User Reviews (157)

Add a Review

  • I have read the book and seen the original 1976 movie, numerous times. When I saw this advertised and heard that it followed the book, I knew I had to see it! It was interesting to see the book brought to life in a film. Even though it was modernized with Carrie making references to the internet, Chris using a cell phone, etc. I really enjoyed watching it, even though I still have to say that the original 1976 movie is still a classic! For some strange reason, during the prom scene where the blood is poured on Carrie, I was actually waiting to hear the famous line, "They're all gonna laugh at you!" That was such a nice touch in the original, but very difficult to duplicate. I also noticed in the credits that Jasmine Guy was in this film, but I looked and was not able to see her anywhere. The only thing I did not like is the fact with it being on regular television, the commercial breaks interrupted some of the good parts. Just when I was really into watching it, a commercial appears! Overall this movie was enjoyable to watch and to see a classic book and film come back. I am not much on remakes, but this one was not that bad. Still, nothing can hold a candle to the original!
  • It seems to make as much sense to remake a great movie like Brian DePalma's 1976 horror/suspense masterpiece CARRIE for television as it did to make a sequel of it in the form of THE RAGE: CARRIE 2 three years before, but that's what has been done. A lot of bells and whistles have been added to this television remake, but in the end this CARRIE is still in the shadow of the DePalma original.

    Angela Bettis (GIRL INTERRUPTED) has the unenviable task of stepping into the shoes (and the prom dress) of Sissy Spacek in the title role of a New England teen tortured at school by cruel classmates (because she doesn't belong) and at home by her religiously fanatical mother (Patricia Clarkson, in the Piper Laurie role). Soon, she discovers she has telekinetic powers; and when the most gruesome of gags is played on her on prom night, all bets are off.

    Though looking much more glazed in the eyes than Spacek ever did, Bettis gives a fairly good performance as Carrie; and Clarkson's portrayal of her uprighteous mother is much more low-key, but no less threatening, than Laurie's portrayal. The special effects, however obvious they might be, are also quite good. But in the end, the reputation of the 1976 original, with its combination of psychological horror and teen-angst drama, still hovers over this remake. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the pig's blood scene. It doesn't have the same jarring emotional impact this time around--not so much because we've seen it before, but because here it looks slightly laughable when the blood gets poured onto Bettis. Because of DePalma's use of slow-motion in the original, the blood hits Spacek like a tidal wave.

    I give the CARRIE remake a '6' just for trying. I only regret that its shortcomings as a film have less to do with its execution as a film than the fact that the original movie still resonates much more fully.
  • To state that this new version of Carrie doesn't remotely compare with the original horror classic is to belabor the obvious, so I will leave that issue aside.

    However, I expected this movie to be simply garbage, like the recent "Rose Red", or dull and mediocre, like the TV remake of The Shining, and surprisingly, it was better than that.

    Making a remake of a classic film is usually inadvisable, but under the circumstances, this was an honest and decent rendition of Carrie. TV movies tend to be endlessly drawn out, with low proudction values, and this was better than average. Most of the credit goes, however to the casting. Most of the cast were a very competent group of actors who I think really gave it their best shot in creating a new angle on the Carrie story. Particular mention should be made of Angela Bettis in the title role. She tackled the daunting task of taking a part made very famous by someone else, and making it her own. Her Carrie is less a neurotic mess than Sissy Spacek', repressed and unhappy but still strong and with some guts. She was very sweet and vulnerable, and was often very touching, as when she was suddenly, out of the blue, asked to the prom by such a handsome, nice boy.

    One big disappointment was Patricia Clarkson as Mrs. White. The part was really reduced in scope in this version, and the actress played her in a very restrained and bland fashion. I can well imagine that it was decided that to replicate Piper Laurie's over the top baroque performance was inadvisable. The idea here was to have a more low key sinister approach. But the result was completely dull and uninteresting character that had less relevance to the story than it should have.

    So for a TV remake of a horror classic, I give it A for effort, with some very good elements to it. However, this is still a movie you will probably watch only once. The real Carrie, Brian DePalma's 1976 classic, is one that is always fun to watch again and again!
  • I first heard of carrie through a 100 scariest movies list. I heard only about the telekinesis stuff and the prom scene. I first saw the original classic with sissy spasick (can't spell) and the next day and I honestly wasn't disappointed. The only problem with this film is it falls in the trap of crappy 2000-2006 cgi effects. The original I admit is a great film but it falls in the trap of weird choices in music (for example when the gym teacher is making the girls exercise). And the remake has some illogical scenes in it like when carrie is being revived with CPR. But if that's the biggest flaw than that really shouldn't be a problem. It goes into a lot of depth with the characters and it gives tommy a better personality than just the nice guy who takes her to prom. In both films it's evident he cares but in the remake he seems to care more. I can't explain it. And billy Nolan he is also a problem. In the original he is just stupid and as bonehead a guy as you would ever see. Whilst in the remake, he is freaking insane and he seems to change the personality by a lot. It's like the Texas chainsaw remake and the original. Both are so different and great in their own way. So both films are great and don't trash this one for being the remake of a classic.
  • I think everyone knows the story of Carrie. The strange innocent misfit who's teased mercilessly and maliciously by a few of her school peers. and develops her telekinetic powers to protect herself after a particularly cruel and humiliating prank is pulled on her.

    Well, I think I enjoyed this because it put a different spin on the original story. That is, the story is told after the fact in a series of interviews conducted by the police.

    The movie has a good cast and the script is good. The special effects, while used to good effect, aren't particularly 'special', but the camera work, particularly in the ballroom scene when everyone is panicking, is deplorable. I've taken better home movies. Still, if you can ignore that....

    Overall I really enjoyed this telemovie and would recommend it to anyone who wants a bit of a scare and to be entertained, and not

    I'll probably be burned at the stake for this too, but I preferred Angela Bettis charactisation of Carrie to Sissy Spaceks in the original.
  • Why not just watch DePalma's 1976 adaptation? While this remake was made for TV, which sometimes can brand a film as belonging to a lower class, it is a more faithful adaptation of King's novel. Have you read the novel? Many of the complaints you have about the "changes" made for the TV adaptation are major occurrences in the novel. Even the way in which the main action is interrupted by interviews, follows the structure of the book. While I like to judge a film adaptation of a novel separate from the novel itself and not on how well it sticks to the story, I found the flow of the novel much more interesting than the almost slasher genre quality of DePalma's film, and subsequently found the remake just as interesting. Pick up a's a quick easy read and maybe you'll see the remake in a whole new light.
  • I do not care how many of you read this and think "What a moron." Because I am not, I am right. Anybody can call themself a Stephen King fan because they've seen all his movies. Well, if you've never read his books then you're not a Stephen King fan, you're a horror movie fan. I read Carrie for the first time when I was 10 years old. It was the scariest, most f'ed up book I had read. (Remember I was 10, before Carrie I read Goosebumps and Freckle Juice) And my dad told me there was a movie. I had heard of it before, of course. So, I rented it. Sissy Spacek, Piper Laurie, and John Travolta were good, but the thing is they were the hottest stars at the time. Travolta was a teen hunk from Kotter and Sissy was your "girl next door" type. The original is a classic, I will never deny that. It's one of the best horror movies of the 20th century. Even though the acting was superb, Spacek wasn't the perfect Carrie, because she is pretty. Carrie was awkward and weird looking. Bettis is attractive, but in a creepy sort of way. Clarkson was a much better Mrs. White, because Laurie portrayed this wild, gospel radio type woman yelling out Christian nonsense. Mrs. White was described in the book as a insane woman with a sane face. Okay, let's be honest, Travolta sucked in Carrie. He was playing the role he ALWAYS did in the late 70s, a stupid, pretty boy. The guy that played Nolan in the remake portrayed him as a insane, extremely psychopathic. And Chris and Billy's relationship in the original wasn't as convincing. In the book, they were kind of a match made in heaven, they were both sadistic and cruel people. The only things I have to say about the original is Amy Irving was a better Sue, and the original Miss Desjardins was better too (the gym teacher). All in all I thought the remake of Carrie wasn't as classic as the original, but was more according to the book and they picked the characters well. 9/10
  • Carrie was originally a nerdy girl who was tormented over and over. Next, she was a goth who was videotaped having sex. This time, she's an epileptic girl struggling with life as a whole. Instead of doing a third one, the people decided to do something that people would rather see- remake the original loosely and transform it into a polished version of the book. While I do love the original, this one is closer to the book. There are a mere three things that I hated- the ending was stupid and Patricia Clarkson was too toned down for the role. They should have gone with a direct clone of Piper Laurie's flawless version of the character. Also, th pig blood dumping scene sucked this time. Ironically, all of the original's blonde characters are brunette here, and vice versa. The ending sort of copied the graveyard sequence at the end of the first one, but isn't as scary. But as a whole, this third in a blooming series was quite good and worth a few watches.
  • High school is a horrible place. Everyone is really cruel. The popular kids, pick on the nerds, the nerds dump on the popular kids, and the kids left in the middle, they pick on and make fun of the nerds and the popular kids. But there is always that one kid. The kid who sits at lunch by himself, he never says a word and boy does he get dumped on the most.

    That's why the Stephen King's classic CARRIE will always appeal to mass audiences. She's the quiet kid who's always getting picked on. It prays on our irrational fear of the one who is a little odd, but it also gives us a glimpse into our own hurt psyche. We've all been put upon in our lives. We've all be humiliated by the people around us, and we all wish we could gat back at out enemies.

    As I sat through the recent television remake of CARRIE, all I could think of is how I am Carrie, but I'm also the one who has destroyed people like Carrie. It's the human condition, I guess? It's that ever-present darkness we all have in our hearts. No matter how we try to suppress it.

    Angela Bettis (May) plays Carrie White, a high school senior with a legalistic mother and the whole world against her. She's quiet, introspective, and really naive about what's going on the world. So of course all the girls in school pick on her, and tease her. They are downright cruel at some points.

    Little does anyone know, but quiet Carrie has begun to develop weird powers. She can make things move using her mind. But when another prank goes wrong, Carrie goes medieval and takes no prisoners.

    Angela Bettis was born to play Carrie and she is great. She has this innocent and yet dangerous look about her. She gives Carrie this poised quirkiness that the film desperately needs. You can see how each humiliation wears away at her fa├žade, and without Bettis's small but subtle character changes, this simple and yet so complex character would fall apart at its seems.

    I especially liked the scene in which she's waiting for her prom date Tommy (Tobias Mehler, Disturbing Behavior) to arrive. He's late, and she thinks she going to be stood up and as the minute's progress the furniture slowly begins to rise off the floor. That is a great sequence.

    The supporting cast also does a great job Patricia Clarkson's (Far From Heaven) performance, as Carrie mom is one of true evil and even a little sympathy. She generally cares for Carrie, too bad she's so bad at showing it to her daughter. To bad she's been duped into the lie that legalism can save your soul. I like that it has more dimensions than Brian Deplama's characterization of Carrie's mom in the original film.

    Rena Sofer (TV's ED) is also very good as Carrie's tough as nails gym teacher, one of Carrie's only supporters. She walks that thin line between feminine and bitchy without turning her character into a farce. I liked how she handled her gym class, when they obviously deserved worse, and I loved the small conversation she has with Carrie at the prom. Sofer is one great actress.

    Director David Carson (Star Trek: Generations) visual style is also refreshing. Much of the film is shot with stylized steady cam and disjointed camera angels. While many times this technique can be distracting. It works really well for this film, and is never distracting.

    My only qualm with this movie is pretty trite. Since it is a TV movie some sequences are a little choppy because of commercial breaks. I wished they had fixed some of the editing at these points for the DVD. Because I found it distracting that they would go to black only to come back to the same shot. It's also a tad overlong, and some sequences drag on merely to stretch the running time. But they are few and far between, so forget I even mentioned them.

    This new CARRIE is really good. It has a great cast, a nice visual sense, and aspires to do something new and different. I would recommend you see Deplama's film before you see this one. But don't let that discourage you from giving the new CARRIE a look.

    This is one of the best Made-For-TV movies I have ever seen.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    As Stephen King remakes go, I tend to deTEST them. They always want to bastardize the original works, especially the literary works on which these movies are based.

    I loved the original "Carrie," with Sissy Spaseck and John Travolta, having grown up in that era. And I rented this movie with the intention of hating it. But it actually grew on me. I was half-way through the movie, when I realized that it was, subtly, better.

    I also did not want to like Angela Bettis as Carrie White. But she, too...grew on me. The hesitations in her performance, are her CHARACTER's hesitations, not a lack of talent. Quite the contrary, in fact.

    The deviations this work takes from the original movie are constructive variations rather than the mindless drivel customary in the King remakes.

    Unfortunately, as with many of Mr. King's works, the dogmatic overtones hammer you in the head. They are nowhere near as "ignorable" in this made for TV movie, as they are in the novel, but that is to be expected.

    Mrs. White is still the insane pontificating zealot she is in the original literary work, but I found Carrie's faith uncharacteristically smarmy. It wasn't exactly out of character, considering who raised her, but it was distasteful, to say the least. The original Carrie was a head-strong girl who knew her mother was crazy. This Carrie was afraid of her own shadow, literally.

    The pig butchering scene was a delightful deviation, more like the novel and less like the original movie. Nice. It was compelling, disturbing and REAL.

    I also enjoyed David Carson's (Smallville, the 10th Kingdom, etc.) direction of Carrie, herself. Her experimentation with her powers was a nice touch. It added depth to her character instead of the shrieking plastic Carrie we got in the first movie. Added much to the depth of the movie, as well.

    The scene where Chris and Billy are in bed together discussing Carrie's fall, has a definite "Cruel Intentions" feeling. A likable, but sinister "Cruel Intentions" feeling. Niiiice. Except for the actors being in their mid-twenties portraying high school kids (also done in the original), the movie had a reality to it that the first one lacked.

    Rena Sofer as Miss Desjarden was a delight to behold. There should be real teachers out there like her. Law-suits not withstanding, ALL teachers should demonstrate her level of caring and compassion.

    The way the entire movie was based around the police interviews with the students was wonderfully done, creatively perpetrated and convincingly portrayed. Many various and diverse touches were added to make this a very memorable movie.

    All in all, a much better movie, than the original. It contains the well-thought-out remake of the original scenes we've come to love and expect from the movie, "Carrie," giving us both what we want and what the movie needed in order to best the original.

    As I said in the beginning, I had no intention whatsoever of liking this production, but it won its rewards by demonstrating superior direction, screenplay and performances. And, last but certainly not least, I found the ending to be even more dramatic in its portrayal than the original, by giving us less drama and more action. Very VERY nice! Extremely well-done Made-For-TV movie. Brilliant adaptation of King's work. Absolutely delightful.

    It gets a surprising 7.6/10 from...

    the Fiend :.
  • Derek2372 July 2003
    Warning: Spoilers
    Some Spoilers herein...

    Carrie marks yet another horrid TV movie based on a Stephen King Novel following other garbage such as The Shining and Rose Red. My first complaint (of many) is that, like The Shining, Carrie did not need to have another adaptation. The film was great. But, for whatever reason they decided to make it anyway. It stays pretty faithful to both the book and the movie at first but in the last hour or so it gets mind-numbingly bad. It doesn't exactly have subtlety going for it. Even the simplest thing like the bucket of blood falling is way to overblown.

    As for the film's special effects, well, they suck. They're completely cheesy and fake-looking. There's one shot of a car hurling towards the screen that looks completely ridulous. I've seen more realistic-looking cars in video games.

    It just gets worse from there. The ending was so stupid I wanted to vomit, and still do just thinking about it. Instead of the classic ending where Carrie uses knifes to kill her mother and then destroys the whole house, killing herself too, Carrie just uses her powers to make her mother's heart stop. Wow. But wait, there's more! Knowing that Carrie is in trouble with the police, Sue helps Carrie hide out, and 2 completely illogical fakeout scares later, the movie ends with her driving carrie to Florida. Here comes that vomit again...

    Now, I know that there is a possible series that will be sprouting from this movie but I still find the ending stupid. Besides, with a movie this bad how good could the series possibly be? I usually try to give some constructive criticism when I review a movie, but this is such a bad movie that it's just a rant. This movie actually causes me physical pain to watch it. That's how bad it is! I'm only glad that I saw it on TV and didn't buy or rent it on video. I urge anyone reading this to not spend any money on it. Even if it's for free, you still waste time on this movie. Life is short, and I just wasted 3 hours of my life watching Carrie. I can only devote more of my time by writing this review in an attempt to prevent anyone else from wasting their time and money on this complete load of trash. THAT'S HOW BAD IT IS.

    My rating: 1/10
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Maybe because I read the book before I saw the original, but this feels more like an expansion of the 76 film than a remake. It might have played a little better if had been made it 79 or something, if for no other reason than the fact some of the original cast could have been kept. (Neither Sissy Spacek orAmy Irving can play teens anymore.)

    Anybody that read the book will remember the special commission that was put together to investigate "the incident" on the last few pages, and that's where this one starts. The entire movie is in flashback mode, so it seems to me that it kind of dovetails with the original. The only blooper to the idea, is that in the original (as well as the book) Carrie dies, in fact the first page of the last chapter is her death certificate, so the ending would have to change for this method to play, but overall, I wasn't as diasappointed as I expected to be.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    OK, first off, There was NO need for this film. The original was a CLASSIC. Sissy Spacek was a much more believable Carrie. Angela Bettis -wel, let's just say, she wasn't even fit to play the wall. The kids in this movie seem so FAKE! They look like they fell out of a magazine! Nancy Allen, Sissy Spacek, Amy Irving, and William Katt were amazing! The characters they formed were exactly like the book! I'm a HUGE Stephen King fan, and having read the book many times, the 1976 CLASSIC was 100% perfect.

    And, most specifically, the prom scene. *spoilers* After they dumped the blood on her, Sissy pulled of a telekenetic trance. Angela Bettis looked like she had been mummified.

    And the role of Tommy Ross was a HORRIBLE choice I don't know what the director was thinking, but he should have asked Brian DePalma for some advice. I give this film a negative 50
  • The only horror and the terrible thing is that I've spent more then 2 hours on this crap.I saw that there is going to be "Carrie" on TV so I was happy to see one great movie again.I didn't read what version of "Carrie" this was and that was my mistake.But what a hell I decided to take a look.That was my second mistake.

    Truly stupid and poor try to be better then the original.How did they even come up with that thought of making this movie?With what?Actors,director?Actors-who are they?They are not good and Angela Bettis irritates me.Nothing,I assure you nothing to be seen in this one.Only stupid b-TV movie.1/10
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The Original Carrie with Sissy Spacek was incredible. This dribble is pure and utter crap. I try to remain professional when writing a review, but this movie has ruined my senses. In comparison to the original Carrie, this movie is dull, boring and completely off base. Carrie actually survives her mother in the end. The ending just completely threw me off base.

    On it's own, this movie is dull, boring and completely off base. The acting is terrible, completely unbelievable, and listless. There were times I just felt like screaming at them (the actors) in hopes I could straighten them out.

    What is worse, I found that this was done only in hopes of creating a TV series! Wow. The network must've been grasping at straws to accept that proposal.

    All in all, when Stephen King dies (pray in a hundred years: he will always be my favorite writer) he will turn forever in his grave for having his name associated with this garbage.
  • The original "Carrie" will forever remain one of the greatest horror films of all time, possessing two phenomenal performances and a talented director at the apex of his career, combining the stylistic flourishes of Hitchcock and Argento with amazing results. Yet expanding on the original might not sound like such a bad idea, particularly taking into account that the sequence, present in the novel, where Carrie destroys the whole town could not be filmed by De Palma for budgetary reasons. But it also begs the question, as did the made for TV remake of "The Shining", if it ain't broke why fix it?

    The director clearly wanted to make the film stylistically the antithesis of the original, shooting it on digital video to give it a realistic, but nevertheless low-budget, feel. This doesn't work, for despite the odd inspired visual touch that transcends the format, it simply looks ugly here. The cast do provide some justification for its remake, notably the superb performance from Bettis who, as anyone who saw the underrated "May" will attest to, was a perfect choice for the role. With her unusual looks and twitchy, nervy mannerisms, Bettis makes the film worth seeing. As does Clarkson, filling in a big pair of shoes from the monolithic characterization by Laurie in the original, but instead infuses the character with a more subdued nature, giving her a humanity that was never glimpsed previously. Elsewhere however, the cast let the film down, most disappointing of which being Isabelle, who was so impressive in "Ginger Snaps", giving a one-dimensional performance as one of Carrie's foes. What destroys the film however is the screenplay. Too faithful to the original film in its first half then too jarringly different in the last reel (I won't spoil it but the ending is a travesty), the script's biggest crime is its interrogation framework, so cliched a filmic device that as soon as David Keith appears on screen all credibility flies out the window. "Carrie" is not a terrible remake, but it isn't a particularly good one either, so unless you're a Bettis fan just rent the original again or even the sequel, which isn't looking all that bad right about now.
  • and explain why this was needed. Not a total waste of one's time, perhaps, but pretty darn close. I won't take up even more of your time here by re-hashing the whole works for you, I'm sure you know the score by now. Personally, the thing I missed most in this bland re-make was Piper Laurie. Yes, I like Patricia Clarkson, and I'm sure she did the best she could with the direction and script she was given. The fault here lies with the writers' failure to include the lewd sexual undertones that were a part of Margaret White's mania in the original film. We are given no clue in this "update" as to why Margaret is a Bible-thumping nutcase. All the background of how she became pregnant with Carrie, her "rape" by Carrie's boozy, horny father - that's all deleted. Go back and look at the '76 version, check out the scene where Margaret is crucified by Carrie's telekinetically-driven knives. Listen to Margaret's screams of orgasmic ecstasy as each wound is inflicted. Study her beatific smile as she dies in the same pose as the one traditionally used to portray Jesus on the cross. Now that's camp for you!! Not a single trace of that is present here - too bad.
  • JanWheel36 November 2002
    I personally am a HUGE fan of Stephen King. I own every book he's ever written or had anything to do with. For the most part, I'm not a "fan" of his movies, I'd rather read the books and use my own imagination to play the movie in my head, so to speak. The whole reason I even started to read SK books was because I saw "Carrie" 1976 on tv and it scared the crap out of me and my mom said, you know that's a book...that's all it took and since then - HUGE SK fan right here! I watched this with an open mind, trying not to do the "well that's not how it was in the original" thing. For the most part, that worked...however!!! There are certain things you just can't ignore, can you say CHEESY Special FX!? They were HORRIBLE, not to mention the ending - what was that??? And I'm sorry, but NO ONE can do Billy Nolan like John Travolta did. AND Piper Laurie was MUCH better as the psycho religious mother. I was very disappointed and upset for missing other, better shows to watch this piece of crap remake! There are just some things that are better left alone: Carrie, Psycho, Vertigo, A Nightmare On Elm St., Friday the 13th...Nothing! can beat the original!
  • rsimmons-14 November 2002
    Warning: Spoilers
    SPOILER ALERT This is a terrible remake of Carrie. They have changed so many things that it is ruined. The ending is different. Instead of the mother dying by flying knives, Carrie causes a heart attack. Boo. Also, the idea of the interviews and the investigation after the fact is quite lame. The movie turns into a crummy TV police drama.
  • ricky_may115 November 2010
    Some remakes are said to be better than their originals.

    Sometimes thats true. This is one of them.

    Carrie 2002 may not have the same flair that Depalma used in the equally effective 76 movie but its a TV movie so thats to be expected. However, this newer version delivers more development, more intense sequences, especially the prom climax, and also a better ending in my own opinion but ill let you be the judge of that if you watch it. Angela Bettis is a mixture of mousiness, beauty, and shyness and she was definitely born to play the role of Carrie White. Her journey from class doormat to vengeful prom queen is definitely a sight to see. Also, the whole police investigation into the case is really unique as well cause its already happened so it gives more detail into why it happened and the truth is gradually uncovered.

    All in all, The newer version delivers more than its share of chills and thrills. it takes you on a roller coaster ride of emotions and shows a pretty accurate portrayal of school life. Worth a watch or two definitely.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    With the right editing, this could have been a really nice movie. And then Stephen King fans and probably Stephen King would have had a fit. There were several possible escapes that would have made it more 'Pygmalion' than 'Pygbloodian.' This Carrie was (except with her mother) sweeter and more attractive than the first, and you really want everything to go right for her when she has that special night. You see, I'm not a Stephen King fan. Had I turned it off at the right moment, I would have found it quite satisfying. It still was, but not in the way I would have wanted. Don't read any more if you didn't read the novel or see the original movie. This one starts with the investigation of something terrible that happened, though it takes a while for you to know just what is going on as the mystery slowly unfolds between flashbacks. Finally you know people died, possibly as a result of a prank. The climactic scene, in fact, was much more effective since it didn't happen as quickly or as neatly. There were sprinklers in the gym; that actually worked to Carrie's advantage. From there, picture Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdicts. The sweet girl from earlier in the movie has definitely disappeared. But the ending was a little different. A sequel seems more logical to this one; that's all I can say.
  • harmonyrose1024 November 2015
    Now, although this isn't the best Carrie Adaption, I still did enjoy it. I do love how it added a lot more from the novel to this adaption, but it does have it flaws. For example the Special Effects. The Special Effects really ruin the movie quite a bit. They are quite awful for a film made in 2002. The 1976 version looked more realistic. But does that ruin it entirely for me? No. It is the story that gets me. Angela Bettis made a great Carrie, her acting was fantastic. She had played a shy, awkward and lonely girl and she was amazing. Although I do think she overacted at some points, I thought she shook too much and she does go cross eyed at times, although it was extremely effective after she got dumped in blood. Most of the other Actors did a pretty good job and it was a fun watch. I still do prefer the 2013 Adaption out of all of them, but I still love this version and all of the others as well. Not bad.
  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    2 points before I start.

    Firstly I would like to start this review by saying I really love the 1976 version of Carrie. I think it is one of the the best horror movies ever made. It is also one of the saddest horrors ever made.

    Secondly I don't see why people are bad mouthing this TV version from 2002. It may not be a classic but it is a very good remake that is more faithful to the source novel than the original film.

    In My opinion the 2002 version of Carrie is one of the best TV adaptations of a Stephen King novel, up there with IT and the 1979 version of Salems Lot.

    All the actors play there parts very well. Plus anyone who has read Carrie will realise how close to the novel this version is, well apart from the ending. This was changed due to the fact that this version was originally intended as a pilot for a series.

    The film starts with the survivors of prom giving evidence to the police. This comes directly from the novel and the story is told in flash back. Angela Bettis makes for an interesting Carrie White. Unlike Sissy Spacek Carrie who comes a cross as a deer in headlights, Bettis Carrie isn't as naive or scared of her tormentors and in a couple of scenes she actually verbally fights back,(Reminding Sue Schell that the only reason she speaking to her in a shop is that none of her friends are around to see). Carrie in this version is fully aware that Tommy was asked to take her to the prom by Sue.

    This In-fact this is the major difference between the two films. In many ways Carrie is more street wise than her 1976 counterpart.

    The original Carrie is purposely slick and overplayed, where as this version is subtler and more realistic.

    This really shows in the the way Carrie is bullied by the other girls and there general reactions to Carrie in general its very realistically played out, making they're nastiness all the more shocking.

    Patricia Clarkson interpretation of Margret White is one of quiet insanity. It actually makes her performance all the more unnerving.

    Rena Sofers ,Miss Desjarden is actually a lot better than the original Betty Buckleys, Miss Collins (the gym teacher). This mainly to do with the fact that the role is actually better written than in the original 1976 version. The scene at the prom where she reminds Carrie that High Schools isn't the be all and end all is brilliantly played out.She also shares a great scene where she and the headmaster are confronted by Chris Hargensen father.(This comes directly from Stephen Kings book).

    The rest of the cast are very good and many have gone on to bigger things. Emilie de Ravin went on to appear in LOST and Kandyse McClure became part of the cast of the New Battlestar Galactica not to mention the always excellent Katharine Isabelle (a real bitch in this version) who has become a cult star of indie horror movies.

    This adaptation of Carrie only really fails on 2 points. The first is that some of its digital Special Effects don't always work. This was mainly to do with budget restraints. The second is its look. It just looks too made for TV, Its flatly directed and has no real grandeur. This probably why some the reviews have been bad. Also i would like to point out that many of the negative reviews come from people who have never read the book.

    I really liked this adaptation of Carrie and have watched almost as many times as the original. I'm aware that I've compared the two films in this review but I hope people reading this will not be put off especially as a new version of Carrie is on its way. I hope this version will not be forgotten as its only real flaw was that it was a TV movie.
  • I know that others has complained about this film, and thinking of the circumstances, it's not that weird. Of course, compared to the original (you saw this coming, right?), this one is more of an "easy come, easy go". It's like Hellraiser without Doug Bradley, or Elm Street without Robert Englund. Even if the movie itself doesn't suck, we have the original, with its own trademarks, to compare it with.

    However! If you decide to watch this, please make sure to forget everything you remembered from the original movie. If you've read the book, you know that Carrie isn't as cute as in the 70's version, her mother is way more crazy ... The characters doesn't have the substance from the characters in the book. This one does. When I read the book, I pictured Carrie as a shy, somewhat ... I wouldn't say ugly, but not a real beauty, or cute. A bit odd girl, sneaking around in the corridors trying not to be seen and always on edge, never quite dry in her eyes. The actress delivers the character of Carrie superb, and sometimes better than Sissy Spacek (I am going to get so much sh*t from "real" horror fans for saying that).

    The only thing I have to complain about is the choreography of the picture. The picture is a bit corny on occasions, has got too many closeups and almost always filmed with a shaky hand camera. Makes me wounder - why? It really brings down the over all grade of the movie, and gives a feeling to the movie as a "high school project" rather than a remake/interpretation of the book.

    On the whole, an excellent movie with excellent acting. I give it 7 out of 10
An error has occured. Please try again.