Fad horror

Rating: Null/10 (2 November 2003)

Another legendary `classic' that disappointed me. Let's start with Carrie, herself: okay, she's an outcast and she's sheltered, did we really need King to write her as being so distant from reality to the point of being ignorant of everyday common-sense things? Where's the subtlety? Why doesn't King go all the way and have her wear a sandwich sign that says `I'm REALLY sheltered' so there's no doubt any viewer (and I mean any viewer) can get it? He pushed Carrie too far in his attempt to make us sympathize with the poor girl who doesn't know anything . . . and it made me not sympathize with her.
Carrie is the most developed, rightly so since the movie is named after her, no one else comes across as anything more than props (cliché props at that). In a nutshell, the opening scene and credits barely introduce all the characters and then we're off to the prom for the inevitable. In other words, the movie doesn't really spend time with any characters nor does it take time to be with any characters except Carrie. What little development there is with all the other characters is a collection of writing gimmicks that were overused when King wrote the book. So if the film doesn't care enough to develop these guys and the situation, why should I care about them?
If King or De Palma bothered with developing the characters period, and developing them in a non-cliché way, I'd of been much happier with renting this film. Heck, and if either of them took some weird yet original twist to the development process, I'd applaud them for their creative and artistic integrity. The fact is, nothing in this film is developed very well.
De Palma's trademarks are here in all their overused and annoying glory. There's a thing called restraint . . . it's not in this movie. Really cool techniques are only cool when used right. Things like the split screen and the camera-rotating-around-its-subject-endlessly got old faster than the CG in Star Wars and the Bullet Time in Matrix: Reloaded. I do admit De Palma has a fair amount of artistic flair, but like Quinton Tarintino, there's just too many aspects (technique wise) going against him for me to get into the film.
I generally like Stephen King, and I have a lot of respect for him. But I did not like this movie, and I really hate to say it, but I feel its success deals more with it being an early De Palma film, an early King novel, and the first novel to make it to the big screen (our society is obsessed with people's creativity degrading over-time . . . the first are always the best.) And now especially, it was the first (big) teen-telekinesis film made in the 70s which be default makes it old school `classic' horror and makes it `good' by definition. Theories on its success aside  now for facts. It did succeed, and I still don't like it.