Oh, gawd...another CARRIE trailer- Page 2

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 4/5/13 at 3:18pm

I love how they gave away the entire movie in that one trailer *sarcasm*. Why do they do that now? In some of the comedies, the trailer shows the funniest parts so when I go see it, I don't really enjoy it because I all ready heard the best jokes/gags every time the trailer came on television.

But, the movie looks good though.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/5/13 at 3:20pm

Because this story has been told again and again. They want to assure people they are going to get exactly what they expect. I mean, it's like starting the Spider-Man story all over again. Or barely even coming up with new titles for sequels ("Wolverine," "The Wolverine," "A Wolverine," "Wolverine, The").

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 4/5/13 at 3:27pm

... Son of Wolverine, Bride of Wolverine, The Three Stooges Meet the Wolverine...

[Jungle Red]

Posted: 4/5/13 at 3:37pm

A Wolverine in London
Wolverine!
Wolverine: The Musical
Mr Wolverine Goes to Washington

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/5/13 at 3:39pm

Wolverine.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 4/5/13 at 3:47pm

Wolverine: The Musical: THE MOVIE!

[Jungle Red]

Posted: 4/5/13 at 3:56pm

Kidding aside, it looks good. I like the casting. But the trailer showed way too much.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 4/5/13 at 3:59pm

So 'it was pretty much laughed at when it was released' means the people who you sat with in the cinema you attended? Ok.

[E.Davis]

Posted: 4/5/13 at 4:01pm

Judy Greer just popping up everywhere, as usual.

Updated On: 4/5/13 at 04:01 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/5/13 at 4:03pm

You have to understand, no one when Carrie or Halloween were released ran around saying they were destined to be classics. They were both junk food. Many of these aggregate review sites of movies from 40 years ago are including more recent appreciations. Those "in hindsight, given the horrible bilge that has been released since that time..." articles may speak the truth now, but nobody was saying that then.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 4/5/13 at 4:11pm

OMG, that is so true, Nemo. I doubt many on this board ventured to 42nd Street to see TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE when it... uhm... premiered. On a double, I might add, of THE TRI-SEXUALS! ("They'll tri anything!")

Nope. Not making that up. LOL

[mikey2573]

Posted: 4/5/13 at 4:18pm

Yeah, you can tell they tried to "uglify" Chloe, but I am not sure that's possible. She is a great actress. her performance in the teen-vampire flick LET ME IN was truly memorable and haunting (as was her costar, Kodi Smit-McPhee). In any other genre (other than horror) they both may have been Oscar nominated. She will get hers one day.

[Jungle Red]

Posted: 4/5/13 at 4:20pm

I loved Kodi Smit-McPhee in The Road.

Chloe will get her Oscar one day.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/5/13 at 4:30pm

That's the thing, Sean. The passage of time is often like the gauzy camera lens Barbara Walters uses. People think something that is currently remembered with affection must have always been held in high regard.

At its worst, when the fond remembrances stay strong and steady, people are then given a remake with previews laced with all the code phrases ("They're all gonna LAUGH at you!!!") that looks pretty pointless. How on EARTH did they have the restraint not to include references to dirty pillows in that trailer?

Richard Eder's New York Times review, published at the time of the film's release, basically trashed it. He said it "is sometimes funny in a puzzling kind of way, it is generally overwrought in an irritating kind of way, and once in a while it is inappropriately touching. It isn’t frightening at all until the very end and then it is briefly and extremely frightening."

I recall the most of the people who liked it at the time liked it the way they liked a particularly well pulled off practical joke. If you look at it as one long set-up for one big shock, you can appreciate all the effort to make you vulnerable to a pretty cheap trick. In that way it was genius.

Updated On: 4/5/13 at 04:30 PM

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 4/5/13 at 4:39pm

I understand your point but the Spider-Man reboot/remake/whatever at least veered away from the original movie to the point where it became it's own monster. The only similar thing was the was spider bite and Uncle Ben dying (which in and of itself was different than the Raimi version). Carrie just looks like an updated repeat of the original script (minus a scene here and there). I am, of course, basing that off the trailer, but it basically showed the whole movie anyway so.....

Updated On: 4/5/13 at 04:39 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/5/13 at 4:47pm

I don't actually give a crap about King's novella the way some of the die-hards around here consider it a seminal text in American letters that cries out for not only several movie adaptations but musicalization.

I think DePalma's movie is in fact one big prom stunt on the audience. The prom and the aftermath in the movie are just red herrings for the final shock. He plays a trick on the audience the way the kids tricked Carrie. The difference is, the trick doesn't infuriate us, it kicks our adrenaline in. Which is great, the audience leaves thrilled and tells others to go see it, in the long tradition of good b-movie trash.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 4/5/13 at 4:52pm

Halloween and Carrie both opened to critical and audience acclaim. I think it's pretty fair to say they were recognized as classics of the genre when they came out.

Roger Ebert's 1979 review of Halloween.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/5/13 at 4:56pm

Not for nothing, but Ebert was not at that time considered a serious film critic. He was a popular movie reviewer.

Both those movies opened to mixed reviews, some positive, but a lot that weren't. There was NOT universal agreement that they would be classics when they came out. Back then, people tended to wait for time to pass to declare something a classic. Nowadays, of course, we are used to studios telling us a new movie is a classic before independent eyeballs have glanced a frame.

Updated On: 4/5/13 at 04:56 PM

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 4/5/13 at 5:08pm

It's a classic because it's immensely fun, pulpy b-movie fun aided by two genuinely terrific performances. I mean...that fast-forward tux try-on scene? Bizarre! And hilarious. I adore the movie. ADORE IT. But I never get confused and think it's a 'great' movie.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 4/5/13 at 5:12pm

No not universal. But the majority of reviews for both were positive. Carrie was nominated for two Oscars. As someone who grew up reading Fangora magazine I can say with confidence they were considered horror classics upon release.
I'm also curious to know at what point Ebert became a "serious" film critic. And are all his reviews before that date less valid? Updated On: 4/5/13 at 05:12 PM

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 4/5/13 at 6:19pm

Namo I get what your saying that nobody thought they would be classics but as for people laughing at them ( in a bad way) or dismissing them at the time...I don't think so. Carrie, Halloween etc will have had there fair show of giggles when watching.....the films are thrillers, and Carrie also had a lot of black humor. However at the time both films (especially Carrie) recieved very good reviews, and the leading ladies got raves, so much so the Oscars nominated them for their performances...... In a thriller/horror, Something that very rarely happens. If people were laughing at it and critics dismissed it it would not for a single second have got the very nominations it got.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/5/13 at 8:31pm

I don't view Carrie's looks as the main problem she faces from the other girls.

Did you ever read the novel. She is actually considered almost repulsive. Though it has a lot to do with her upbringing. Her unflattering clothes, lack of makeup, no hairstyling, pimples, and she snuck in the showers defying her mother because she had BO after gym. She wasn't just considered weird. She was considered to be gross. And yeah, I think they failed on that aspect yet again with this film. It looks more like a supernatural My So Called Life when it should be closer to My Mad Fat Diary.

What I do love about the DePalma film is that he had so a keen sense of visual style for the film. He did choose a lot of camp and I think it was intended to be a horror film that was impossible not to enjoy. It wasn't the book, but he clearly didn't want to go for psychological drama. He wanted adrenaline and endorphins and I think he achieved it.

It would be nice to see a representation of the novel on the screen, but this version could be fun. But it's really looking like just an update on the DePalma version.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 4/5/13 at 8:49pm

Sorry, MisterMatt, I was unclear. I know she is not written as an undeveloped beauty in the novel. I meant more so when I see an attractive actress playing the role it doesn't bother me for those reasons I said earlier about girls and their reasons, or lack there of, for singling out one girl as the weirdo. It just adds to the random meanness of teenage (and pre-teen) girls.

And, for what it's worth, even in the novel I don't think her looks are the primary reason for the other girls hating her. She was singled out by the other girls, for her religious upbringing and general differentness, well before looks really would have been playing a part in those girls' lives.

And let's face it, Hollywood will never cast a truly ugly girl in a role like that, because they always want the "Cinderella arriving at the ball" moment, and, rightly or wrongly, they know that most audiences won't accept that if the girl is not actually pretty when that moment comes.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 4/5/13 at 9:11pm

Unless that's made part of the character's arc.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 4/5/13 at 9:13pm

Mister Matt, when I read the novel (after watching the film), I was surprised by the gross elements associated with the character. I do wish Pierce hadn't cast a gorgeous blonde as the lead, even someone like Hailee Steinfeld, a beautiful girl in a much less conventional way, would have hit all the right notes. Oh well.
I also thought when the movie was announced they made a big deal about how it'd be closer to the book. I love the way the novel tells the story, it'd have been great if this version had try to translate that but it doesn't look like it judging from this preview.
I don't think DePalma's film is untouchable by any means but I do think if you are going to remake it there should be a better reason than adding cool special effects. I'm very suspicious about this remake, I thought the preview would be more exciting but it kinda sits there.