Wednesday, October 2, 2013


All kinds of awful shit is going down right now.

Awful, but important.

We are witnessing a death. The Blog is just not sure whose.

The death of American democracy. (Very bad.)

The death of the Republican party. (Bad, but not so bad.)

The death of the extreme right-wing movement know as the TEA Party. (Good. The Blog will dance on that grave.)

We will see how it all shakes down.

Until then, for the sake of my blood pressure, The Blog will refrain from any more comment on the current state of American politics for the time being, and focus on another major current event.

The upcoming release of the remake of "Carrie."

A lot of people get their panties in a bunch about movie remakes.

Me, not so much.

Most remakes suck. That's a fact.

But, so fucking what?

A bad remake doesn't erase the original.

In fact, most bad, or not even bad but pointless, remakes fade quickly into obscurity and serve to illustrate why the original was so good to begin with.

Does anyone remember the "Casablanca" remake that starred David Soul?

Of course not.

(Well, I do. But, I'm weird that way.)

How about the recent remake of "Nightmare on Elm Street?"

If you blinked, you missed it.

(Although, to be fair, it was still better than the original "Elm Street II" sequel.)

Some sequels get made, mostly, because a director or actor wants to take a shot at it.

It happens all the time in live theater. They call it a "revival."

Gus Van Sant and Vince Vaughn remade "Psycho" shot for shot.

Was it awful?


Did anyone care?


Did it besmirch the memory of the Alfred Hitchcock/ Anthony Perkins original?

Not one bit.

It helps if a remake brings something new to the table.

But, not always.

The late 1970s remake of "King Kong" was truly awful, even with advanced special effects technology. The updated plot line was a serious misfire, the acting sucked and the new technology wasn't so great.

On the other hand, the more recent "Kong" remake was one of the best films of it's year. Because Peter Jackson is a fucking genius.

Your best bet, if you are going to do a remake, is to remake a movie that wasn't very good to begin with.

                                                      "Ocean's Eleven" comes to mind.

Which brings us to "Carrie."

Stephen King's telekinetic, high school misfit was first brought to the screen in 1976, by Brian DePalma.

King, himself, admits that the movie was better than his book.

The young PC was in high school at the time. A misfit, himself, navigating the world of popularity and proms.

And King's novel and DePalma's film spoke to the young Blog's generation.

And if there was ever a story that should be remade anew for every generation, it's "Carrie."


Well, for one thing...


While the core of the story of "Carrie" is, pretty much, timeless...

Powder blue tuxedoes, man-perms and John Travolta, are not.

The new movie isn't out yet. So, whether it is good or bad remains to be seen.

But Chloe Grace Moritz and Julianne Moore feel perfectly cast, to me.

And that is why I think that a "Carrie" for the second decade of the 21st century is a remake to be celebrated.

No comments:

Post a Comment