Copy + Paste

Surprisingly, Kimberly Peirce's Carrie is the ONLY horror film this year to get a wide release during the month of October. Considering the year we're having in the horror genre, that's really quite a surprise, as 2013 has seen a number of solid-to-great releases thus far, between The Conjuring, Evil Dead, Texas Chainsaw, and even some horror offshoots in World War Z and Warm Bodies. Sure, Paranormal Activity decided to sit the year out (and after seeing a trailer for the upcoming sequel The Marked Ones, I can't say I'm disappointed), but that's still no excuse to leave the traditionally scariest month of the year without the type of fare that exemplifies its reputation.

And is that one film a keeper? The original Carrie, directed by Brian De Palma and released in 1976, is a horror classic, often regarded as the best Stephen King adaptation of all time. Is a remake - even one featuring the casting of the uber-talented pair of Julianne Moore and Chloe Grace Moretz - really all that necessary? Pierce certainly has the female perspective that should give an edge to this particular remake, and her experience exploring gender identity and growth (just look at Boys Don't Cry, if you can), Carrie ought to have been a slam dunk. Add on top the claim that it skews closer to the themes of King's original novel, plus the added focus on bullying in today's society, and this could have been a remake to eclipse the original.

Detention didn't want her...

And in some ways, it does. De Palma's interpretation of the the classic novel - while still beloved today - was certainly a product of its time, and the campiness and outdated fashion and technology clash terribly with today's norms. If nothing else, Peirce does an excellent job modernizing the environment, even if she doesn't go far enough; one student films the infamous "tampon" scene on her phone and even uploads it onto the internet, but that new plot line doesn't really go anywhere significant. Certainly the bullying aspects of the original Carrie are more prevalent today than ever before, and Peirce highlights that fact well, not to mention the apparent inaction of those supposedly in charge (from unassuming principals to teachers who are just as bad as the bullies). As a modern adaptation, Carrie works because Peirce manages to take a 40-year-old novel and make it feel current and relevant.

Just for the record; this amazing actress is 16!

Carrie also features an excellent cast, with Pierce succeeding with not only her two leads, but a number of the younger actors whom you may or may not recognize. In the lead, Moretz is simply the best young actress working today. Her versatility has led to scene-stealing roles in multiple films, and this is just the latest example of an up-and-comer taking it to the next level. Moore is similarly well cast, the veteran putting in one of her best performances in years as Margaret White, Carrie's religious fanatic mother. She's always been at least a solid actress, but Carrie sees her take it up a notch, and with a lesser actress it might have been too much. Moore engages the audience with every scene however, becoming one of the film's stronger parts. Judy Greer takes a break from comedies to take on a more serious tone, proving she's suited for these types roles as well. And thankfully, the younger performers do their share as well, as talents like Portia Doubleday (Youth in Revolt), Gabriella Wilde (The Three Musketeers), Alex Russell (Chronicle) and Ansel Elgort (soon to be seen in Divergent) do wonders on the big screen.

Mother and daughter have never been so scary.

Unfortunately, Carrie just doesn't do enough to sufficiently separate itself from the original movie. While claiming that the film hearkens back more to the King novel, what we get is essentially a scene-for-scene (though not shot-for-shot) remake of the original, with updated dialogue being the only significant enhancement. Yes, the ending is slightly altered, but not in a way that makes the film any better or more distinctive. Peirce even rips off the multiple-angle blood spill shot of De Palma's exactly; it's a move that was surely meant as an homage, but merely draws attention to the remake's derivative nature. Worse, the special effects in that iconic scene are blatant CGI effects, taking you out of the moment you've been waiting for the entire film. Evil Dead surprised and pleased many by using more practical effects in their more gratuitous blood-letting, and Peirce can't be bothered to use a real bucket of (fake) blood for one climactic scene?

Because you begged to see it.

Carrie had all the makings of a great horror flick, and if it had been the first of its kind, I doubt I'd be so harsh on it now. But Peirce owes far too much to Brian De Palma's original to accept this new Carrie White as anything original, no matter how good the acting or how modernized the production values. Instead, Carrie exists as a testament against remakes, or at least ham-fisted ones that bring little new to the table. It should have been a modern classic, especially with no major horror titles coming out to challenge its dominance. Unfortunately, this new Carrie mainly makes one want to go back and see a true classic from 1976.

Story Telling

Ah, the found footage genre. Remember when I said last fall that with its journey into space in Apollo 18, the found footage style of film making might truly be well on its way out the door? Well, I of course forgot to account for just how cheap the damned things are. You see, when a film is inexpensive to produce, all you need is a strong first week to recoup all your expenses and start banking the profit. Look at major box office bombs from just last year. Ryan Reynolds starred in Green Lantern, the only superhero film from last year to fail to break out, thanks especially to it's $200 million budget. Conan the Barbarian was more frugal at $90 million, but still failed to engage any more than a minuscule audience of diehard Cimmerians. And Disney animated film Mars Needs Moms has become one of the biggest box office bombs in Hollywood history, with a budget of $150 million practically going to waste. Meanwhile, Apollo 18 made $25 million, more than five times what it cost to make. Mega-hit sequel Paranormal Activity 3 racked up over $200 million in worldwide ticket sales. It cost $5 million to make. Insanely profitable even with modest success, the trend that began in earnest in 1999's Blair Witch Project is one of the most profitable excursions in Hollywood, with no sign of slowing down in the near future. The newest to the game, Chronicle, tackles a hitherto unexplored topic of these types of films, that of super powers. What would real people do if they found themselves in control of telekinetic abilities? That's what I decided to head to the theater to discover.

I'm still not sure what schools can possibly afford bleachers like this

Three high school seniors discover what appears to be an alien artifact while wandering out in the woods after a rave. After being exposed to the artifact's strange power, they discover that they can move objects with their minds. The more they practice, the stronger the feats they can perform, and soon they are performing amazing feats in secret. Andrew (Dane DeHaan), his cousin Matt (Alex Russell) and aspiring Class President Steve (Michael B. Jordan) are having the greatest time of their lives, and at first it's all just fun and games. But when Andrew, an outcast with an abusive home life, begins to go to the dark side and use his powers for revenge, his friends decide they have to do something before their secret gets completely out of control.

Yup, he's trying to "Force Choke" the audience...

What impressed me most about Chronicle was how real the characters and character interactions were. Beginning to end, it is an honest portrayal of what normal teenagers would do given extraordinary powers and abilities; they'd screw around. Whether playing pranks, practical jokes, or just shooting the breeze, these kids never once consider using their powers for good, because that's not the first thing that comes to the minds of any red-blooded teenager. For that purpose, the principle trio do a great job of playing normal teenagers who just want to play around with their new found strengths. Dane DeHaan does an amazing job in the film's lead role, a troubled teen with home issues and who didn't really have any friends before the incident. At first he seems so amazed in the turn that his life has taken, but when it all comes crashing down, DeHaan becomes a terrifying force with which to be reckoned. Alex Russell and Michael B. Jordan play far more normal teens, though Russell's character is undergoing some self-reflection as to his social status and crushes on fellow student and aspiring filmmaker Casey (Ashley Hinshaw). While DeHaan and Russell are complete unknowns, you might actually recognize Jordan from his previous works. Chronicle is Jordan's second film of 2012 (he had a second-tier role in Red Tails), and he has enjoyed an extensive television career, including starring turns on The Wire ("Where's Wallace?"), All My Children, Friday Night Lights, and Parenthood. Together, these three combine to form the soul of the film, and their contributions of amazing acting make Chronicle as fun as it is.

The list of suspects for this can't be TOO long

Unfortunately, these strong acting performances aren't enough to keep the film completely afloat. It's obvious not a whole lot of thought was put into the story of Chronicle, which is patchy at best. Worst is the fact that there's really nothing new when it comes to the type of story director Josh Trank wanted to tell; as nice as it was to see a meta-human tale told in this format, Trank brings absolutely nothing to the table that can't be found in any random issue of X-Men or its spin-offs. As I already mentioned, the story was patchy; long stretches of time pass without any frame of time. This is due to Andrew's camera catching the entire thing only when he decides to turn on the camera. It's strange that when early on he says he's videotaping "everything" that we only see the parts relevant to the main story. Anyway, it makes the "found footage" style seem more like a crutch than an actual selling point for the making of Chronicle.

He's just excited to be in a #1 American movie... no big deal

Speaking of the found footage emphasis, it's questionable just why the filmmakers went that route in the first place. This was certainly not a tale that needed the style to work; the typical film approach would have come out just fine. Early on it does make sense, because the story revolves around the three boys and one of them always has the camera. Later on however, the camera comes out of play, and having Hinshaw's character also be a camera nut feels like a forced move to break free of the restrictions of the genre, once again making you wonder why they decided to handicap themselves in the first place. This is especially apparent in the final act, which sees an amazing battle in downtown Seattle, but has to use security cameras and strangers personal cameras to properly capture everything. The special effects in this case are also suspect; the final battle looks fantastic, but almost everything before LOOKS cheap and unimpressive, even with the grainy film quality to obscure it.

Yeah, no way will HE become evil...

As the film ends, you can't help but feel that a great opportunity was missed in making Chronicle. Yes, it was unique for the found footage genre as a whole and a huge improvement over Apollo 18 in quality. But I can't help but feel things could have gone differently, as the filmmakers obviously felt they had made a mistake in making a film in that vein, and the regression in story quality as the film progressed was a clear indication of that. Still, it is the #3 film of 2012, and is worth a look, whether you see it in the theater or when it eventually is released on DVD.