Chloe Moretz Says The 'Carrie' Remake Will Be The 'Black Swan' Version Of The Story

News

by Benjamin Wright
June 14, 2012 10:38 AM
14 Comments

Of all the remakes, reboots, and reimaginings in the works, the one we have the least animosity towards is probably “Boys Don’t Cry” director Kimberly Peirce’s upcoming remake of “Carrie.” Sure, Brian De Palma already turned author Stephen King’s twisted tale – of a girl with telekinetic powers who is abused by her own fundamentalist mother and her high school peers, all leading to one horrifying night at prom – into a classic film, but this new version shows promise. Peirce has lined up some great talent in “Hugo” lead Chloe Grace Moretz for the role of Carrie, and the always excellent Julianne Moore taking over the role of her mother Margaret White. Now it appears that Moretz is looking to put even more distance between the upcoming adaptation and De Palma's 1976 movie.

At Vanity Fair’s “Face of the Future” event honoring the young star, Moretz spoke of her aspirations for the project, adding that she will be “changing everything about me—my hair, my look." It’ll be hard to imagine the 15-year-old brunette going for a more Gothic persona, even though she proved she could have a darker side in “Let Me In” and even “Dark Shadows” – she adds that, “I’m doing my own take on [the character]. The script is totally different from the [original]. It’s more like the book. It’s a more 'Black Swan' version—it messes with your mind. You’ll see things, and you don’t know if you’ve seen them.” While “it’s more like the book” is a popular phrase for anyone to utter who’s working on a remake, we could see how Peirce and company would want to aim for a different take on the story and character. After all, the tale could certainly use a modern update – even if we didn’t exactly NEED one – and going for something a bit more psychological in nature could yield some interesting results.

Filming is set to begin in the fall, with a March 15, 2013 release date already set. It’ll be interesting to see what route Pierce takes with this film – whether it’ll pander to the kiddies or be a little more mature genre fare – and we suppose we’ll have a good idea when the MPAA slaps this with a rating (a PG-13 would be pretty telling).

News

More: Chloe Grace Moretz, Carrie

14 Comments

| Reply
Jim Brown | August 6, 2012 10:56 AMReply

I wont bother to watch this remake. They are making it to cater to $$$ not the story and to me that makes it garbage. Its typical that they are cutting the shower scene at the beginning of the movie because female nudity has become taboo and they will loose money from it. Too bad that is a very important part of the story and will be remade into some watered down tv special.
Cassie Cretas | October 20, 2012 5:53 PM

Jim Brown you are such a pedophile wanting to see a 15 year old girl be nude in a shower scene.
Ashley | July 24, 2012 12:36 PMReply

Carrie is supposed to be awkward and kind of ugly, I realize they needed star-power behind this movie but Chloe is probably the worst person they could have chosen specifically because she's really pretty. Hopefully they actually try and make her look bad. I definitely won't be seeing this, the original Carrie was amazing and nothing will ever top that.
bwl | July 6, 2012 4:10 AMReply

YES! PG-13! i'll be able to see it!
Sully | March 13, 2013 10:03 AM

PG-13 horror films are always a terrible idea. Many of the themes in traditional horror films wouldn't allow for a PG-13 film, not to mention the gore and violence in those films. In order to strip enough away to get that rating, they'd have to kill the heart of what makes horror, horror.
No thanks.
Connorthedevil | October 22, 2012 2:10 AM

Trust me dude this will not be PG-13 and even if it was that would be terrible! This movie will have sex and nudity and violence and gore and strong language. So why dont you take your idea that whatever the MPAA says is right, and go shove it down the trash can. The MPAA is a lying, terrible, punnishing system that does nothing but be more childish then the childrem the fail at protecting. So march up to your mother, and tell her that what the MPAA says is bogus, and that you are mature enough to see this film. If you wanted to go to see sex, you could watch porn. If you wanted to see violence, its all over youtube. If you wanted to hear bad language, you could goto school. The MPAA is a terrible system and should not be tolerated.
fred | June 15, 2012 10:28 AMReply

Sounds like Instant VOD.
Lucie | November 2, 2012 8:28 PM

@CONNORTHEDEVIL

You sound like an utter fool. It's not going to have any kind of nudity in it. This actress is 15 years old which would land the film makers in jail (hopefully) so it will have to be a watered down piece of crap. A note to the filmmakers: I will be watching it online for free.
Tom | June 14, 2012 2:10 PMReply

Chloe is underage, so no nudity in the shower scene. Boooo
Cassie Cretas | October 20, 2012 5:55 PM

Tom you are such a pedophile wanting to see a 15 year old girl be nude in a shower scene.
Arch | June 14, 2012 10:57 AMReply

So we shouldn't worry cause it really really is something we've already seen ? Refreshing talk I guess, changes from the regular "new approach" and "we so love the original" motto. By the way I don't see what's Black-swanesque about the original story, and in any case De Palma's movie clearly was an improvement (not King's best). Wow, This remake just sound even less interesting !!
Zack | June 14, 2012 10:48 AMReply

Yeah, well, Tim Burton said "Charlie & the Chocolate Factory" would be more like the book too.
Chase | June 14, 2012 10:43 AMReply

I have to agree. I think this is the only remake I have been waiting for with full anticipation. Too much talent behind this to fail. This could really put Chole on the A-list if she does this right.
Sully | March 13, 2013 10:09 AM

"Too much talent to fail."
That's about as realistic as "Too big to fail" in the banking industry. Take a look at the Star Wars prequels. You've got Ewan McGregor, Liam Neeson, and Natalie Portman, some of the top actors in Hollywood, and they couldn't act their way out of a paper bag in those films. Film is an orchestra, it's not just actors doing their thing. Actors require good directors, and directors require good editors, and editors require good music, effects, and sound to make a good movie, and all of them require trust (i.e. loads of money) from a producer to make sure they have all of the tools required to do their jobs the best they can. Actors alone don't add up to much.