Carrie [2013 version] (5 Stars)

This is the fifth time I've watched the 2013 version of Carrie, which makes this review difficult. I said most of what I wanted to say about the film in my previous reviews, particularly in 2019. But having watched it again, there's one thing I want to emphasise.

I still think it's a very good film. In fact, I still prefer it to the 1976 version. Chloe Grace Moretz is excellent as Carrie and, for me, gives a better performance than Sissy Spacek. Julianne Moore's Margaret is even more deranged than Piper Laurie's version, and I like the way the new film gradually develops Carrie's telekinetic powers rather than suddenly revealing what she can do when the story reaches the prom.

The prom sequence itself is another improvement. It lasts longer, giving the film more time to build up to the inevitable disaster. I also prefer the way the film moves almost immediately from the destruction at the school to the aftermath at Carrie's home. The whole thing feels more continuous.

Nevertheless, I don't think the film needed to be made.

When a film is remade, I think there are two things it has to achieve. It has to be close enough to the original for us to recognise the story, but it also has to be different enough to justify making it again. There should be something new to say or a different way of telling the story.

Carrie 2013 doesn't fulfil that second condition.

It was described as a new adaptation of Stephen King's novel rather than a remake of the 1976 film. Technically, I suppose that's true. But having watched both films several times, I find that distinction difficult to accept. The 2013 film is remarkably close to the earlier one, right down to individual scenes and snippets of dialogue. It's been modernised, with smartphones and social media replacing the technology of the 1970's, but that isn't enough to make it feel like a genuinely new interpretation.

And that's what makes my opinion slightly contradictory. I think the 2013 Carrie is better than the 1976 Carrie, but I also think the remake was unnecessary.

There are certainly differences, and some of those differences are precisely why I prefer this version. Moretz is a superb Carrie, Moore gives Margaret an appropriately disturbing quality, Carrie's powers are better developed and the prom sequence is more substantial. Miss Desjardin is also more appealing in this version. I particularly like her wild dancing at the prom.

But when I watch it, I can't escape the feeling that I've seen it all before.

Perhaps that's inevitable when two films are based on the same novel. But there's a difference between telling the same story and making the same film. I would have liked the 2013 version to take King's novel and do something substantially different with it.

Nevertheless, after five viewings, I'm still very fond of it. The fact that I can complain about its lack of originality while giving it five stars tells you everything you need to know about how much I enjoy the film.

So many films, so little time.

Success Rate:  + 0.8

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Carrie [2013 version] (5 Stars)

When I wrote about the 1976 version of Carrie yesterday, I said that I was going to watch a mini-marathon of seven American high school films. This isn't one of the seven films. I decided sporadically to watch it when my son Benjamin came to visit me this evening. It was primarily because I know he's a fan of horror films and would like it more than the teen comedy I had planned. It's also because I've been promising for years to watch the two Carrie films back to back.

When I suggested the film to Benjamin today he asked if it was "Carrie 2", i.e. a sequel to the first film. No, I told him it was the same story filmed again. He asked me why they'd done it. I couldn't answer. Of all the remakes I've seen, "Carrie" is the most superfluous. Some remakes are good, some are bad, but what justifies a remake is that it stands apart from the original film. It's different. The two versions of "Carrie" are so similar that I really have to ask why it was necessary to remake the film. It's more modern, so there are new inventions like mobile phones and laptops, but the other differences are so subtle that it's easy to miss them.

Both films are excellent. I've given both films a five-star rating. The only reason to prefer the original version is nostalgia.

When I reviewed the film in 2019 I listed the differences. There's one important thing that I forgot. The results of the final prom scene are different. In the original version, everyone was locked in the building and killed in the flames. In the new version there are various deaths, but when Carrie leaves the doors are left open and most of the traumatised kids escape. That means that there is do doubt for the police that Carrie White is responsible. Whether or not they believe what they're told is a different matter.

In 1976 Sissy Spacek was the natural choice to play Carrie. She had an inborn look of madness in her eyes. No insult intended. Chloe Grace Moretz, only 15 when she made the film, didn't have this look of madness, but she was  a skilled actress who was able to rise to the challenge.

I'll continue with my mini-marathon on Sunday. I have other film plans for the next two days.

Success Rate:  + 0.8

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Carrie [2013 version] (5 Stars)

In my previous reviews I've said that the 1976 version and the 2013 version of Carrie are equally good. After watching them (almost) back-to-back for the first time I have to change my opinion. The new version is better.

While I still think that the two versions are so similar to one another that a remake (or new version) was unnecessary, the new version gives the film more of an edge. To list the improvements:

1. Chloe Grace Moretz is a better actress than Sissy Spacek.

2. Julianne Moore's performance is more deranged.

3. Carrie's powers are steadily developed in the new version, preparing us better for the climax.

4. The climax at the school prom lasts longer.

5. There's less of a pause between the climax at the prom and the aftermath at Carrie's house.

6. The music in the early parts of the first film are annoying. It sounds like a Lifetime movie.

7. I find the gym teacher Miss Desjardin more appealing in the new film. I love her wild dancing at the prom.

I've never read the novel on which this film is based. After watching both films this week I think I ought to. Over the last few months my reading has been restricted to Shakespeare's plays, but I ought to read something more modern.

I don't know whether the 2013 film is based on the book or the 1976 film. That's what makes the difference between a remake and a new version. So many snippets of dialogue are identical that I suspect it's based on the old film, but I shan't know for certain until I read the book.

Success Rate:  + 0.8

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Baby Driver (5 Stars)

It would be accurate to say that "Baby Driver" is a film that divides people, critics and fans alike. Some people love it, some people hate it. I belong to the former group, which must be obvious if you looked at my rating before you started reading this post. It was a conscious choice to put ratings into the post titles when I started writing my blog nine years ago. It was a good decision, and I've seen no reason to change it since.

The film's main character is Baby. He claims it's his real name, but nobody believes him. It fits him. He's obviously an adult, but he looks and acts very young. He was involved in a car accident when he was a child. His parents died, and he suffered damage to one of his eardrums, meaning that he has a perpetual buzzing for the rest of his life. The only way to deal with the problem is for him to listen to loud music that drowns out the buzzing. He's never without his Ipod. I should say his Ipods. He always has replacements with him, because no one Ipod is big enough to hold all the songs he wants to listen to.

Apart from music, Baby's passion is fast cars. This is also his downfall. He steals the Mercedes of a gang boss and dumps the contents, not realising that it was the money from a robbery. The boss, known only as Doc, captures Baby, but he doesn't kill him because he recognises his talents. He says that he can pay off his debt by being the getaway driver for his future robberies.

There's constant tension between Baby and the robbers working for Doc. They're put off by his youth and his eccentricity. They don't believe he's capable of doing his job. Some of them are convinced when they see his driving skills, but others still don't trust him.

What makes "Baby Driver" an outstanding film is its music. Rather than the music being the film's background, the film is choreographed to fit the music. The gunshots are in time with the beats of Baby's songs on his Ipod. At first this seems comical, but as the film progresses it becomes natural. The director Edgar Wright is best known as the maker of comedy films, but this is a dramatic masterpiece.

Success Rate:  + 4.7

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

November Criminals (3 Stars)

Something has gone wrong with Chloe Grace Moretz's career. A few years ago she was the it girl, someone who was obviously a rising star. From the age of seven she was a successful child star, making three or more films a year. She first came to the general public's attention playing the foul-mouthed teenage super-hero Hit Girl in 2010, when she was only 13. She went on to star in even bigger roles, including "Let me in", the remake of Stephen King's "Carrie" and the critically acclaimed "Clouds of Sils Maria". Maybe it was the box office failure of "Clouds of Sils Maria" that was the turning point. After that she was given mostly smaller roles. She seemed to be getting back to star status with two successful films in a row, "The 5th Wave" and "Bad Neighbours 2", but both films were savaged by the critics. Now she's crashed. Her last three films have gone straight-to-video, which is a death knell for anyone's career. Even worse, the films are hardly available on disc. "Brain on Fire" (2016) has only been released on DVD in China and Hungary. "I love you, Daddy" (2017) hasn't been released on DVD anywhere, so it's more accurate to say that it's been released straight-to-trashcan. "November Criminals" has been released on DVD in Germany and a few other European countries, but without an American or English release it's destined to be forgotten.

Added to this, "November Criminals" has a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. No films ever score that badly. Even "The Room" has 26%. Is this really one of the worst films ever made?

The answer is a clear No. It's not a great film, but I've seen much worse. The story is interesting – the script is co-written by Steven Knight – and all the actors know how to act. There's just something intangible missing. There's nothing about the film that excites me.

The film is a love story, a coming-of-age story and a murder mystery. Addison Schacht and Phoebe Zeleny are classmates, both 17, both the children of rich parents. The school they go to is filled with rich kids. It's the better side of town. Both have applied to go to university. Addison is an above average student, but Phoebe is brilliant, so they'll be going different ways.

One evening they visit a coffee shop where Addison's best friend Kevin (also a classmate) has a part time job. Phoebe tells Addison she wants to have sex because she doesn't want to go to university as a virgin and she wants her first time to be with another virgin. That's a shock to Addison, because until now they've only been friends, but he doesn't say No. Would any 17-year-old virgin refuse an offer like that? They drive to Phoebe's house to do it. 15 minutes later there's a news report about a shooting in the coffee shop. Kevin is dead.

Understandably, this puts Addison in a crisis. He knows that if he hadn't been in such a rush to lose his virginity he would still have been in the cafe and he might have been able to stop it happening.

Even worse is that the police call it a gang-related shooting. This is a euphemism for "There's nothing we can do about it". Kevin was from an African American family, one of the few black students in the school, so the assumption is that if a black boy gets shot it must be because he was in a gang. Addison knows that this wasn't the case, so he begins to investigate the case himself, with Phoebe's help. At the beginning Addison and Phoebe remain platonic, despite having had sex once, but as the investigations continue their feelings for one another deepen.

This is only a film for fans of Chloe Grace Moretz. That includes me. If you admire her as an actress, don't be put off by the Rotten Tomatoes reviewers. It's not that bad.

Baby Driver (5 Stars)

From the first few minutes the viewers are unsettled. They want to figure out what the film is about, but the clues are contradictory. Is it a musical? Is it a comedy? Is it an ultra-violent crime story? Soon after the first dazzling car chase we finally figure it out: it's a love story.

Baby is a young man who's the best getaway driver there is. The police can't keep up with him. He out-drives and out-wits them in every car chase. They don't stand a chance.

Baby despises the violence of the men he works with. He's become involved with them by accident. He began his life of crime as a petty criminal, a car thief. It wasn't for financial gain, he just liked fast cars. He made the mistake of stealing the car of a crime boss called Doc (Kevin Spacey). Doc has forced him to work for him to pay back what he owes. The alternative is death. Doc has full faith in Baby's talents, but the other men in his gang don't trust him. At the briefings for robberies Baby sits listening to loud music over headphones. Does this mean he isn't paying attention? Not at all. He can follow the instructions by lip reading, and he remembers every single word.

But it's a love story.

Baby meets a waitress called Debora at a diner. It's love at first sight. He expects to be released from his debt to Doc after one more job, so he can drive away with Debora, but it's not so easy. One more job. After that just one more job. And after that.....

"Baby Driver" wouldn't be "Baby Driver" without its music. There's an erratic soundtrack with music of all styles from the 1970's to today. In every scene the music is appropriate. The action is synced to the music, rather than the other way round. For me the film's highlight is the use of "Hocus Pocus" by Focus during a gun battle. Amazing.

Edgar Wright is a brilliant director. There's no doubt about it. Until now we've thought of him as a maker of comedy films. "Baby Driver" shows that he's capable of more, much more. This is one of the best films of the year.

Allegiant (4 Stars)

"Allegiant" is the third film in the Divergent series, based on the novels by Veronica Roth. It begins after the death of the Erudite leader Janine. Tris and her colleagues from the Dauntless faction want to go out of the city to look for another civilisation, but they are prevented from leaving by Four's mother Evelyn. Eventually they succeed in escaping. Outside the city walls they encounter a highly advanced race that claims the city of Chicago is an experiment that has been running for 200 years. The outsiders seem benevolent, and Tris trusts them completely, but Four suspects they might have bad intentions.

The lines between good and bad become less and less clear in this film. Tris realises that she has to fend for herself. The fight sequences are more exciting than in "Insurgent", making this a better film.

Insurgent (3 Stars)

"Insurgent" is a sequel to "Divergent", beginning a few days after the end of the first film. The ruling Erudite faction has blamed the Dauntless faction for slaughtering the Abnegation faction, even though it was the Erudite leader, Janine, who orchestrated the attack. Tris and the rest of her Dauntless colleagues are on the run, sheltered first by the Amity faction, then by factionless rebels.

"Insurgent" has flashier special effects than "Divergent", but something is missing. The main characters aren't pleasant enough for us to sympathise with them. In the first film Tris (Shailene Woodley) at least looked pleasant, but in the second film she cuts her hair and looks boyish, no longer feminine.

As a sequel this is a disappointment. I dread to see what the third part will be like when I watch it at the weekend.

Divergent (4 Stars)

This is a rather typical modern story. A teenage girl has to rebel against the system around her. Most of the men and boys she meets are her enemies, but there's one that she falls in love with.

I find the story's premise rather weak. The idea that everyone has to fit into one of five accepted categories is unnatural. In society there are usually only two categories, the rulers and the ruled. Nevertheless, it's a heart-warming story about a young girl who doesn't fit in, even though she wants to.

Carrie [2013 version] (4½ Stars)

My first review of this film was in December 2013 after seeing it in the cinema with the Birmingham Film Club. Today I watched it again on Blu-ray. I think I said the most important things in my first review, but I'll add a few thoughts here.

When I wrote about the film two years ago I said that I couldn't decide which was better, the 1976 original version or the 2013 remake. After watching it a second time I have to say that the remake is better. As amazing as Sissy Spacek's performance was, Chloe Grace Moretz is a superior actress. Julianne Moore is madder than Piper Laurie. The pacing is better, with the film leading up to the final prom scene faster and extending it.

I make this judgement very carefully, because the original is utterly amazing. I have a certain fetish for the original. I would like to say it's better, because it's a film I've watched repeatedly with great pleasure over the years, but it simply isn't better.

I wonder which version Stephen King himself prefers. I'd like to hear his opinion.

Divergent (4 Stars)

The film takes place in Chicago "100 years after the war". As far as the people of Chicago know they are the last remainders of civilization, but they also fear that something exists outside the city, because they have built a protective wall around the city. Mankind has been divided into five factions, depending on their abilities and functions in society: the Erudite (the intellectuals), the Dauntless (the police force), the Amity (peaceful farmers), the Candor (philosophers who value truth above all else) and the Abnegation (charitable people who look after others). The Abnegation are the city's rulers. There are many who don't belong to a faction, but they are treated as outcasts, having to live on the streets and not allowed to work. They would starve, if not for the Abnegation giving them food.

When they turn 16 children have to decide which faction they want to belong to. They are given an aptitude test as a guideline, but they can choose any faction regardless of the test results. 95% of the children choose the faction of their parents. Any who choose a different faction have to leave home to live with their new faction. Beatrice and her brother Caleb are Abnegations, but she chooses to join Dauntless while he chooses to join Erudite. The film follows Beatrice's training to enter Dauntless. There are 30 new Dauntless members, but they are told that only 10 will be accepted; the 20 who perform worst during training will be expelled and become factionless.

People reading this must be asking themselves if everyone fits neatly into one of the five categories. That's just the point of the film. In the authoritarian structure of the future everyone is expected to exactly fit his role in society. Those who don't fit in are called "divergents" and are executed. In her aptitude test Beatrice is found to have the traits of three factions, Abnegation, Erudite and Dauntless, but the tester protects her by not making the result public.

The film is based on the first of a series of books for young people by Veronica Roth. It seems to be yet another candidate for a film series intended to be a successor to the Harry Potter films. It's quite adequate for this. It has more action and moves faster than "Mortal Instruments". Let's see how the sequels pan out.

Carrie [2013 version] (4½ Stars)

Is it possible to describe this film without comparing it with the original version? The question everybody will be asking is, "Is it as good as the original?" followed by other questions such as, "Was it worth remaking it?" To be honest, I'm surprised that it's so similar to the original. I would have expected the director (Kimberly Pierce) to experiment with new ideas, even ones that might not have been in Stephen King's book. While watching it I felt like I was seeing an old friend. It's been moved from 1976 into the 21st Century, and the special effects look more realistic, but basically it's the same film. So let's compare!

Sissy Spacek was an inspired choice to play Carrie White in the first film. Chloe Grace Moretz had big shoes to step into, but she does it well. What I like about Chloe is that she isn't a "looker". This might be a disadvantage for her 10 years from now, but at this point in her career it's in her favour. What I mean is that she doesn't really look beautiful. Cute, maybe, but there's something plain about her. Even when she's in her prom dress Carrie doesn't look like the belle of the ball, she looks like a Plain Jane who's had a makeover that will wash off in the morning. Hollywood should use more actresses who look "normal". Just look at all the other girls in Carrie's class. They're all drop dead gorgeous, as if it's a high school for beauty queens. Normal schools aren't like that. In a usual school class there are a few beautiful girls, the majority are plain, and a few are unattractive, for whatever reason.

I liked Piper Laurie as Carrie's mother in the first film, but Julianne Moore is far better. In the original film the mother was a religious fanatic who loved God more than her daughter. She thought she was doing good in the way she was protecting Carrie, but it was obvious to everyone she was doing evil. This still applies in the second film, but she isn't just a fanatic, she's also deranged. Julianne Moore takes the character to the next level.

I was disappointed with the supporting characters, especially Carrie's classmates. In the first film they stood out more, especially Sue and Chris. I felt that I knew them. In the new film they just whiz by in a blur, they're not well developed as characters.

So, was the film worth remaking? It's difficult to say. I enjoyed the original version. I enjoy this version. They're both good. But you don't need to watch both versions.