Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Fri Dec 19, 2014 4:39 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
CARRIE (2013) 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3203
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post CARRIE (2013)
Click here for the review of Carrie

SPOILERS must be tagged with the "SPOILER" tag!


Fri Oct 18, 2013 6:16 pm
Profile WWW
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3988
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: CARRIE (2013)
I disagree with the whole "personal responsiblity" thing, I have no problem whatsoever with this film being violent and over-the-top, i'd go so far as to argue that those events make this kind of film necessary, it's relieving to know that the film does not show any restraint whatsoever, films shouldn't have to be neutered because of real life events.


Fri Oct 18, 2013 6:41 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:18 pm
Posts: 230
Post Re: CARRIE (2013)
Hmm.... I'm rather disappointed about the two star review, but not surprised. One aspect that intrigued me about the move was that it was being billed as not so much a remake, but as something that would be a lil more faithful to the book. But was this the case here? I wasn't quite able to fully pick up on that from the review.

I found this article today that was interesting... apparently director Kimberly Pierce was trying to distance herself from recent tragedies by trying to frame it with the Superhero angle?

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/carrie-director-faced-challenge-separating-fantasy-recent-tragedies-003846836.html

Quote:
"It was vital to me in light of all of [real-life tragedies such as Sandy Hook and Columbine] that this was a superhero origin story," said Peirce. "Carrie was discovering her powers as the movie went along and she never had mastery of them. And when those powers come out, she's not in control of them, and she immediately starts looking for the culprits. And that's really important because I knew that we needed a sense of justice and a sense of good old-fashioned revenge."


Hmm....


Sat Oct 19, 2013 1:27 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:37 am
Posts: 1183
Location: Laurel, MD
Post Re: CARRIE (2013)
Nooooooooooo! Don't mention superheroes! Legend has it that whenever superheroes are brought up in a Reelviews forum, he will appear...... ;)

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/ken.rossman.5


Sat Oct 19, 2013 4:33 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:49 am
Posts: 444
Post Re: CARRIE (2013)
Vexer wrote:
I disagree with the whole "personal responsiblity" thing, I have no problem whatsoever with this film being violent and over-the-top, i'd go so far as to argue that those events make this kind of film necessary, it's relieving to know that the film does not show any restraint whatsoever, films shouldn't have to be neutered because of real life events.


Does that mean you agree that Carrie is a hero, and not a villain? To me that's the interesting part of the original story: that Carrie becomes a worse inflicter of pain than her original tormentors were (which is of course where vengeance always leads). I've generally liked Pierce's work in the past, but when she said "You don't want to feel that [Carrie's] in any way going overboard or that she's doing anything to innocents if possible, it has to feel motivated. Because that's the kind of movie that we can go to and feel good about enjoying." Umm... no. This is incredibly offensive and off-base. Believing that Carrie is in the right is indeed much like condoning a bullied school shooter.



James Berardinelli wrote:
Peirce, out of deference to her star's modesty, elides the nudity


Sissy Spacek was 25 when she shot the film; Chloe Morentz was 16. I wouldn't call that "modesty," but rather "wisdom." Cast an older actress if you feel it's essential to the role, but a 16 year-old should not be asked to undress for any camera.


Sat Oct 19, 2013 5:15 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3988
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: CARRIE (2013)
Yeah, I think she is a hero and i'm glad to hear that this film portrays her as one, that was one of my issues with the original film. I very much agree with Pierce and I don't think it's anything at all like condoning a school-shooter, it's merely condoning standing up to school-bullies(most school shooters were more like Carrie's antagonists in that they were bullies themselves and had no such freudian excuse for killing people) and frankly in this day and age were bullying is only getting worse, I think it was something that really needed to be said.

Agreed on Moretz not undressing, the film could've been slapped with a massive lawsuit just for suggesting the idea(not to mention potential jail time) the MTV version of Skins got into a lot of trouble over the under teenaged actresses being half-naked(unlike the British version, which used Dawson casting)several sponsors pulled out of the show and that was one of the reasons why it got cancelled.


Sat Oct 19, 2013 5:38 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 483
Post Re: CARRIE (2013)
Quote:
Does that mean you agree that Carrie is a hero, and not a villain? To me that's the interesting part of the original story: that Carrie becomes a worse inflicter of pain than her original tormentors were (which is of course where vengeance always leads). I've generally liked Pierce's work in the past, but when she said "You don't want to feel that [Carrie's] in any way going overboard or that she's doing anything to innocents if possible, it has to feel motivated. Because that's the kind of movie that we can go to and feel good about enjoying." Umm... no. This is incredibly offensive and off-base. Believing that Carrie is in the right is indeed much like condoning a bullied school shooter.


Your feeling on that is pretty much dead on. The director's spin doctoring is kind of lame and how you get a sense of good old fashion revenge and sense of justice from mass murder is kind of hard to fathom. It works better as a classic tragedy where Carrie goes from sympathetic heroine to a villain by her actions and flaws in her character.


Sun Oct 20, 2013 3:54 am
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3988
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: CARRIE (2013)
oakenshield32 wrote:
Quote:
Does that mean you agree that Carrie is a hero, and not a villain? To me that's the interesting part of the original story: that Carrie becomes a worse inflicter of pain than her original tormentors were (which is of course where vengeance always leads). I've generally liked Pierce's work in the past, but when she said "You don't want to feel that [Carrie's] in any way going overboard or that she's doing anything to innocents if possible, it has to feel motivated. Because that's the kind of movie that we can go to and feel good about enjoying." Umm... no. This is incredibly offensive and off-base. Believing that Carrie is in the right is indeed much like condoning a bullied school shooter.


Your feeling on that is pretty much dead on. The director's spin doctoring is kind of lame and how you get a sense of good old fashion revenge and sense of justice from mass murder is kind of hard to fathom. It works better as a classic tragedy where Carrie goes from sympathetic heroine to a villain by her actions and flaws in her character.

I don't think it's "lame" at all, it's nothing new for murder to be portrayed as heroic(many 80s action films did the same thing, you don't hear people whining about that) so I think it's better that Carrie isn't portrayed as a "villain", since I never really saw her as one in the original.


Sun Oct 20, 2013 12:56 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 483
Post Re: CARRIE (2013)
Quote:
I don't think it's "lame" at all, it's nothing new for murder to be portrayed as heroic(many 80s action films did the same thing, you don't hear people whining about that) so I think it's better that Carrie isn't portrayed as a "villain", since I never really saw her as one in the original.


Your totally confused here. There is a difference between killing armed and aggressive antagonists in a story and the mass murder of a group of essentially unarmed and defenseless people and innocent bystanders. Could you give me examples of films where mass murder of unarmed people is shown in a heroic way? That is usually the action of the bad guy in a fantasy or martial arts movie and then the hero must get revenge for his family,village or tribe.

Another thing that I notice is the contradiction where many of the people working in Hollywood tend to be big liberals and are against the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment yet promote a form of the death penalty in their movies as a sense of justice and good fashioned revenge.Even in this movie the main Mean Girl is killed in grotesque graphic way like a medieval public execution. Is that what they believe or are they just pandering to the audience like Shakepeare did with the groundlings.


Sun Oct 20, 2013 2:21 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3988
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: CARRIE (2013)
oakenshield32 wrote:
Quote:
I don't think it's "lame" at all, it's nothing new for murder to be portrayed as heroic(many 80s action films did the same thing, you don't hear people whining about that) so I think it's better that Carrie isn't portrayed as a "villain", since I never really saw her as one in the original.


Your totally confused here. There is a difference between killing armed and aggressive antagonists in a story and the mass murder of a group of essentially unarmed and defenseless people and innocent bystanders. Could you give me examples of films where mass murder of unarmed people is shown in a heroic way? That is usually the action of the bad guy in a fantasy or martial arts movie and then the hero must get revenge for his family,village or tribe.

Another thing that I notice is the contradiction where many of the people working in Hollywood tend to be big liberals and are against the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment yet promote a form of the death penalty in their movies as a sense of justice and good fashioned revenge.Even in this movie the main Mean Girl is killed in grotesque graphic way like a medieval public execution. Is that what they believe or are they just pandering to the audience like Shakepeare did with the groundlings.

Well i'm mostly liberal but believe it or not I actually do support the death penalty(i'd love to hear someone try and argue why a person like James Holmes shouldn't get a death sentence, but that's for another topic), but I really don't see what the political beliefs of Hollywood execs actually has to do with this movie at all. I think they're just giving the audience the satisfaction of watching people get what they deserve, I mean who hasn't had a bully that they wanted to "teach a lesson"? I've had more then a few that I would love to wail on if I had psychic powers.


Sun Oct 20, 2013 2:41 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1795
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: CARRIE (2013)
This new version of Carrie gets a lot wrong when compared to the novel and De Palma's film. I'm going to break it down here; some of this may be spoilers for the novel and film, so consider yourself warned.

The casting is all wrong.

Allow me to start with Julianne Moore. She's a fine actress, but not right for the role of Margaret White. I may be biased because Piper Laurie knocked it out of the park in 1976, but when compared to King's book, Moore's Margaret is a pathetic, weak woman. As King wrote it, Margaret is a tough, imposing broad, and it's easy to believe she would dominate Carrie physically and emotionally. In this film, Moretz's Carrie is tougher and more resolute than Margaret in the early scenes, and it strikes a false note.

The minor characters also don't hit any of the right notes. Gabriella Wilde (as Sue) and Judy Greer (as the gym teacher) are completely void of personality. Compare to De Palma's film, where in just a few short scenes he defines the characters and makes them essential to the film. Meanwhile Chris and Billy are ill-defined as characters; Billy is a psychotic asshole in this film, when as written by King he's a masculine but goofy greaseball. John Travolta got it right in the 1976 film. Chris, meanwhile, is weak, whiny and bitchy...the total opposite of the way the character was originally written. In the novel, she's tough, vindictive, and a total cocktease, which is why she's able to get Billy to go along with her scheme. Tommy Ross is just a dumb jock in this movie, a far cry from the thoughtful, fun, aw-shucks Tommy we see in King's novel and De Palma's film.

Moretz is also not right for the role of Carrie. While Pierce does not do enough to make Moretz look drab, that is beside the point. Moretz's age places restrictions on the film, which leads me to...

The shower scene is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Pierce goes to great lengths to not show Moretz naked. The reasons are obvious; Moretz is 16. But the nudity is absolutely essential to the scene; it highlights Carrie's vulnerability. De Palma, in 1976, also lingered on the horror, allowing us to sympathize with Carrie and feel disgust at her tormentors. In this film, the scene is practically over before it begins. Not a good thing, considering how important the scene is.

The class issues in King's novel are mostly ignored.

When King wrote Carrie, he was living in a trailer and taught high school English. The students he taught were from better backgrounds than his, and plenty of that made it into the novel. In this film, we get the sense that Margaret is one of many Americans who are just hanging on, but this desperation, which drives a lot of her character's actions, is not given much room in this film.

Speaking of Margaret, her character just isn't nutty enough.

This is Hollywood's studio conservatism at play here. Hollywood execs are happy to use fanatical religion for some laughs, but when it comes to taking a serious look at the horror that is religious fundamentalism, they won't touch that shit with a ten-foot pole. In the novel, Margaret's fanaticism has destroyed all of her relationships destroyed Carrie's life, and destroyed their family structure. Margaret is insane by all definitions of the word. Carrie is just barely hanging on. De Palma embraced this angle fully, and showed the mother-daughter relationship exactly as King wrote it: There is no love between Margaret and Carrie, only animosity. But all they have is each other. Yet it is clear that Margaret loves her God more than her daughter, and that Carrie has no one to love.

I think that the reason why Pierce doesn't go down this road is simply to avoid offending anyone. For whatever reason, this brand of poisonous conservative religiosity is more acceptable today than it was in the 1970s. But it is one of the most important elements of the story, and in this regard Pierce's film fails entirely.

The horrific elements are good, but again not quite right.

In the novel, Carrie destroys the entire town. De Palma didn't do this because he didn't have the budget for it. But in a weird way, his take on the story works despite the budget limitations, because it shows Carrie's homicidal intentions fully. Simply put, Carrie kills indiscriminately with no remorse. She's a victim and a villain; there is a lot of moral ambiguity in King's novel and De Palma's film. Pierce wants us to sympathize with Carrie, a move that just doesn't work.

A lot of the dialogue just plain sucks.

I know that you have to make a film like this "hip" and modern, but the dialogue in this film is just clunky and awful. Stephen King is one of the greatest dialogue writers in modern literature; why couldn't the screenwriters just taken the passages verbatim from his novel?

There is too much darkness in this film.

I know, I know, it's a horror movie. It's supposed to be dark. But from the very (misguided) opening scene, we're made known that this is a VERY DARK FILM that is going to some VERY DARK PLACES. However, De Palma included humor in his film, and kept the mood in between the shower and the prom just light enough that when the horrific elements come crushing down, the emotional effect is devastating. When De Palma's film is over, I feel unbelievable sadness, which is the primary emotion in this story. This film, I just felt...meh.

Finally, the film shows its hand too early.

This is why CGI is bad, m'kay? We get to see plenty of Carrie's powers before she unleashes them in full, and some of it is just comical. De Palma wisely understood that showing off Carrie's powers too soon would dilute the power of the ending scenes, something that Pierce did not heed.

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Sun Oct 20, 2013 4:07 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:42 pm
Posts: 1108
Location: New Zealand
Post Re: CARRIE (2013)
oakenshield32 wrote:
Your totally confused here. There is a difference between killing armed and aggressive antagonists in a story and the mass murder of a group of essentially unarmed and defenseless people and innocent bystanders. Could you give me examples of films where mass murder of unarmed people is shown in a heroic way?

Technically, most superhero movies do exactly that. You don't think Superman would have killed an awful lot of defenceless unarmed people during those fight scenes in Man of Steel? Or The Avengers "saving" New York from aliens? How about blowing up the Death Star TWICE - the 2nd in Return of the Jedi, particularly, was still being built, you don't think that wouldn't be packed with innocent engineers, caterers, probably children, etc? In the military they call this "collateral damage", and in the examples above (and I'm sure you can think of dozens more) it doesn't seem to have tarnished their heroic status.


Sun Oct 20, 2013 4:32 pm
Profile
Producer

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 2004
Post Re: CARRIE (2013)
Quote:
Technically, most superhero movies do exactly that. You don't think Superman would have killed an awful lot of defenceless unarmed people during those fight scenes in Man of Steel? Or The Avengers "saving" New York from aliens? How about blowing up the Death Star TWICE - the 2nd in Return of the Jedi, particularly, was still being built, you don't think that wouldn't be packed with innocent engineers, caterers, probably children, etc? In the military they call this "collateral damage", and in the examples above (and I'm sure you can think of dozens more) it doesn't seem to have tarnished their heroic status.


The age of political correctness has some strange dividends. Instead of eliminating dark subjects from certain movies, it simply includes sugar-coated versions of them. I.E. the death stars, Avengers ending, etc.

At its heart, 1976 Carrie was a celebration of political incorrectness, just as Re-Animator would be ten years later. That's a difficult sensibility for some people to understand these days. We live in an age now where making a politically incorrect public statement is worse for someone's career than committing a felony. And Carrie's mom is a strange kind of villain in a year when The Conjuring is a big hit. Carrie probably seems a bit out of place in today's culture. I always saw De Palma's movie as both dark and rousingly funny, but people today may have trouble laughing at it.


Sun Oct 20, 2013 5:27 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3988
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: CARRIE (2013)
MGamesCook wrote:
Quote:
Technically, most superhero movies do exactly that. You don't think Superman would have killed an awful lot of defenceless unarmed people during those fight scenes in Man of Steel? Or The Avengers "saving" New York from aliens? How about blowing up the Death Star TWICE - the 2nd in Return of the Jedi, particularly, was still being built, you don't think that wouldn't be packed with innocent engineers, caterers, probably children, etc? In the military they call this "collateral damage", and in the examples above (and I'm sure you can think of dozens more) it doesn't seem to have tarnished their heroic status.


The age of political correctness has some strange dividends. Instead of eliminating dark subjects from certain movies, it simply includes sugar-coated versions of them. I.E. the death stars, Avengers ending, etc.

At its heart, 1976 Carrie was a celebration of political incorrectness, just as Re-Animator would be ten years later. That's a difficult sensibility for some people to understand these days. We live in an age now where making a politically incorrect public statement is worse for someone's career than committing a felony. And Carrie's mom is a strange kind of villain in a year when The Conjuring is a big hit. Carrie probably seems a bit out of place in today's culture. I always saw De Palma's movie as both dark and rousingly funny, but people today may have trouble laughing at it.
Personally I thought the attempts at humor in the original film felt very out of place and didn't add anything(the original Last House On The Left had the same problem, thankfully the remake fixed that issue), so i'm glad to hear that the remake is more serious in tone, it's a dark subject matter so IMO it's something should be taken very seriously.

For the shower scene, I suppose the filmmakers could've gone with CGI nudity or used a body-double so that it wouldn't technically be Moretz getting naked and that way the filmmakers wouldn't have to deal with child porn charges.


Sun Oct 20, 2013 6:17 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 483
Post Re: CARRIE (2013)
nitrium wrote:
oakenshield32 wrote:
Your totally confused here. There is a difference between killing armed and aggressive antagonists in a story and the mass murder of a group of essentially unarmed and defenseless people and innocent bystanders. Could you give me examples of films where mass murder of unarmed people is shown in a heroic way?

Technically, most superhero movies do exactly that. You don't think Superman would have killed an awful lot of defenceless unarmed people during those fight scenes in Man of Steel? Or The Avengers "saving" New York from aliens? How about blowing up the Death Star TWICE - the 2nd in Return of the Jedi, particularly, was still being built, you don't think that wouldn't be packed with innocent engineers, caterers, probably children, etc? In the military they call this "collateral damage", and in the examples above (and I'm sure you can think of dozens more) it doesn't seem to have tarnished their heroic status.


I don't think movies are suppose to do that but as with torture porn now there is disaster porn. Mass destruction and mass murder to give the audience a turn on instead of horrifying their sense of order and decency which I thought was the point of horror. Man of Steel was a big turn off for their offensive and pornographic 9/11 imagery which seemed their goal to change the feel of the series from light entertainment we are acquainted with to dark and nihilistic by embracing the disaster porn aesthetic. Didn't work for me but others seem to find mass death more entertaining than myself. The Star Wars analogy is interesting but technically it is a war movie inside a fantasy as you will note the word war in the title. Death Star is strictly a military vessel with military combatants onboard and no children(not even on Star Trek are there daycares on their ships). Are you not a legitimate military target if you enlist to work in a well defended naval yard(with no civilian populaces anywhere nearby or destroyed in the impending attack) building a war machine that will kill billions and the enemy tries to stop you. Not the same as the mass murder of defenseless teenagers killed by someone running amok with a mental WMD.

Quote:
Well i'm mostly liberal but believe it or not I actually do support the death penalty(i'd love to hear someone try and argue why a person like James Holmes shouldn't get a death sentence, but that's for another topic), but I really don't see what the political beliefs of Hollywood execs actually has to do with this movie at all. I think they're just giving the audience the satisfaction of watching people get what they deserve, I mean who hasn't had a bully that they wanted to "teach a lesson"? I've had more then a few that I would love to wail on if I had psychic powers.


So you want to dispense death and torture to those who you find jerky in life? That is a normal reaction but not a healthy one as our judgements are very emotional and biased which is why we have rule of law instead. Movies though have the benefit of being contrived and clear cut so they can manipulate our emotions for simple answers to complex situations into saying this person is sympathetic and this person deserves to die. There is no amount of manipulation or spin a director can do that will convince me that killing defenseless people is cool and deserving.The only angle that works is the monster angle which is how we see every person that commits such acts in real life. Unless there is a mass murder that had a good cause I don't know one.


Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:27 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1616
Post Re: CARRIE (2013)
nitrium wrote:
How about blowing up the Death Star TWICE - the 2nd in Return of the Jedi, particularly, was still being built, you don't think that wouldn't be packed with innocent engineers, caterers, probably children, etc?


Good Clerks reference.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:15 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:45 pm
Posts: 469
Post Re: CARRIE (2013)
Reading your review of the remake, it seems that you don't have such a negative opinion of De Palma's original anymore, considering your very negative review of the older movie. Am I just misinterpreting some of your remarks or have you really changed your mind about Carrie (1976) and, if so, why?


Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:48 am
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3988
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: CARRIE (2013)
oakenshield32 wrote:
nitrium wrote:
oakenshield32 wrote:
Your totally confused here. There is a difference between killing armed and aggressive antagonists in a story and the mass murder of a group of essentially unarmed and defenseless people and innocent bystanders. Could you give me examples of films where mass murder of unarmed people is shown in a heroic way?

Technically, most superhero movies do exactly that. You don't think Superman would have killed an awful lot of defenceless unarmed people during those fight scenes in Man of Steel? Or The Avengers "saving" New York from aliens? How about blowing up the Death Star TWICE - the 2nd in Return of the Jedi, particularly, was still being built, you don't think that wouldn't be packed with innocent engineers, caterers, probably children, etc? In the military they call this "collateral damage", and in the examples above (and I'm sure you can think of dozens more) it doesn't seem to have tarnished their heroic status.


I don't think movies are suppose to do that but as with torture porn now there is disaster porn. Mass destruction and mass murder to give the audience a turn on instead of horrifying their sense of order and decency which I thought was the point of horror. Man of Steel was a big turn off for their offensive and pornographic 9/11 imagery which seemed their goal to change the feel of the series from light entertainment we are acquainted with to dark and nihilistic by embracing the disaster porn aesthetic. Didn't work for me but others seem to find mass death more entertaining than myself. The Star Wars analogy is interesting but technically it is a war movie inside a fantasy as you will note the word war in the title. Death Star is strictly a military vessel with military combatants onboard and no children(not even on Star Trek are there daycares on their ships). Are you not a legitimate military target if you enlist to work in a well defended naval yard(with no civilian populaces anywhere nearby or destroyed in the impending attack) building a war machine that will kill billions and the enemy tries to stop you. Not the same as the mass murder of defenseless teenagers killed by someone running amok with a mental WMD.

Quote:
Well i'm mostly liberal but believe it or not I actually do support the death penalty(i'd love to hear someone try and argue why a person like James Holmes shouldn't get a death sentence, but that's for another topic), but I really don't see what the political beliefs of Hollywood execs actually has to do with this movie at all. I think they're just giving the audience the satisfaction of watching people get what they deserve, I mean who hasn't had a bully that they wanted to "teach a lesson"? I've had more then a few that I would love to wail on if I had psychic powers.


So you want to dispense death and torture to those who you find jerky in life? That is a normal reaction but not a healthy one as our judgements are very emotional and biased which is why we have rule of law instead. Movies though have the benefit of being contrived and clear cut so they can manipulate our emotions for simple answers to complex situations into saying this person is sympathetic and this person deserves to die. There is no amount of manipulation or spin a director can do that will convince me that killing defenseless people is cool and deserving.The only angle that works is the monster angle which is how we see every person that commits such acts in real life. Unless there is a mass murder that had a good cause I don't know one.

Well I wouldn't go that far, if I had powers like that, i'd mainly just use them to scare people and teach them a lesson, wouldn't think of killing them unless they were truly rotten human beings(I.E. rapists, religious extremists, etc).

Horrifying their "sense of order" and "decency"? :? sounds like someone is trying too hard to be a moral guardian. I like movies that aren't afraid to go to dark places. I fail to see how Man Of Steel was "9/11 pornography"(I find your term more offensive then the film itself) or "disaster porn"(whateever the hell that means) and you act like your opinion of the film is the only one that's correct.

Anyways the people in this film hardly sound "defenceless"
[Reveal] Spoiler:
according to reviews, Chris actively tries to kill Carrie at the end, so she mainly kills Chris as a result of defending herself and not out of sheer malice, hard to feel sorry for her or be disturbed by her death if that's case


P.S. I despise the term "torture porn" I don't think people actually "get off" while watching those types of films, I certainly don't.


Mon Oct 21, 2013 12:59 pm
Profile
Gaffer

Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:02 am
Posts: 4
Post Re: CARRIE (2013)
Vexer wrote:
P.S. I despise the term "torture porn" I don't think people actually "get off" while watching those types of films, I certainly don't.


I don't care for that term either. With the sudden flood of so-called "horror" film these days, I guess it's the supposed norm seeing people be killed in gruesome ways on camera.


Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:08 pm
Profile
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3988
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: CARRIE (2013)
CinemaCin_XII wrote:
Vexer wrote:
P.S. I despise the term "torture porn" I don't think people actually "get off" while watching those types of films, I certainly don't.


I don't care for that term either. With the sudden flood of so-called "horror" film these days, I guess it's the supposed norm seeing people be killed in gruesome ways on camera.

It's been the "norm" for many decades now, have you ever heard of the Video Nasties? Those were a series of films banned in the UK for being too disturbing or graphic.


Mon Oct 21, 2013 2:14 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr