Jessica Cunningham Last week for the book review I went over Carrie by Stephen King. In honor of the fact that the new movie is out, I feel it’s reasonable to compare the two. There were amazingly a lot of similarities and only slight differences. The movie is the book’s second film adaption. The first attempt was produced in 1976, and starred Sissy Spacek as Carrie and Piper Laurie as Carrie’s mother. The most recent movie attempt came out on Friday, Oct. 18 and cast Chloë Grace Moretz as Carrie and Julianne Moore as Carrie’s mother.
The first striking similarity between the book and the movie was the use of actual, verbatim lines from the book into the movie, showing the dedication to important features from the book that was taken. The second similarity between the two was the scenes in the movie took place almost in the same way they did in a book, with nearly everything that was displayed in the book included in  imdb.com (fair use) vast detail. For the most part, movies tend to leave out major scenes from their book counterparts, but Carrie failed to do this, which was majorly impressive. The final similarity was that the movie—unlike is typical for Hollywood—left, for the most part, the book’s ending, instead of creating a happier one, like often happens.
that a super popular guy would be so willing to take an unfortunate-looking girl to prom slightly less believable. The second difference was only minute details. Like the fact that the movie began with a pool scene while the book opened with a shower scene, or that Tommy was killed instead of knocked unconscious by the bucket towards the end, and examples like this. Another difference was that in the book, King used many bonuses like news articles, magazine pieces, book clippings, court proceedings and other examples such as this to make a more full view of Carrie’s story. The movie completely neglected these except for the final scene where it showed Sue Snell, Carrie’s only real friend and one of the survivors, in court, so this was something that the movie left to be desired. The next major point, although not necessarily negative, was how easily and intelligently the movie brought in modern technology (like YouTube and cell phones) without detracting from the fact that the book was originally set in the early 70s. It was a way to modernize a timeless tale, and it worked flawlessly. Overall, though, the movie had very little differences from the book, and from the original movie made in 1976.
If I were to critique anything it would be the fact that instead of being terrified by the actions and mannerisms of Margaret White, Carrie’s mother, as Stephen King intended I found them humorous. That might just be my own personal lack of fear from scary movies though. I actually enjoyed Carrie a lot, as did my step-sister who has very contrasting tastes to me.  shocktillyoudrop.com (fair use) The movie was enthralling and deep and the chronicle of Carrie will always be, at least to me, a complete original. The movie is rated R (there were a few parts where I shielded my eyes out of disgust and actual horror at the images, so be warned); we don’t usually review these kinds of movies, but this was a special case. You will need an I.D. if you are of age (which is 17) and we do not condone in any way seeing the movie if you are not. It was a fantastic rendition in my eyes of the story Stephen King created, and may be near fully worth the $19 it cost for two people to see it. The movie, just like the book, leaves readers with a haunting moral message about the kindness people should be treated with, and the consequences that could come if they aren’t. As Sue Snell puts it at the ending scene of Carrie, “We pushed her, and you can only push someone so far before they break." |
Entertainment >
