Carrie

                                        'Carrie'
                       
                                          Modern and tame version of original classic !





In the remake of the original Brian De Palma film, and based off of the novel by Stephen King, Carrie tells the story of young Carrie White (Chloe Grace Moretz) who goes through life being tormented by classmates and teachers. The only person she feels close to is her religion- obsessed mother Margaret (Julianne Moore). After a cruel joke, one of the popular girls, Sue Snell (Gabriella Wilde) decides to provide an act of kindness to Carrie by allowing her boyfriend to ask her to prom. But along the way, Carrie starts to develop telekinetic abilities that could bring disastrous results if she's pushed too far.

The performances were very decent all around. Julianne Moore's performance as Margaret White was very satisfying, and quite chilling. Chloe Grace Moretz's portrayed Carrie's shy well, but lacked in her fulfilling the awkward and misfit side of Carrie. This is one aspect of this movie that lacks in comparison to the original - Carrie should not be displayed as attractive and shy. Rather, she should be portrayed as a loner, socially awkward,and timid.

Is it a more faithful adaptation of its original source; the 1974 novel penned by Stephen King ? It's not. No, Screen Gems and MGM's 2013 revamp of 'Carrie' is more akin to that of the 1976 film, which featured numerous changes from the book - all of which are still present The 1976 film slowly builds Carrie's powers so when it comes to it, the prom destruction is a complete shock. But here? Oh, no. It was more like watching Matilda than Carrie. Levitating books, humans... you name it. By the time it gets to prom, the extent of her powers are no longer a surprise and it all comes off as rather tame actually.it is also interesting to note that in 1999 director katt shea already made "The Rage: Carrie 2", which couldn't equal the quality established by its predecessor.
Yes, it impossible not to compare any remake to its original version, especially when the original is considered a classic. It is sad that with these days' shortage of originality, even a seemingly talented director such as Kimberly Peirce, succumbs to the commercial appeal of movie-making in the sole interest of monetary gain resulting in watered-down quality.As for the effects, unfortunately this remake is filled with a lot of CGI. Does it ruin the film? No. But it does take away a lot of the effect.

Overall, this wasn't a terrible film, but cannot even remotely compare to the original. Those that haven't seen the first film might very well enjoy it, but for those who have, you most likely will leave the theater disappointed.