By Drew Taylor | The Playlist October 21, 2013 at 12:48PM
3.) Chloe Moretz Isn't Right For The Lead
In the original "Carrie," Sissy Spacek had a willowy, otherworldly quality to her performance. It's a turn that feels less like it was performed by an actor and more like the filmmakers were capturing footage of some kind of strange creature that was interacting with human beings for the very first time. She was decidedly off, in a delicious way. Angela Bettis, in the TV movie, shared an equal strangeness (she played a similar role in the indie horror favorite "May"). In the right light, both actresses could be labeled "pretty," but it was important that this not come until the final act, and then could only be seen in silvery glimmers. Chloe Grace Moretz, on the other hand, is adorable. We know already this. And the problem is that she is as cute in the first scene as she is during the climactic prom (with or without her dirty pillows on display), and so the scenes in between are flush with a kind of painful awkwardness. It's not the awkwardness that she's supposed to have, either, of a tormented girl who is constantly bullied by classmates and pushed around even more violently by her bible-thumping mother. Instead, it's the awkwardness of a poised, gifted actress trying to appear like the pigeon-toed outcast (and, worse still, too influenced by those earlier performances). In the "Carrie" TV movie, there's a reference to all those teen movies where the "ugly" girl is transformed from an ugly duckling into a beautiful swan, even though the girl was usually a supermodel to begin with. The same thing applies here. Moretz gives off the vibe of a young girl who everyone wants to be friends with; everything else feels like a put on. Especially when, instead of staying statue-still during her massacre, she moves her arms and hands around like she's conducting a symphony (or channeling Magneto in "X-Men"). It's hard to give an actress grief for being too cute, but for the role, her adorableness works against her, the character, and the movie.
4.) "Carrie" Doesn’t Earn Its R
At some point during "Carrie" the poor sap who we dragged to our screening leaned over and said, "Is this even rated R?" It's a good question: there's painfully little about this new "Carrie" to warrant an R rating. The opening of De Palma's movie, with the camera glacially gliding through the girls' locker room (with tons of full frontal nudity) is gone, even though the scene mostly remains. And there's barely any bloodshed. The prom massacre is oddly neutered, especially since, given the advances in filmmaking technology (and the idea, in this movie, that she has more control over her powers), Carrie's wrath could have been more fully felt. Quite frankly the level of carnage doesn't even level up to something like one of the "Final Destination" movies that take ghoulish delight in creatively offing teenagers. "Carrie" barely shrugs. The most violent thing about this new "Carrie" is the killing of the pig (in this version, Chris slits the pig's throat), although that might unfairly be rewarded points because animal cruelty is so disturbing. Finally, when Carrie has her showdown with Chris and Billy Nolan (Alex Russell, who is no John Travolta), you think that the fireworks are going to fly. Except that they don't. The stuff with Chris and Billy's car in the trailers and TV spots is pretty much all of what you see in the movie, with a few more closeups. Billy breaks his neck and Chris goes through the windshield in slow motion (there's a brief shot of her face embedded with shards of glass), but, it's not the blood laden spectacle some may have been hoping for. In fact, when you boil where the R-rating is coming from, it's most likely the handful of "fucks" that litter the screenplay. Besides that, this thing could be broadcast on cable TV with few objections.
5.) You Can’t Feel Kimberly Peirce At All
Maybe the most disappointing thing about this new "Carrie" is that you can't feel director Kimberly Peirce's presence at all. Peirce as the director of "Boys Don't Cry" and "Stop-Loss" felt like the perfect choice for a "Carrie" reboot, with the thinking being that the outspoken feminist would infuse some forward-thinking girl power into the movie. Instead of Carrie merely being a victim of her psychic abilities, she would become emboldened by them. But this idea is hardly present in the film, reduced to one or two fleeting moments that don't have much impact on the overall narrative. Additionally, the cast is uniformly underwhelming, a disappointment given Peirce's previous knack for savvy casting (look at the lineup she assembled for "Stop-Loss," well ahead of their time: Channing Tatum, Abbie Cornish and Joseph Gordon-Levitt). Moreover, Peirce's take on the prom night massacre feels rushed and unfocused. Those hoping for her to infuse the sequence with the same kind of dread and misgivings that she brought to "Boys Don't Cry" will be sorely let down. It mostly plays as extended version of De Palma's finale, with a better budget, but it's missing any emotional depth or weight, or the sense of true horror and tragedy. How much influence the suits had in determining the final shape of the movie we'll probably never know, but what's on screen is a movie totally devoid of the authorship we'd expect from Peirce.
Of course, the list of things that are wrong with this new "Carrie" could go on and on (the limp Marco Beltrami score, the severe lack of stylization), but these are the main offenders. We hope that a similar fate doesn't befall the next Sony/MGM horror remake on the docks, a refreshing take on "The Town That Dreaded Sundown," directed by "American Horror Story" superstar Alfonso Gomez-Rejon. Of course, it was also written by Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa …