Rypro 525

I read Randy Miller III's DVD review of Carrie (TV Film) at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=7669 and...

you mentioned that the picture is a little bit soft, I personally thought it looked extremly soft (esspecially the first 20 min) and for the most part, it looks exactly like it did on tv (and I am in the minority who likes this version better then the original.

Randy Miller III

You're right in that respect, but you must have a better TV than I did when I saw it originally. In any case, for me the DVD was still a slight improvement over the original broadcast. I have since re-worded the 'video' portion of the review to expand a bit, but thanks for the comments.

Randy

PHMustang2000

I have a review for this movie at Guzzlefish. To See My review.. go to: http://www.guzzlefish.com
then type carrie and you will find it there.

Alien Redrum

I think the softness was more of a nod to DePalma's version than anything else.

The whole shower and gym scene had that soft fuzzy look in both films.

Also, this was not a remake for remake's sake. This was originally going to be a pilot episode or introduction to a TV series, that's why .

I liked the 2002 version a lot because it added things from the book that the 76 version missed. While Carrie (1976) will always be a classic, Carrie (2002) is not a bad film.

And I completely disagree with

Kubrick's Shining and King's Shining should never be compared as they are 2 different movies. Ask any King fan which Shining they prefer (as far as faithfulness to the book) and you may be surprised at the answer.

Randy Miller III

Alien Redrum:

I'll have to respectfully disagree. and say that this was indeed a remake for remake's sake. Any time a previously existing movie is updated years later (even as a rumored pilot episode for a series), it's hard for me to think otherwise. Like "The Rage: Carrie 2," this TV movie was created on the back of the original, and was aiming to duplicate its success. The new "open ending" only made me think more strongly that it was made to milk the concept dry. But I will agree with you in that this new version was not a bad movie at all...it was very entertaining, in fact. But as I said in the review, it just seemed unnecessary when everything was already laid out on the table.

As for your final statement:
I know King had major issues with the original 'Shining', but I've never thought of Kubrick's version as a faithful adaption of the novel anyway. All I know is, I've seen both the movie and the TV mini-series, and I like the movie better. I'd even go so far as to say I prefer Kubrick's movie to King's book, but that might earn me some hate mail.

Randy

Rypro 525

actually, King wanted the tv movie ending originally, but changed his mind.

Alien Redrum

I disagree because that would be like saying The Dead Zone was remade by USA just to remake it. However, it was remade for the purpose of it to become a television series and to introduce the new actors in said series.



There is no denying that the film was created to cash in on an existing franchise (franchise being used loosely ), but I think the evidence is there that this was not a remake for remake's sake.

I completely agree with you about The Rage. There was absolutely no need for the sequel. While I enjoyed TR, I did find it quite stupid that they tied it to Carrie. But, again, I will disagree about the 2002 Carrie being unnecessary. At the very least they needed to do it just to set up the series.



I actually liked Kubrick's version. As a movie. Not as an adaption of the book. As a stand alone movie, Kubrick's version is quite good, both visually and scare wise. As an adaption of King's book, it was garbage. One just needs to seperate the 2 when watching it.

That said, I have a special place in my heart for King's Shining because I think it got knocked for all the wrong reasons. It never stood a chance because many people assumed that it was just a remake for the money. I truly believe that is was remade for the fans. Yeah, I'm sure money had something to do with it, but I think there was a need for an adaption of the book as well. You can read my review of it here.

Alien Redrum

Are you saying he wanted the TV movie's ending in his book originally or in DePalma's version orginally?

Rypro 525

I think for his book, he wanted the tv versions ending but changed his mind (or so according to the tv movies discussion thread in the tv forum)

Alien Redrum

Thank God.

The TV version's ending sucked. Too damn_cliche.

Randy Miller III

Point taken. Okay, you got that one.
However, if this rumored series ever sees the light of day, this thread might get reeeal complicated.

Randy

Alien Redrum

I don't know. I have a feeling we'd actually agree on the series. While I liked the TV version, I don't think Carrie could go anywhere as a series.

I do admit, however, that I'm pleasently surprised on how well The Dead Zone has been written. Yet, I don't think Carrie has that much to go on after the movie. I don't think there is a lot to work with.

Josh Z

The TV version of The Shining is a case study in why a "faithful adaptation" is not necessarily a good thing to strive for when making a movie. As an illustrated version of King's book, the TV version is much closer than Kubrick's film, but as a movie there is no contest that Kubrick's version is much better. What works on the page in King's book doesn't work on the screen.

Kubrick is an artist and understood this; he set out to make the best movie he could from the material. Mick Garris is a hack, and only set out to put on screen every last page of King's novel, regardless of whether it worked dramatically or not.

Alien Redrum

Which, of course, is your opinion. That's all it is. I personally like both versions for different reasons. Is Kubrick's scarier? For the most part, yes. Does Kubrick's have better actors? Again, for the most part, yes (except Duvall. Ug.) Is Kubrick's better? No, not necessarily. It depends on what you are going for.

'... as a movie Kubrick's version is much better' is a laughable statement because you are comparing apples to oranges. Again, it depends on what you are going for. If you are going for a faithful adaption of the book, Garris's blows Kubrick's version out of the water. Utterly and completely. If you are going for a scarefests, Kubrick's version wins. Garris's (or King's) version was more about telling a story. The characters were better developed and the story was, overall, better told.

Quote:

Kubrick is an artist and understood this; he set out to make the best movie he could from the material. Mick Garris is a hack, and only set out to put on screen every last page of King's novel, regardless of whether it worked dramatically or not.

Why is Garris a hack? Because you don't like The Shining? Because he sticks mainly to TV work? Because he's not as good as Kubrick?

Please. Garris may not be the best director out there, but he's certainly not a hack.

Josh Z

No, I'm not comparing apples and oranges. I'm comparing two motion pictures that are attempting to tell the same story based on the same material. It's more like apples vs. sour apples.

As a movie, a piece of cinematic storytelling, Garris' version is clumsily staged, very badly miscast in almost all of the primary roles, repetitive, and goes on for much too long. King can get away with throwing in a bunch of needless subplots that don't really advance the story in his book, but a movie requires a tighter narrative to hold the audience's attention or it becomes quickly boring. That is the nature of cinematic storytelling, which is something that Stephen King has never understood, and is the reason why his personally-written screenplays produce such crappy movies.

And what I'm saying is that in this case "faithful adaptation" and "good movie" are two diametrically opposed terms.

How many of Garris' movies have you seen? Did you go to see Sleepwalkers in the theater on its opening night? I did. Oh yes, Garris is most certainly a talentless hack.