The one thing I don't like is when they call films like this "remakes." They are not necessarily so. This version of
Carrie is based on Stephen King's novel, not the 1976 cinematic version (same with the 2002 made-for-TV movie). A movie is a remake only if it's based solely on an original earlier film that has no other source but itself.
Are all cinematic versions of
Dracula remakes of the 1931 film? No - they are based on the novel by Bram Stoker. When Steven Spielberg did his 2005
War of the Worlds, he stated it was not a remake of the 1953 classic (although he did pay homage to it in several ways); it was his take on HG Well's 1898 novel.
Anyway, onto something completely different, I think I read somewhere that it was more difficult to make the 2013 Carrie because, for the first time, an actress (Chlore Moretz) playing the character is the same age. The other actresses who did the role (Sissy Spacek and Angela Bettis) were in their late twenties; Chloe Moretz is a minor. That hampered filming some scenes, such as in the locker room, that required semi-nudity. Both Spacek and Bettis were completely naked, even though they played a teenage minor; that couldn't be done with Moretz. Still, I think it's great that they are using an actual 17-year-old to play a 17-year-old. To me, she looks more like King's "heroine" who wasn't svelte (like Spacek) or anorexic (like Bettis). And, although I'm sure Julianne Moore has given her all as Margaret White, as did Piper Laurie (1976) and Patricia Clarkson (2002), I still think it would be great to see Mommie Dearest the way King described her: a heavy set, even muscular, woman with a pudgy face, rimless glasses and hair tied up in a bun - maybe even Kathy Bates.
For those who haven't seen it, here it is. I don't remember if it's already been posted here; it probably was and probably by me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H369sxjyhx8Gerard
