Carrie: Just Like the Old Carrie. Except Now.

Lots of Hollywood classics are getting reboots these days. But when you see a movie like Carrie, you're going to start asking yourself, "Why?" I went and saw Carrie the other night with my mom and found myself asking that very question.

Carrie, as most of you well know, is a story about a young girl bullied in high school. But this ain't your average nerd. Carrie (played in this version by Chloe Grace Moretz) has psychic powers and can make things move with her mind. She is raised by a single mother (played by Julianne Moore) who is insanely (pun intended) religious and mentally abusive. After a bullying incident turns into a revenge-fest for one evil-minded girl, Carrie absolutely snaps. But this isn't a girl who is about to cry over spilled pig's blood. Carrie then seeks revenge on the entire school's prom.

And it's scary.

Scary Carrie.

With this remake, I'm not quite sure what they were trying to accomplish. Maybe they thought that the 2002 remake was totally awful (which it was) and that the 1999 sequel The Rage: Carrie 2 was really stupid (again accurate), so they took it upon themselves to make a better remake. But though the movie wasn't bad, it wasn't as good as the original. I will never understand why some studios think "Hey! Let's revamp this one! Cuz I'm out of ideas!" 

"Heck I dunno!"

While this remake of the original Carrie is interesting in that it's modernized, it doesn't really bring much new to the table. They amp up the effects and hone in a little more on Carrie's relationship with her mother (as well as making some strange commentary on pregnancy and babies), but the movie stays a little stagnant. It seems to get so caught up in paying homage to the original that it forgets to build on it. Chris is turned from a regular bully into an entitled rich bitch, Carrie from a weakling into a girl testing her powers, and the mother from a bit of a joke to a woman with serious mental problems. But though these characters are magnified, the general reaction just boils down to, "Huh. That's interesting."

So uh...guess you're gonna go kill everyone at

prom now, huh?

Another thing I wasn't thrilled about was their choice of Chloe Grace Moretz for the role of Carrie. As someone in my office put it earlier, "She's not Carrie, she's Hit Girl!" Moretz is hard to see as the wallflower Carrie, though I honestly tried to give her the benefit of the doubt in the beginning. Although she plays the role with less passivity than the original Carrie (using and practicing her powers in her own home and against her mother), she lacks the believability of someone that's really been kicked around. And really, if I may be completely honest, her looks harken more to the popular girl that we see in Kick-Ass 2 than Sissy Spacek's original Carrie.

Doesn't exactly scream loser.

The one thing that I did find interesting about Moretz's Carrie is that she's totally conscious of everything that she's doing throughout the entire movie. While Spacek's Carrie massacres her prom unconsciously, almost like she's in a trance, Moretz's Carrie takes visible joy in manipulating those that have before hurt her. Could be a comment on the way current bullies handle being pushed over the edge...

Long story short, it's too same to be different and it's too different to be same. Carrie doesn't bring much to the table that you can't get from the first one, but the effects are neat and it'll probably appeal to a younger audience.

5 outa 10. Eh. Not bad. Not awesome.

Hugo: Not Just a Story About a Creepy Robot

Ah, home for the holidays. Nothing like spending one awesome day with your entire family and then collapsing into that whole "well...what do we do now?" period after Christmas and before New Year's Day. What did my family do, you ask? One guess.

Hint: it begins with an 'M'...

In my family, my mother, youngest brother, and I have a tendency to go to the movies when we don't know what to do with ourselves. It's like the supercalifragilisticexpialidocious of actions, if you will; the something to do when you have nothing to do at all. So our family-friendly trio opted to go see Hugo for this year's round of post-Christmas dead time.

Judging from what I had of the preview I was mostly going on the ideas of "this looks really pretty" and "omigod this is a kid's movie directed by Scorsese!" Admittedly, I was a little skeptical about how good it would be as the well-known director's first attempt at a different audience, but I was pleasantly surprised at the end result.

The film begins with the story of a young boy named Hugo (Asa Butterfield) who lives in a Parisian train station. As we learn early-on, Hugo's father died in a museum fire and he was left to his uncle to help keep the clocks of the station in working order. But Hugo's uncle has since disappeared and he continues to work the clocks in order to keep himself off the radar of the bumbling station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen). After getting caught stealing parts from the booth of a toymaker (Ben Kingsley) the boy's cherished notebook, filled with pictures of parts for an automaton that he and his father were repairing, is taken away from him. Hugo is extremely distraught, even following the old man back to his house to try and get it back. In an attempt to win back this notebook, he befriends the toymaker's foster daughter, Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz). Armed with a taste for adventure from her many books, Isabelle urges him to embark with her on an adventure to fix Hugo's broken "automaton" (robot, to you and I). During this journey, they find out a message that the automaton's been hiding, and with it Papa George's secret past.

Beautiful cinematography: ready, set, go!

Without giving too much away (or at least trying not to..), what they find out is strongly attached to the early history of film itself, making the film largely a love letter to cinema. Showcasing clips from early films such as Train Entering a Station, The Kiss, The Great Train Robbery, and A Trip to the Moon, Scorsese takes a young audience's attention and directs it to a subject that most children do not learn until they are college-bound. This movie sneakily incorporates a good deal of film history into a children's adventure plot, which of course makes crazy cinephiles like me absolutely delighted. It manages to capture the majority of film's modest beginnings without seeming like it's going off on a tangent, and thus keeps the mystery of the plot intact while teaching history.

In terms of the feel of the movie, I've got to say, it's beautifully shot. Everything is in crystal-clear high definition and the lighting in every shot is gorgeous. Each frame could be placed on a wall as art. The movie is also shot somewhat idealistically and romantically, reflecting in itself glamorous films of the 20s, and giving a nod to Oscar glam in the end scene.

What's the Great Depression?

That being said, perhaps the reflexive nature of the film is a bit much for a children's movie. Everything was just slightly heavier than most kid's movies are, which is a somewhat common mistake that directors make, in my own humble opinion (anyone else hate The Polar Express? Bleh.). For example, while I would say that all of the acting was very well done by the young actors Butterfield and Moretz (who I love. Please see Let Me In), there was a certain maturity to it that left them seeming a little unrealistic to some degree. Although that was probably on purpose (I imagine most children that live in train stations by themselves are slightly more mature than their peers), I had a hard time viewing them as regular children, and thus had trouble empathizing a little. Hugo has some moments that seem overly sentimental, which I feel is a little weird for a boy. Perhaps I'm being picky, but I should also admit that I have a low tolerance for sap (unless it's hilariously overdone. As in every Lifetime movie I've ever seen) and I have two extremely non-emotional little brothers who seem to foil Hugo.

Another qualm that I certainly have with the film is the creepy robot kid. In the days of such movies as Child's Play, I, Robot, and Surrogates, I was waiting for the damn thing to come alive and kill people for the entire movie. Also he keeps on staring at Hugo in, like, every scene. Dear Martin Scorsese: Why in God's name would you place a message from a poor boy's dead father in such a freakin' creepy "automaton"? Yeesh...

After a string of murders the children regretted ever fixing the damaged robot.

But besides Creepy Robot Child, the movie is actually quite a pleasure to watch. For those of you with a passion for film without much knowledge of how it came to be, I certainly hope that you will check this out and that it will pique your interest in learning the history of film (as I'm sure Sir Scorsese planned...sneaky man...).

Touche Scorsese, and well done.

Four outa five stars.

PS Sacha Baron Cohen is the funniest person in this movie. If for no other reason, see it to see his performance.

Also, here's the preview in case you need more persuasion to see how pretty it is.