Film | Kimberly Peirce | News

BigGayDeal.com

Here's the Teaser for the Remake of 'Carrie': VIDEO

Teaser_carrie

This new adaptation of the Stephen King classic starring Julianne Moore and Chloe Moretz was written by a gay playwright and comic book author Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa, and directed by a lesbian - Kimberly Peirce (Boys Don't Cry).

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Looks promising. Looks like it will be more faihful to the book. In the book Carrie ripped that whole town apart, not just the High School. The stars have an uphill battle though going against the iconic performances of Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie. April is a long way away.

    Posted by: AJ | Oct 16, 2012 9:59:52 AM


  2. I love the idea of a remake of Carrie. I'm tired of trailers that show next to nothing and are for films coming out 8 months from now.

    Posted by: Paul R | Oct 16, 2012 10:02:08 AM


  3. No one will out Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie. They're remaking a classic. You can't improve All About Eve or Gone With the Wind and they should keep their hands off Carrie.

    Posted by: MarkUs | Oct 16, 2012 10:42:45 AM


  4. I really hope this is good. The Brian DePalma version is rightfully considered a classic (the only mis-step in the whole thing is the boys trying on tuxedos), but maybe there's room for another take on it.

    The only thing that bugs me is that in the book Carrie is overweight and has pimples. She's been a victim from day one. Sissy Spacek worked because she's freckled and somewhat unusual looking. Chloe Grace Moretz is more typically pretty and could more easily be cast as one of the "in" mean girls. It kind of reminds me of those 80s "ugly duckling" movies where they slap a pair of glasses and an unflattering hair style on a model then everyone is supposedly "astounded" by her beauty when she takes the glasses off. It doesn't work because the audience never buys her as "ugly" to begin with.

    We'll see, but the few stills I've seen haven't made me very confident about the end result. http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/first-look-chlo%C3%AB-grace-moretz-carrie-214049274.html

    Posted by: Caliban | Oct 16, 2012 10:53:52 AM


  5. I really don't see the point. The original still works great, is beautifully photographed and acted, has a great score, plenty of legit scares and and John Freaking Travolta. Why don't they remake "The Godfather" while they're at it, with Kevin James as Don Corleone and Zac Efron as Michael?

    Posted by: Jim | Oct 16, 2012 11:00:51 AM


  6. With open mind I look forward to this retelling/re-imagining. With talent like Chole and Julian, it's already good.

    Posted by: Bobby | Oct 16, 2012 11:03:35 AM


  7. Loved the first one, but don't mind them having another go. It ain't no Alll About Eve, fer Chrissakes. Sissy and Piper were flawless. I'm hoping Chloe and Julianne will be too, in their own way.

    P.S. In my humble opinion, the Divine Julianne can do no wrong.

    Posted by: Michael in Toronto | Oct 16, 2012 11:59:47 AM


  8. I used to have the same opinion as many here about keeping ones hands off of the classics. Then I saw an interview with Patrick Stewart after he and Glenn Close did a made-for-HBO remake of "The Lion in Winter." The original Peter O'Toole/Katharine Hepburn film is one of my favorite films of all time. But in the interview, Patrick Stewart said that when you have such a brilliant script, what actor wouldn't want the opportunity to perform it? And he pointed out how Shakespearean plays get made and remade into movies over and over again. Made me pause for thought. And then other friends pointed out that many people who have never been exposed to the original film will have the opportunity to experience the story, and may then be inspired to seek out the original.

    So I say, if you come from a place of integrity and work your heart out, have at it! I love Piper Laurie's performance but I'm looking forward to seeing Julianne Moore's take on it.

    Posted by: Kevin_BGFH | Oct 16, 2012 12:11:06 PM


  9. Heheh, I sat next to Piper Laurie at a play over the weekend. Got me to thinking about Carrie. It does not need remaking. That is all.

    Posted by: Zlick | Oct 16, 2012 12:38:13 PM


  10. I agree that cash-grab remakes are a bad idea. The fact remains that there has never been a completely faithful adaptation of the book put on screen. Carrie blew up the high school gym in the DePalma version. She ripped the entire town to shreds, got atabbed by her mom, refused to forgive Sue and died crying for mommy in the book. I have always wanted to see a more faithful adaptation. Piper Laurie and Sissy Spacek RULE though.

    Posted by: AJ | Oct 16, 2012 12:52:23 PM


  11. Yeah, but c'mon.

    "And then, that night, I saw him looking down at me that way. We got down on our knees to pray for strength. I smelled the whiskey on his breath. Then he took me. He took me, with the stink of filthy roadhouse whiskey on his breath, and I liked it. I LIKED IT! With all that dirty touching of his hands all over me."

    There is no way the remake can equal the camp appeal of the original.

    Posted by: Caliban | Oct 16, 2012 12:58:40 PM


  12. Moore and Moretz have a pretty good track record on choosing film projects. Stay away if you like, but trashing a movie before you've seen it is kind of stupid.

    Posted by: parkrunner | Oct 16, 2012 1:01:45 PM


  13. Carrie was already remade, just recently. I saw a few minutes of that remake and that was enough; it was not memorable. Obviously, everybody has already forgotten that remake.
    The original is a classic, and I could watch it again. Sissy Spacek, Piper Laurie, John Travolta, Betty Buckley and the others were cast perfectly. Why not just put that one back on the big screen?

    Posted by: GregV | Oct 16, 2012 1:22:02 PM


  14. i was originally against the idea of remaking it, but IF they're actually going to film then novel then i say DO IT!

    the original film was incredibly different from the novel, as happens with most King adaptations. but i'd really be curious to see a filming that adheres to the storyline and events that King wrote - so count me in.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Oct 16, 2012 1:30:23 PM


  15. @GregV, what's really funny is that remake was supposed to be a teaser for a possible SERIES! The only way I can figure it is that was going to be Incredible Hulk-like. Carrie survives, runs away, and she travels from town to town, eventually getting p*ssed off and wreaking telekinetic havoc on the local bad guys.

    Posted by: Caliban | Oct 16, 2012 1:32:55 PM


  16. @CALIBAN: Yeah it was a pilot that never got picked up. Her character was supposed to be taken to a secret government institution in Florida where she was going to help others like her. Lame idea.

    And BTW, no camp is safe. They are remaking "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane" for cripes sake! What's next? Mommie Dearest??

    Posted by: AJ | Oct 16, 2012 1:39:46 PM


  17. Great casting, though. I'm looking forward to seeing it. And I understand the sentiment behind a remake that gives performers a crack at material they like or other artists a chance to say something different or additional. But I can count on one hand the remakes that turned out to be actual improvements.

    Posted by: Zlick | Oct 16, 2012 1:43:27 PM


  18. In case you haven't noticed, I'm a total fanboi of the book and the original movie. As a young gay kid I *loved* the "worm turns" plot of someone taking vengeance on their bullies.

    So I really hope this remake is good. I'm not ruling it out.

    DePalma didn't have the budget to film the whole Carrie-destroys-the-whole-town thing, but that is probably a good thing. It keeps the story tight, focused on her real tormenters, the kids at school. It's possible that once you expand it the focus is lost.

    If you really think about it "Carrie," written in 1974, foretold the school shootings of 15 years later. The biggest difference is that the perpetrator is a girl.

    OK, never mind. I can go totally nerd-gasmic over horror fiction and movies. I rein it in. Barely. ;-)

    Posted by: Caliban | Oct 16, 2012 1:50:16 PM


  19. i liked the epistolary nature of the original novel. hope they incorporate that viewpoint to this film version.

    rain of stones. town blowing up. the legend of the girl who destroyed the city. i LOVED the novel.

    i mean hey, i love me my de palma, buckley, spacek and laurie, but i DOOOO wanna see the novel on screen!

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Oct 16, 2012 1:57:58 PM


  20. I think with the right group of artists a re-telling of a BOOK (and not a movie) can be done right. If it sucks, hopefully younger audiences will be curious enough to rent the original DVD to see what they missed out on!

    Brian DePalma admitted that the main reason he just burned down the high school instead of the entire town was purely due to budget. We all know that a larger budget hardly guarantees success, but it does give the artists more flexibility. It's also personal taste....look at "A Star is Born" - some adore Judy, others prefer Barbra. "Opinions are like________"....including mine.

    Posted by: John Bisceglia | Oct 16, 2012 2:18:30 PM


  21. It shoulda been a musical! Oh wait...

    Posted by: stranded | Oct 16, 2012 2:34:48 PM


  22. The trailer makes no sense. "just a girl", as they show her looking pretty much like a mini-Godzilla. It would have been better not to show her at all, and leave the suspense.

    Posted by: Randy | Oct 16, 2012 4:22:42 PM


  23. Absent the original's vivid performances, DePalma's visual artisry and Pino Donaggio's score, what could a remake possibly have to offer except circa 2012 attitude and fashion sense to appeal to current youth?

    Besides, it'll probably be rated PG.

    Posted by: Gil | Oct 16, 2012 6:02:52 PM


  24. Nice tease but it makes it look more like a disaster movie than a horror film- and yeah another pointless re-make. We at least it's not in 3 - D...

    Posted by: jaragon | Oct 16, 2012 6:08:17 PM


  25. Did they not learn from the Broadway fiasco that you don't mess with perfection? The original holds up tremendously. Plus the cast includes William Katt, Edie McClurg, the mother-daughter one-two punch of Irving and Pointer as well as the Princess of 70's Panic Horror, the incomparable PJ Soles. Spacek was just dowdy enough to earn our sympathies then creepy enough to "carrie" the balls-out climax. For an extremely young actress, Chloe has chops but I am just not feeling this.

    Posted by: Artie | Oct 17, 2012 7:58:08 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Rosie Perez Rips Mitt Romney: VIDEO« «