The notion of remaking a classic is not unheard of in Hollywood. But when you re-do a movie as revered as director Brian DePalma’s “Carrie,” you need to bring something new and remarkable to the table to make it worth seeing. Director Kimberly Pierce and her three (!) writers had an opportunity to offer something the original movie didn’t, but instead delivered a nearly beat-for-beat retread, only with a scrap of the cinematic power.
In Stephen King’s novel about a socially awkward and abused teenage girl with telekinetic abilities, Carrie goes on a citywide rampage, virtually destroying the entire town. De Palma scaled down the ending for his movie, probably for budgetary reasons, and because the filmmaking technology of the ‘70s wasn’t up to rendering something on that scale. The film hardly suffered for the omission; it remains a masterpiece of suspense and a strong statement about budding female sexuality. Some of its visuals, especially that of a blood-soaked Carrie framed by flames in a school gymnasium, are among the most iconic in the history of cinema.
Pierce can breathe easy knowing her tepid retread will be quickly forgotten. As I watched, scenes from the original replayed in my head - which is not a good sign. The film’s most glaring shortcoming is the finale, which generates no suspense - not just because we know what’s going to happen, but also because Pierce is out of her league. DePalma is rightfully mentioned in the same breath as Hitchcock, and his build up to the finale is excruciating to watch. Pierce’s direction has the energy of episodic television.
The acting fares better, but still falls short of Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie’s timeless performances. Actress Chloë Grace Moretz does good work as Carrie, easily conveying her shyness and blossoming aggression. Unfortunately, her work in the prom scene is laughable - a red mark that rests on Pierce’s shoulders. Her expressions are goofy and the special effects unconvincing. Julianne Moore also does good work as Carrie’s abusive and mentally disturbed mother, but again, she’s merely echoing Laurie’s far more memorable performance.
The best I can do is give “Carrie” two out of four stars. You’d do better watching the original. “Carrie” (2013) is rated “R” for bloody violence, disturbing images, language, and some sexual references.
Now to discuss “Escape Plan,” a new movie starring Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger. The former stars as Ray Breslin, a man who tests the security of prisons by going in as an inmate and then breaking out, while the latter plays Emil Rottmayer, a convicted criminal with which Breslin teams up to escape an allegedly air-tight facility. Someone framed Breslin in the hopes of locking him away for good, but they clearly had never seen any of Stallone’s filmography, or they would have realized the futility of their efforts.
“Escape Plan” is being billed as a throwback to the kinds of movies these two men made when they were younger. If the studio marketing the release means the plot is absurd, the acting hammy, and the stunts over-the-top, then I would agree. While there’s fun to be had in sitting back and enjoying a ballsy, goofy action movie, “Escape Plan” never gains enough credibility or generates enough interest to entertain on that level.
The storyline relies on too many conveniences, too many people saying or doing things they wouldn’t, and Breslin having a Sherlock Holmesian knowledge, of, well, everything. How else to explain how he’s able to figure out his location on the planet by the direction toilet water swirls when flushed, the bit of sea water that slaps him in the face, and a homemade sextant he fashions from a fellow convict’s eyeglasses? Even MacGyver would be jealous of that one.
Oh, and Breslin and Rottmayer’s survival hinges on their imperviousness to the hundreds of bullets guards armed with semi-automatic weapons spray directly at them in several scenes. I guess I should give “Escape Plan” a pass on that point, though, as that’s part of the fun of these movies.
My only enjoyment came with watching these two action movie icons finally team up. I only wish the direction had been better - there are some awkwardly paced and acted scenes - and that the script had been as clever as it thought it was.
Once again, two stars out of four. Rated “R” for violence and language.