: I hate to condemn a movie sight unseen, and the presence of Kimberly Peirce behind the camera makes me want to see something good in it—imagine, a horror movie centered on a young woman actually directed by another woman! But it's hard to suss out a rational reason (beyond name recognition) either to redo Brian De Palma's 1976 film or readapt Stephen King's novel of the same name (and from my understanding, De Palma's film didn't deviate enough from King's source to keep those tasks from seeming like basically the same thing), even (or especially) to bring it into the present day. Was either source insufficient for its lack of Internet bullying? Most troubling, to me, is the casting: Sissy Spacek had the look and unease of a true outcast, while Chloe Grace Moretz is one of those suffocatingly precocious child actors who hasn't yet outgrown the air of performance that surrounds all of her work: not joyful, weirded-out performance, but school-play effort disguised as master technique. She can be used well (like on 30 Rock
, an example that shouldn't count, because who wasn't used well on 30 Rock
?) but I can't picture her matching Spacek's open-nerve tension. Still, this will probably make some money this weekend because it's somehow the only wide-release horror movie to come out in all of October—especially crazy in a year that has produced half a dozen horror hits. Horror money seems to ebb and flow with various trends; the decent Evil Dead
remake nonwithstanding, Carrie 2000
seems like it belongs with that spate of unimaginative 80s do-overs from a few years ago. But I'm still thinking about seeing it, because I already saw All the Boys Love Mandy Lane
and those DVR'd Nightmare on Elm Street
sequels may not cut it, Halloween-wise.