like I did.. did it color your expectations of what you expected from the movie? It did for me..
shareIt did for the most part for me as well. There are things I wish they had of kept in like Chris's dad trying to threaten to sue the principal and get the coach fired and the Sue pregnancy scare angle.
"I'd rather lose for what I am than win for what I ain't"
Kacey Musgraves "Pageant Material"
Yeah, it definitely did for me too. On first viewing, I was a little disappointed with all the material that had been left out. Especially the town destruction and people being electrocuted in the streets. Some of the interview stuff was also pretty good in the book. But now, I think its fine just as it is, and actually prefer it over the book to be honest. My second favourite and most rewatchable horror movie of all time, with Jaws (1975) being the first. Great acting and a brilliant visual presentation, especially compared to the 2002 and 2013 versions.
shareYeah I wouldn't have minded the town destruction but they didn't have the budget for it, I mean the budget was pretty high for the time period as it is but it would have been even more than that if they did that part. I wish the Sue subplot had of been kept in though
"I'd rather lose for what I am than win for what I ain't"
Kacey Musgraves "Pageant Material"
Absolutely! But that is to be expected any time you read a book prior to watching a movie. I still enjoyed the movie and thought Sissy Spacek did a tremendous job portraying Carrie (well deserved nomination for her and for Piper Laurie as the mother).
But a lot of the suspense in the novel was built on the notion that the entire town was going to be destroyed. So losing that build up and that part of the whole climax certainly changes the feel of what we were expecting.
As someone else pointed out though, it suffered from a small budget that was cut even further during production. I would say you could only imagine how good it could have been had it had a bigger budget, but we were given that opportunity with the 2013 film. So it was extremely disappointing to see that film still not realize the book in its entirety. On top of that I found it screwed up the portrayal of Carrie and the mother. Which is weird because I normally really like the acting talents of Chloe Grace Moretz and Julianne Moore. Whereas Spacek nailed the frail, weak, scared, lost, but ultimately powerful persona of Carrie White, Chloe was probably the hottest girl in the film, moped around, was confident and defiant against her mom. And Moore was the one who came off as frail and weak, whispering the whole time, etc. Such a shame!
Yep. It seriously obscured what was good about this movie the first time I saw it—I kept being annoyed by the changes and the difference in story structure, and compared to the book it seemed glib and muddled, so I wrote it off. It wasn't until years later that I gave it another shot and was able to appreciate it for what it is instead of being annoyed by what it isn't. It takes a different way around but gets to the same place: a gripping, horrifying tragedy with empathy in spades for its main character.
shareI thought the movie was okay but there were three major things that didn't deliver.
* Dropping the destruction of the town really waters down the story. The point is that Carrie finally snaps after years of torment and goes on a rampage. Just burning down the school gym leaves everything very anti-climactic. It's like in the recent Fantastic Four movie where Doom only appears towards the end and is easily defeated. The story just doesn't have the same tragic impact if it's only the school that gets burned down. In the book, Chamberlain is left a ghost town after the tragedy - which is the reason it's such a cautionary tale. Of course this was mainly a budget issue but it still hurts the impact.
* The Tommy and Carrie nonsense. I don't know why Brian DePalma thought it was a good idea to have Tommy kiss her at the prom. In the book, Carrie knows fully well that Tommy doesn't like her romantically and only sees the date as a platonic thing. Tommy's just a maturing teenager who's trying to do something nice, so having him kiss her is just a ridiculous Hollywood cliche - the hot guy falls for the ugly duckling. It also makes Tommy into a douche who cheats on his girlfriend for no reason. Not to mention that kissing Carrie is going to confuse her and potentially hurt her afterwards (well if she didn't go on a rampage and murder everyone first).
* Betty Buckley and Amy Irving. Two really strong characters in the book brought down by the flat and unremarkable performances. The gym teacher (Collins in the movie, Desjardin in the book) has a last straw attitude in the book - finally seeing the horror of what Carrie has to endure. She decides to fight for Carrie when no one else will - and her putdown of the girls is meant to be a huge moment. It's left with no oomph at all because of Betty Buckley's flat performance. Sue likewise suffers this realisation of just what she's been doing all these years, and has to deal with a lot of conflict - wondering if she's as bad as Chris, how is she going to turn out in the future - so she's desperate to try and atone for her 'crimes' before it's too late. Amy Irving conveys none of this, and it's obvious from the amount of people who outright thought Sue was in on the prank. The two actresses aren't bad, but they give their characters no depth and they're easily outshone by Rena Sofer and Judy Greer for Ms Desjardin and Kandyse McClure and Gabriella Wilde for Sue.
There were a lot of changes the movie made that improved the book however. The ending was a great choice, turning Norma into Chris's gal pal, having Carrie cause her destruction from the stage for example.
[deleted]
What's the exact line? I've read the book plenty of times and I don't remember any mention of him falling for her. But my main problem is the kiss, as he's cheating on Sue and taking advantage of Carrie. If it was intended to seem sweet, it just comes across as creepy and dickish.