Carrie review

              Brian de Palma’s 1976 adaptation of Stephen King’s “Carrie” is not only one of my favorite horror movies of all time, but among one of the greatest films of the 70s. It’s full of surprising performances, tender sentiments and it brilliantly walks a stylistic tight-rope between intentionally campy melodrama and operatic terror.  But despite my adoration of the original film, I can confidently say that this 2013 remake really, really sucks.

                The idea of Kimberly Peirce taking a stab at this story isn’t the worst idea anyone ever had. After all, this is the indie director of 1999’s “Boys Don’t Cry”, the film that got Hilary Swank her first Oscar, playing a transgendered victim of intolerance.  In a lot of ways the structure and themes of that film is not too far off from King’s first novel— a teenage female protagonist with a secret, spends the first two thirds of the story heading towards a violent but inevitable conclusion.  And though we didn’t exactly need a new iteration of “Carrie”, at least Pierce’s approach to “Boys Don’t Cry” was unflinching and painfully honest.  However, none of that nuance or personality is explored in this flaccid, overproduced remix of a remake.

                Whether trying to remain faithful to the original novel or paying homage to de Palma’s 1976 version, this new adaptation doesn’t stray far enough from what we have already seen. Carrie White (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a depressed, unpopular high school senior who’s bullied at school by the other students and emotional and psychologically abused at home by her religious zealot mother (Julianne Moore).  Upon secretly realizing that she has the ability to move things with her mind, a fellow student surprises her with kindness by having her football star boyfriend take her out to the prom, where she is unwittingly targeted by her enemies with a dark and disgusting prank.

                What makes this story unique to the horror genre is the way the audience is asked to sympathize with Carrie’s plight.  She’s a meek and vulnerable character in a cruel and mean spirited world, and when the violence and mayhem does take place, it’s not only supposed to be cathartic and thrilling but also tragic and unfair as well.  Unfortunately, this updated version seems so poised to get to the action that it blandly glosses over the gravity and pain that’s necessary to inform the characters and their motivations. This is in no small part due to the obvious miss-casting of Chloe Moretz in the lead role. 

                Unlike the mousy pathos that dripped from every gesture and tick that Sissy Spacek encoded her character with, Moretz simply mugs and pouts as a way of ineffectively masking her natural confidence.  By the end of the film, when she does get to boldly enact her revenge, Chloe’s physicality, combined with the film’s artificial looking special effects, more closely resembles a superhero than an enraged victim of life-long abuse. Either way, she never makes an effective connection with audience.

                 Julianne Moore does her best to downplay the histrionics of Piper Laurie’s iconic portrayal as the monstrous Margaret White, but in trading Piper’s operatic tantrums with whispered brooding, the character recedes to the point of barely registering on camera.

                Stylistically, this lazy remake doesn’t have a specific vision. It’s vaguely modernized, as we can tell by the inclusion of smart phones and Youtube, but even this semi-clever cyber-bullying conceit isn’t explored deep enough to fully realize its potential.  Most of all, and most importantly, this film is frustratingly boring.  It slavishly copies the original beat-per-beat but somehow still manages to miss the power and the sorrow inherent to this story. It isn’t scary when it’s supposed to be scary, it isn’t sad when it’s supposed to be sad, and it’s only funny when it isn’t supposed to be at all. 

Grade: D-

Originally published in the Idaho State Journal/Oct-2013

You're Next review

         There’s a moment in every slasher flick that everyone loves. A moment, no matter how dark or disturbing the film, that is designed to be crowd pleasing. It’s when the victim manages to outwit his/her attacker and for a moment is able to balance the bloody playing field. These instances are rare and are often usually only included as a way to add some ebb and flow to the movie’s cat and mouse pursuit. “You’re Next”, a classically-minded home invader flick, is a film that capitalizes on this very notion, while at the same time embracing it’s gore potential and it’s minimal budget.
         The story is seemingly simple: four contentious siblings drive out to a cottage mansion in the woods to visit their well-to-do parents. Brother Crispian (AJ Bowen), there with his Aussie fiancée Erin (Sharni Vinson) is in between jobs and he worries about suffering judgment from his capitalistic family. Middle brother Felix (Nicholas Tucci) brings his Joan-Jett-lookalike girlfriend Zee (Wendy Glenn) that everyone silently disapproves of. And the oldest brother Drake (Joe Swanberg) seems to have it all figured out, and doesn’t mind letting everyone else know. Their goody-goody sister Amiee (Amy Seimetz) decides to bring along her artsy filmmaker boyfriend Tarique (Ty West).
        By the time dinner rolls around, the rising tension between this dysfunctional unit begin to brew, just before a swarm of arrows fly through their kitchen window, thinning the herd. What they don't realize is that amidst their petty squabbles their family is being hunted by a pack of calculated murderers dressed in black-ops gear, and lifeless, plastic animal masks—a bear, a sheep, and a wolf—looking like a cross between bank robbers, SWAT team, and cult members from “The Wicker Man”.
           As the plot progresses we learn more and more about these killers and the family they are out to slay. All the while, the movie revels in its gleeful surprises, horror homages’, and magnificently viscous pay-offs. It’s refreshing, vibrant pop-corn horror--albeit one with a wobbly path, on the way to finding its tricky tone.
         With a cast of mostly unknown indie actors—and in the case of Ty West and Joe Swanberg, indie directors as well—shot for relatively nothing, B-filmmaker Adam Wingard challenges himself and works hard to create something fresh and unique within a well-worn thriller tradition. And most of the time him and his mumble-gore movie-buddies achieve this, though not without the occasion misstep.
         Though it didn't take me long to get on board, I spent much of the initial dinner scenes wondering if this film was supposed to be bad or if it was genuinely poorly made. The acting seemed a little forced, the characterizations were a tad obvious, and the group chemistry felt community-theater-esq. The missing ingredient, apparently, was murder and gallons of fake blood, because once machetes’ sliced and heads rolled, these problems quickly dissolve. However, in some of the earlier scenes of mayhem, much of the digital camera work tended towards an overused shake-rattle-and-roll style, that only muddled the violent intensity it’s was trying to imply.
         What not only saves, but elevates “You’re Next” is its youthful sense of energy, its blackly comedic bite and its subversive, post-modern, genre playfulness. What results can perhaps be described as “Home Alone” for gore-hounds. “Step-Up 3D” actress Sharni Vinson is one of the best and most capable female heroes since Sigourney Weaver in James Cameron’s “Aliens” and (for the most part) the film manages to stay a few steps ahead of the audience’s guessing game.
          You might feel a little sick at yourself for enjoying this movie, but by the time the closing credits roll, it’s pretty hard to deny the cathartic fun you had.

Grade: B -

Originally published for the Idaho State Journal/ Sep-2013