeat and let the characters off the hook like King did. But Kubrick did not develop the characters well: Jack Nicholson was a freak from the beginning of the movie, and Shelley Duvall was whiney and annoying. The TV movie, of course, had the fault of the sugary ending and some worthless attempt at a family-values message, but at least they gave the characters a little more effort. ******Interesting, though: two days ago I re-read Poe's "The Fall of the House of Usher," and realized how much more chlling it is than anything Hollywood has managed to produce. It's not anything that makes you jump out of your seat, but if you can read beneath the surface of the text, its very frightening.

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 3:05 p.m. CST

    badassunclefucka, if you like made-for-tv movies then you can ke

    by Steal_Dragon

    And you and that tv movie you recomended have something in common; you both suck elephant balls. The positive reviews that you give crap shows prove that your taste in tv is reminiscent to 40 year old dog shit which you probably eat. Furthermore, I don't care about remakes of Carrie and The Shining(which by the way, the remake sucked. It was 4 hours too long. Guess it proves that Stephen can write books, but can not write a proper screenplay), but if NBC, CBS, ABC, or even the Discovery Channel touch "Misery" which was directed by Rob Reiner, I would ram my hand into their chests, and rip out their still-beating hearts.

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 3:10 p.m. CST

    Stephen King television

    by bogrod

    I've only seen two television adaptations that I feel were worth watching. One was "Salem's Lot", the other was "The Stand". The whole Steven Webber "Shining" is a great example of how WRONG Steve King can get when he's directly involved in the production of one of his stories. First of all, just because it's more like the book doesn't mean that it's good (i.e. scary, effective, ect) I find it funny that they mention the glitzy special effects in this new version of Carrie, because when I think about the two versions of The Shining, I think of what one reviewer had to say about the television version. He mentioned that it's kind of like saying the 70's version of King Kong was better than the older version because it has better special effects. Kubrick wasn't faithful to the novel, but Steve King (and his EGO, more importantly) didn't like Kubrick's version because it adapted the book, and was SCARY! King loved every opportunity he could get to trash it, calling it "an example of how NOT to make a horror picture". I find that particularly funny, considering how many people I've seen comment on how it's one of the scariest films they've ever seen. The Shining television miniseries was hokey, PARTICULARLY the ending (with the ghosts fighting with Jack over the boiler pressure release valve). I also find that there is a problem in doing a miniseries on network t.v., when the bulk of Stephen King's work is what I'd classify as "Rated R" material. Why he never made the switch to a pay station (like HBO, Cinemax, et al) is a total mystery to me. And now they have the new version of Carrie, in the long line of BAD King adaptations. I especially love the t.v. guide description of this new version, only stating that it outdoes the original in terms of special effects. LOL What a great review, eh?

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 3:18 p.m. CST

    critic Pauline Kael said it best, Nicholson in The Shining was "

    by Fatal Discharge

    The Kubrick film is visually stunning and has some spooky atmosphere and I own it on VHS but anyone who's read the book knows that any reason to care for the characters was left out by Kubrick. There's no internal conflict between good and evil in Nicholson's character which is the whole point of the book. That's why I enjoyed The Shining tv miniseries because it had all of what the book had...and the book is one of, if not THE, best books King has written. That was the first book of his that I read and it blew me away. I went back and read Carrie after and it pales in comparison. In fact, I think DePalma's Carrie was classic and better than the book due to Sissy Spacek's brilliant performance (and Piper Laurie as the mom) plus DePalma's stylish visuals. There is NO reason to remake it. I'll watch 'cause I'm a King junkie but am not expecting much. By the way, anyone remember they made Carrie as a big-budget Broadway musical which flopped and closed a few days after opening??? What were they thinking?...BWAHAHAHAHA!!

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 3:26 p.m. CST

    Didn't they use "All gonna laugh at you" in Carrie 2?

    by Drath

    Did that make sense? The girl in Carrie 2 never met Piper Laurie's character, did she? I've only seen it on TV, and not all the way through, so I don't know. Anyone know what was up?---------I wasn't that impressed by the original Carrie actually, so this remake sounds unwatchable. The Shining wasn't bad as it was so different from the Kubrick movie, but admittedly it wasn't as scary--or at all. Truth be told, The Stand was the only Stephen King mini series that I really liked, and even it wasn't scary the way King's books are--although I never saw It or Salem's Lot.

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 3:42 p.m. CST

    "plug it up, plug it up, plug it up!"

    by manwiththedogs

    it just aint gonna be the same without Nancy Allen and P.J. Soles.

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 5 p.m. CST

    Rose Red anyone?

    by hudsucker

    Langoliers? Tommyknockers? Stephen King miniseries are notoriously crap. I actually enjoyed "Storm of the Century" a wee little bit, but The Shining remake was the most unforgivable insult to Stephen King fans ever. Kubrick's version, which may miss the point of the book, comes up with its own point and pushes it to the limit. The mini-series removes all the terror and sense of dread while adding bad performances, hokey altruisms, and then introduces the WORST child actor ever to grace the small screen. Oh, and DePalma's Carrie is nearly up to the level of Kubrik's Shining. Spacek nails the part and DePalma's direction is pitch perfect. You have to admit his use of split screen during the climatic prom massacre was go-for-broke brilliance and the build-up montage to that classic scene has been ripped off countless times. I will watch this mini-series remake about the same time as I watch Carrie 2: The Rage, which is to say, never.

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 5 p.m. CST

    Rose Red anyone?

    by hudsucker

    Langoliers? Tommyknockers? Stephen King miniseries are notoriously crap. I actually enjoyed "Storm of the Century" a wee little bit, but The Shining remake was the most unforgivable insult to Stephen King fans ever. Kubrick's version, which may miss the point of the book, comes up with its own point and pushes it to the limit. The mini-series removes all the terror and sense of dread while adding bad performances, hokey altruisms, and then introduces the WORST child actor ever to grace the small screen. Oh, and DePalma's Carrie is nearly up to the level of Kubrik's Shining. Spacek nails the part and DePalma's direction is pitch perfect. You have to admit his use of split screen during the climatic prom massacre was go-for-broke brilliance and the build-up montage to that classic scene has been ripped off countless times. I will watch this mini-series remake about the same time as I watch Carrie 2: The Rage, which is to say, never.

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 5:05 p.m. CST

    Hey NBC, do the ABC thing...

    by Christopher3

    And rerun USA's "Dead Zone" in primetime. It'll get better ratings than this, I bet.

  • I dunno, I hadn't read the book or seen the movie at that point, but I thought the mini-series had more empathsis on the dad who goes nuts instead of him just being basically bonkers from the start. Kubrick is fucking Kubrick, for sure, but the mini-series seemed more "human" to me, I guess . . .

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 10:10 p.m. CST

    There all gonna laugh...Damn, too late!!!

    by Pan Demonium

    Well I'm glad to see that most of these talkbacks have already said what I was gonna say... why bother remaking two of the only King adaptations that were worth a shit to begin with (Carrie and The Shining)??? And as for truly worthless King TV, I can add only..."The Langoliers"... Now that was total drek! Also, I agree that Salem's Lot was truly eerie... the "Nosferatu"-style vampire gave me plenty of sleepless nights as a kid. If only it didn't feel so "made-for-TV" (i.e. freeze-frame and fade out for commercial insert) this one might top my list for favorite King films... Oh well... maybe someday they'll get the wise idea and make another GOOD Creepshow-type anthology using some of the short stories from Night Shift... Is it me, or is King better when he shows some self-control and keeps it short? I think he loses something when he rambles on for a whole novel, which I should stop doing now myself... end transmission.

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 10:31 p.m. CST

    This is still better than "Birds of Prey..."

    by LordWeymont

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 10:31 p.m. CST

    This is still better than "Birds of Prey..."

    by LordWeymont

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 10:47 p.m. CST

    Kubrick is one of....

    by ScullyToo

    ....the most overrated directors, in my opinion. The only movie I've really liked enough to want to watch over and over again has been "Dr. Strangelove". Everything else he's done has either been rife with confusion or just plain bad vision. "Eyes Wide Shut"? The ending was too neatly tied up and really didn't make sense to the journey that Tom Cruise would end up taking. "2001"? Confusing and really hard to follow. "Lolita"? Not only did Sue Lyons look over 18 (which, from what I understand, was not really any fault of Kubrick's but that of the Hayes Office) it was frickin' LONG in a bad way. "The Shining?" I'm sorry, despite what other people have said on here, I would have to disagree about it being scary -- right from the beginning you can tell that Jack Nicholson is going to go nuts eventually, I can't watch any movie with Shelly Duvall in it without thinking of Olive Oyl, and the movie was not scary AT ALL. I actually liked the TV version that much better because of being exposed to the overrated Kubrick version of the film. As far as "Carrie" is concerned, I wouldn't call it a remake as much as an update -- all the kids look like they stepped out of a Freddie Prinze, Jr. movie, Carrie uses a computer in the library, Sue Snell is black in this version, and apparantly after the prom (spoiler) Carrie doesn't know what she did and her mother tries to drown her over stabbing her. I'm watching it right now as we speak, and I don't think it's all that bad -- they include more of the book in the movie than De Palma did (although in the special edition DVD he said he wanted to include the scene involving the stones falling on the house when they originally made the movie but it looked too "cheesy" when they tried to do it). It's not as good as the De Palma version, but it holds its own. Ever since I first read "Carrie" I've loved the book because I identified so closely with Carrie White in my own life growing up. After watching this version I'm not too disappointed.

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 11:06 p.m. CST

    horrible horrible ending

    by Jack Burton

  • Nov. 4, 2002, 11:10 p.m. CST

    And the worst crime of this fiasco is...

    by scortch

    the complete and utter misuse of Katherine Isobel!!!!

  • Nov. 5, 2002, 12:14 a.m. CST

    Carrie's a CLASSIC?!?!?!?

    by Rick Sparks

    AlanOrmsbey wrote: "Not only is Carrie a wonderful film in it's own right, it contains an iconic moment in cinema." ----------------------------------- A classic?!?!?!? Are you freakin' kidding me? Criminey, next you'll be saying that "It's Alive" was genius (ooh, the devil baby kills everyone but his parents! Wahhhhhh!), that Robin Williams was funnier AFTER rehab (the coke-fueled first season of "Mork and Mindy" versus "Mrs. Doubtfire"), and that Eminem can act! Ugh. By the way, not only is "Carrie" just another crummy 70's faux-horror flick that cashed in on the "spawn of the Devil(TM)" phase of American cinema and ripped off the split-screen work in the Woodstock movie (with the addition of killer fire hoses and blue wide-lapeled tuxedo), it's just plain BAD, just like EVERY film directed by Brian De Palma. "Mission to Mars" anyone? "The Untouchables" (barring the R-rating, it was like watching an episode of "Law and Order"), "Body Double" (sure, I buy that an uninjured woman would lie COMPLETELY STILL on the floor while a maniac slowly pushed an industrial drill through her stomach and the 6" floor below her... NOT!). The list goes on. Even if the TV version of "Carrie" starred Tom Green, Freddie Prinze Jr, and The Shmoo, it would be better than ANYTHING that Brian De Palma could whip together.

  • Nov. 5, 2002, 12:43 a.m. CST

    It was pretty good

    by NYC

    I liked it. Angela Bettis and Rena Sofer did a good job.

  • Nov. 5, 2002, 12:52 a.m. CST

    God, that was HORRID

    by Mr. Smegma

    What was with all the pseudo-reality shit during Carrie's prom freak out? "OOoo, she got that injured! Uh! He's got a busted spleen." It was like bizarro ER or some goddamn thing. That bit at least made some sort of any impression, the rest merely honked donkey pecker. Fuck them, fuck them in their stupid, played-out network rectums. Repeatedly. With only their spittle for lube. If they beg. And if toss salad like a good Mary. Til you feel a tickle at the back of your throat.

  • Nov. 5, 2002, 1:49 a.m. CST

    The Shining/Both have merits

    by aramisdc

    I actually agree with both sentiments on the Miniseries and movie. As an indepentent of source analysis of two visual medium works, the film is better. But Kubrick in no way filmed "The Shining". In way, he just did what the folks who did "Children of the Corn" did. He took the most suprfiscial plot elements, and ran off to do a film that basically had nothing to do with the book. Haunted hotel...check. Psychic kid...check. Dad tries to kill family...check. Rest of book...ugh...it's like all sappy and is entirely positive in message. Trash it. I'll have Jack play it as a serial killer. After all, if it doesn't fit with typical Hollywood cynicism (hey, I got divorced five times last year!), it isn't real. That crap is for flyover country. Brilliant scary film, but it could just as easily been "The Whatever" for all it was related to the book. I love this film, but I don't pretend it's a king adaption any more than "Children of the Corn". The Miniseries was great for actually capturing the theme and point of King's book, but was hamstrung by two things. The standard flaws of Network TV (whomever suggested going to cable was brilliant), and IMO King's overreaction to the film. The last 15 minutes was almost like King felt he had to beat the message through, after Kubrick baiscally delivered it's anti-thesis with the film. That must have been galling...having your own work be used to deliver the exact opposite theme it represented. (BTW - I highly dount it was "ego". I had the luck of meeting King [and Dave Barry] at one of the Rock Bottom shows, and either he's a lot better actor than his cameos show, or the guy is really a fundamentally decent mensch.) As to the "family values" compplaint. Well, uh...you obviously never read King much. All of his books pretty much revolve around the redemptive or innate power of love and friendship over everything. "It" and the "Loser's Club", "Stand by me" in general, "Salem's Lot" and the adoptive father/son thing, etc... It wasn't grafted on to the Mini-series, it was innate to the story. Jack wasn't a looney that the Hotel could topple with almost no effort, and he ends up beating the Hotel (phyrically) based soley on his love for his family...it's in the book. Hell, that's the entire point of the book. So love the film for a great horror film, and just forget the book as not relevant to it. And if you actually like King's themes, respect the Mini as a flawed, but honest filming of the actual book.

  • Nov. 5, 2002, 2:17 a.m. CST

    A few points

    by Maggie

    Those who think the 1976 Carrie isn't great probably think so because the clothes and hairstyles are outdated. It's a good movie. It's one of the rare instances where it's better than the book. The ending is different. Someone up above said it was faithful. I don't know. It really changed the structure completely and some major plot points were left out. I caught the last 15 minutes of the remake and it looked horrible.

  • Nov. 5, 2002, 2:19 a.m. CST

    Carrie survives at the end?? Can't wait for the next episode...c

    by truthseekr1488

  • Nov. 5, 2002, 2:20 a.m. CST

    p.s. How 'bout that nude shower scene? ooh yeah...freeze frame m

    by truthseekr1488

  • Nov. 5, 2002, 12:28 p.m. CST

    boy, did that suck balls or what!

    by TV CASUALTY

    I thought she was going to bust into a giggle fit in the prom scene. She didn't have any of the facial eexpressions right for an anxious, nervous, 1/2-step-from-homicide headcase. What a steaming pile of crap. Weymont's right though - still better than BOP.

  • Nov. 5, 2002, 3:07 p.m. CST

    The remake of the Shining sucked

    by sofalord

    I can't believe that Steven King didn't think the original version of the Shining was any good. I mean what...it had such a hack for a director as Kubrick and old what's his name (Nicholson) as its star? Oh yeah so years later King thinks he can do them better so he sticks a washed up sitcom actor in and turns the story into a fucking family-hour love fest with a happy ending . It about made me puke!

  • Nov. 5, 2002, 3:55 p.m. CST

    Even the Simpsons did a better "adaptation" of the Shining

    by sofalord

    than that loser no good version on tv. I loved Homer as the homicidal tv-obsessed father freezing to death out in the snow basking in the glow of the portable tv with his equally frozen family.

  • Nov. 5, 2002, 8:06 p.m. CST

    Carrie: The Series!

    by truthseekr1488

    What a great set-up, Carrie driving off at the end with her friend. They should take a page from the WB's book, add a few top 40 pop songs every week. Carrie -- on the run from the law -- assuming new identities as she travels from town to town, solving mysteries and psychically killing the occasional school bully...and always with that FBI guy hot on her trail, but Carrie manages to stay one step ahead...but FBI guy doesn't give up...then he realizes maybe he's starting to fall in love with her...? Think "Smallville" meets "Charmed" meets "Alias". Are you listening Hollywood?

  • Nov. 5, 2002, 11:19 p.m. CST

    The two remakes

    by griffin02

    While I am opposed to the idea of this becoming a series, I really dug the carrie remake a lot. I think that only true stephen king fans realize how necessary both this movie and the shining remake really were. I thought the actress who played carrie really made the role her own, wasn't a victim, and gave me the creeps at just the right times, I also liked how Patricia Clarkson took a completely different approach to the Margaret White character and potrayed her to chilling effect. I also liked the directions they took chris and billy. It also pleased and shocked me how remarkably faithful they were to the book. The main problem I had was with the sue snell character, although I found it interesting of them to make her african - american. She was a very flippant smart ass, and that wasn't what she should have been at all. That said, this "Carrie" is easily one of the top three stephen king adaptations in my book (this coming from a true fan of his work, not just the shitty movies), the other two being the '97 Shining and Misery. Oh, and I can't wait for Dreamcatcher, why'd they postpone it?

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 4:03 p.m. CST

    Carrie: The Musical

    by Estella

    Anyone remember when they tried to do this? It lasted like, 2 weeks or something. Angela Bettis is great though- just needs better material.

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 7:17 p.m. CST

    This was horrible...

    by cooper2000

    and they left it open for a sequel? It will be the female version of Incredible Hulk. I watched it and it was like watching someone put on a school play of a good movie (the original 76 version.)Poor imitation of the original prom scenes sinched it. No one can outdo the original and they shouldnt have tried. Whats next a Stand by me remake or sequel?

  • Nov. 6, 2002, 10:03 p.m. CST

    De Palma's Carrie was brillant...

    by Turandot

    ...and they tried to copy many shots in the remake, like Van Sant did with PSYCHO (how ironic!). But the cheap photography, the cheap music, the cheap everything made the effort pathetic. No one can improve on the original CARRIE. It is the definitive horror classic of the 70's (all right, along with THE EXCORCIST).

Top Talkbacks