Does 'Carrie' remake miss mark on silver screen?
When I think of Stephen King's "Carrie," I think of a wide-eyed Sissy Spacek using her telekinesis to terrorize her high school peers at the prom.
So when I learned about a year ago that "Carrie" would be revived for today's audience, I was excited, but a bit wary - and rightfully so.
The reviews are in, and though the movie raked in $17 million, it missed the mark - making just more than half of what it cost to create.
So did the new "Carrie" stand a chance? I don't think so.
Let me start off by saying I missed opening weekend, so I know my opinion probably does not matter, and this column is in no way meant to sway you to not watch the movie.
My issue, though, isn't with this film in particular, but with remakes in general - of the horror genre to be exact. Though I love that this remake boasts two actresses I love - Julianne Moore and Chloe Grace Moretz - the previews did little to sway my decision to fall in love with the film all over again.
First off, Sissy Spacek exudes the "Carrie" quality the book portrayed: a slightly odd-looking girl with acne and mousy brown hair.
And as great of an actress as Moretz is, she is way too pretty to play Carrie (No offense, Spacek.)
Spacek just has this strange beauty about her - I love it.
And I'm sure that Moore, as always, does not disappoint as Carrie White's mom, Margaret.
I'm sure the new movie was good in its own way, and truly it seems more like a re-imagination than anything else. (In the previews, you can see the film takes place in the present, not the 1970s).
For some of us will always like the original. The original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," the original "The Hills Have Eyes," the original "Footloose" - and, yes, I'm aware the last isn't a horror movie.
To say the new "Carrie" and any other remake is horribly directed or filmed is not entirely true. It's just that nothing captures you like it does the first time.
Come on Hollywood, spend your time imagining new creations and stop trying to reinvent the wheel.