i seen the trailer and i think it will be good. carrie has always been one of my favorites mainly because i can relate to carrie in so many ways.

I liked the Carrie film original.

I never find reamkes are as good as the original. But, it's possible!

The only series of remakes I though were worthy were the Superman films with Christopher Reeve. He was a good follow up to the original TV series with George Reeves.

http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/4...asmarthaof.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

As you can see. I am an ole babe! I remember seeing the original on TV though I was pre teen and teen when they were shown. That is a fairly current picture. I will be 70 on my next birthday!

THE DUCHESS

'Carrie' Reboot Postponed Until October - recuts & reshoots?

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118064130/

Liked the original, but I'm over it. Too soon.

Response to the potential remake of Carrie
 

They were actually going to make another remake of this film? The original was a brilliant film by Brian De Palma (I believe it was one of the first films to be based off a Stephen King work). I especially like how De Palma changed the ending, so that it was even more difficult to sympathize with Carrie, causing greater confliction. The acting was brilliant, especially Sissy Spacek as Carrie and De Palma's use of the camera was brilliant. Don't get me wrong there are some remakes that were good and others that greatly exceeded their originals. For example, The Thing (1982), Thirteen Ghosts (2001), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003), and Dawn of the Dead (2005). First, The Thing (1982) which I consider to be one of the greatest horror movies of all time. The acting was incredible, despite the size of the cast, especially Kurt Russel as Macready. The film plays with ideas of paranoia and claustrophobia. It takes a very pessimistic view on human nature and is clearly the product of the Cold War. Therefore, the film is much better than the original Howard Hawk's The Thing from Another World (1951), which was a good film, just not a masterpiece like John Carpenter's version. Second, was Thirteen Ghosts (2001), which has received the lowest critic rating of all the films that I personally loved (12% on Rotten Tomatoes). The setting was much darker than the William Castle original and the acting was terrific (There was not even a best performance, I think everyone was equally amazing). Additionally, the plot was far more more intriguing than the original and the makeup was extremely realistic, even scary. Third, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) had a plot that was related to the original, but in many many ways completely different. The acting was relatively strong (perhaps even better than the original, in that regard in some ways). The background information was intresting, although it did destroy some of the mystery of the original film. I did not really buy into the whole skin cancer idea, but that as well as the extensive amount of torture were the only true weak points of the film. The original was better than the remake, which was a masterpiece, but it was as good as a remake of a masterpiece like this could possibly get. The fourth and final film, Dawn of the Dead (2005) had really good acting and the setting was relatively dark. Also, it was interesting to watch the evolution of the characters. The film was good, although not better than the original. The original had interesting philosophical questions regarding the counter culture ideas, such as concern related to cosumerism. Also, it had an interesting setting directly related to the deeper meaning. Most importantly, there was a collaboration among Dario Argento and George Romero (The official director), and the special effects artist Tom Savini, who obviously did the special effects and makeup for the film. The ultimate horror movie collaboration. Ultimately, my point is that there are some remakes that are greater than the originals (very rare althiough) and some that are at least good, although not better than their originals. However, there are plenty others, such as Psycho (1998), The Omen (2006), Halloween (2007), Friday the 13th (2009), and A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) which were either terrible or unnecessary, maybe even both. I will not go into detail on why I believe these are terrible because I have already written a book on the subject here. So, it is possible that this second remake could be good, but there are plenty of remakes are terrible, so I am cautious about remakes (I will being seeing The Evil Dead remakes), but if they do end up coming out with it, I would probably go see it.

Dear Hollywood, please make an original movie.

Carrie
 

Due next month I think (though could be out already for all I know :-) ), and supposedly more faithful to King's novel. However, he is quoted as saying about this remake "Why, when the original was so good?"

Of course, we could ask the same question of any of the glut of horror remakes, some of which have been not bad at all.

Trailers

Carrie is one of my most anticipated movies of the year, mainly because of Chloe Moretz. She was awesome in the Kick-Ass movies, and after seeing Let Me In I know she can pull of being Carrie. Plus, Julianne Moore looks like she'll be fantastic as the mother. So, the one thing I can count on here is good acting. However, I have seen movies where the acting was well done but the story was sloppy and the parts that were supposed to scare me just came out underwhelming.

I totally agree,because the character of Carrie who was played by Sissy Spacek was so great,also the mother (Piper Laury) was amazing it gives me the chills so good is she.
I would never support the remakes,even they say its good.

I haven't got anything against remakes per se, some of them are great.

But that's a good point about funding being directed away from original ideas.