Aggressively mediocre


Just finished it.

It's not surprising that it premiered on Peacock. Peacock is just NBC and this film very much feels like a King adaptation that was made for network television. I never saw the 80s film but I did read the book and it's a cool book, so it's a shame that the opportunity to adapt it anew was wasted.

Everything about it feels cheap and average-at-best. For some reason in my mind I often group Carrie and Firestarter together, and both have now gotten 21st century re-adaptations, but I can tell you that the recent Carrie film with Chloe Moretz was far and away better than this shit.

The bright spots are John Carpenter's soundtrack and Ryan Armstrong's portrayal of Charlie. I thought she actually did fairly well. Both of the above would've been better served by a film that was superior in all other respects.

5/10

reply

It did feel very ‘Made for T.V.’

Too safe and a bit boring.

The off red original movie was way better and the book was really good.

reply

The "off red original movie"?

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to.

reply

That was just a weird typo lol
It happens:)

reply

The 80s movie was a pretty decent adaptation. It probably follows the book more closely than most other King adaptations.

reply

I started watching that one the other night after I finished the new film. I got bored with it after about 20 minutes but maybe I'll try again at some point.

reply

I thought the performances were alright, and the score was really good but yeah, movie was average at best. My main question is why in the world was this rated "R"? I've seen PG-13 movies with more violence.

reply

I can't remember if they did, but if they said "fuck" more than once then I believe that's an automatic R-rating. There were also one or two gory shots that might have made the ratings board uneasy, like the shot of the dude in the get when he was half-burned up.

But yeah, it did feel very PG-13.

reply