“A person does not realize that he breathes until he remembers it on purpose.”
Initially, this film was not prepared as a sequel to the acclaimed slasher phenomenon of the 1976th year ' Carrie' from Brian De Palma on the plot from Stephen King. Company 'Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer' considered this film as a separate product, telling about the cruelty of adolescents and its consequences. But the more we delved into creating the script, it became increasingly apparent that there was some correlation with Carrie'. Soon a new plot was born, the film at this stage began to be remade and in 1999, that is, 23 years after the premiere of Carrie', which made the names of De Palma and King world famous and revered, the production of the sequel ended. Of course, this was a risky step, but also Carrie & #39; at one time was not considered a risk as a future hit, but was another, in fact, mainstream horror, which in the late 70s and early 80s of the last century was in great demand.
The linking character from the original with the sequel is Sue Snell (in both films she is embodied by Amy Irving). After the terrible and tragic events of the first film, Sue was lucky to survive, because she did not want to treat the already intimidated classmate Carrie White. Subsequently, Snell becomes a school psychologist, in which a new heroine is studying - her name is Rachel Lang (film debut Emily Bergle). Unlike Carrie White, she was not a downtrodden girl, oppressed by a fanatically religious mother, but in any case, Rachel’s childhood and adolescence cannot be called cloudless. At school, she has a friend who enthusiastically talks about her first sexual experience, and with a guy who is very popular in school. But in fact, she was fooled, and this, again, as it happens in the films Carrie & #39, leads to unpredictable, but rather sad consequences. Rachel decides to deal with what happened and at this time she wakes up unusual and destructive abilities, and then there is a romantic relationship. . .
The beginning of the film is really disappointing. Despite the fact that it was supposed at the creation as a conditional ' mokbuster', it is still impossible not to note that the starting segment 'Carrie 2: Fury' can actually be shocking. In this case, it can be seen without unnecessary effort, which was initially conceived not at all a sequel to the famous slasher, but as a completely independent story. But the introduction of Sue Snell's character, mentions and flashbacks affecting Carrie White led us to a different concept, but the seamless transition didn't work out. But, judging by the beginning of the tape, it could be really something worthwhile. But the subsequent events brought us back from our dreams with hopes for a hard and bumpy earth, where in the mode 'non-stop' thrash begins, which is so easily recognizable and not particularly attractive due to its cliche and lack of imagination in the production. Or maybe the directors 'Carrie 2: Fury' lacked the hidden talent that finally found Brian De Palma, who shot his first hit in 1976.
And yet directly send 'Carrie 2: Fury' to the landfill do not want. The film had an idea, there were some interesting twists, even the same plot does not belong to frankly ' rabid' writing. Trying to do something more or less worthwhile is noticeable. Again, as in the case of the first 'Carrie', the culmination was pitch chaos caused by the abilities of the main character, whose manipulations by outsiders break through endless anger. It’s like a school barrage, when you are unjustly offended and you are ready to literally tear up and destroy everything and everyone in a row. In the first 'Carrie' this motivational characteristic played by one hundred percent, but in the sequel it is perceived as cloning an already tried and justified technique. But I would like there to be an explosion of emotions, but these action scenes are based only on memories from the original and the dramatic play of actors who performed their work with care and the desire to prove their worth. Perhaps in the future, Emily Bergle and Jason London, who played Rachel’s beloved Jesse, could count on a good career, but somehow did not work out.
Given all the above, it should still be noted that 'Carrie 2: Fury' not such a decadent sequel, as it often happens. It has positive aspects and, in principle, there is no desire to turn away from dislike for the film while watching. But still nostalgic memories of the first ' Carrie' force to draw analogies with the second part, and the latter clearly loses.
5 out of 10
The film, which seemed to pass completely unnoticed and received very low marks, worthy of a remake of the Nightmare on Elm Street, looks in fact much more interesting and exciting. Yes, this is not even a film adaptation of King’s work, but something based on the continuation of the film adaptation of 1976, and therefore the film does not have many of those semantic frameworks that create an atmosphere and make the film serious, problematic, which were in the story. Yes, the frame of the plot is essentially a typical, stupid youth horror film, where at the forefront is who slept with whom more, up to direct comedy episodes, and the ideas of difficult socialization of a girl who grew up in unusual conditions, fade into the background. This vulgarization at the heart of its deep history could not benefit the film. Nevertheless, some scenes are filmed very carefully, and the repetition of the story, albeit another girl, cannot but cause empathy, the story of incomprehension, deception, ridicule seems to be trying to fight the vulgarity, youth of the plot frame. Where we see the girl and her experiences about her “gift”, the story takes on seriousness and significance, where a bed intrigue begins, the story sinks below the plate. The initial episode with the suicide of a deceived girl was filmed very exciting and atmospheric. Then some episodes exactly repeat the events of the film 1976, as if it is not a sequel, but a remake. The ending of the whole story is essentially the same, only its reasons are reduced again to the topic of counting bed glasses, and the ridicule of the main character looks very unconvincing, this does not happen. The film was made mainly for the final scene. Does it make sense to repeat what we saw in 1976? Yes, it was shot more rigidly and with all the physiological details. Fearful at this moment can only those people who are not used to the sight of blood in modern films, but there is no sense of horror from the supernatural events at all, as some exciting music plays. Yes, great, yes, it's nice to see that all the bastards got what, and such scenes Americans know how to shoot convincingly, and for this it was worth watching the film, but then what? When you realize that nothing is left of the tragedy of a rejected, poor girl who grew up in a family with a crazy mother, all the tickling of the nerves turns out to be a meaningless training of feelings. Especially since history is catchy, but it is doubly bitter when you realize that there is no meaning in it. And even the last scene, which takes place a year after the events described, is plagiarism from the 1963 film Horror, but it is really shot unexpectedly and frighteningly, not at all typical for a vulgar youth horror movie. It has a visual minimalism. In general, it's only worth watching to pronostalgize on the original story, and one can enjoy a more violent but less soulful final scene. Enjoy it!
A novel from the Charm series called Passionate Telekinesis
For "Carrie" (both Stephen King and Brian De Palma, that is, both the book itself and its first film adaptation) does not require a sequel. It's a whole story where the tragic ending (albeit leaving a small plot thread at the end as a possible sequel) is a bold point in the narrative. And after reading (as well as after watching De Palma's film), you think not about what "we should tell you what happened next," but about other, more important things. Unfortunately, the success of "Carrie" does not give rest: many years later, two remakes appeared. But before they did, someone thought they needed a second part.
And "Fury" came along. The production was taken up by Katt Shea, whose filmography for me personally is distinguished only by a good (that lies, even very good) “Poison Ivy”. However, the woman here does not change her directorial handwriting: a strange girl in the title role and a bunch of twenty-five-year-old teenagers in the extra plus an emphasis on the bed scene. There is no point in comparing it with King’s book: there is another story, although the common features are traced – bad mother, telekinesis, good and bad boys, resentment, revenge. Everything repeats itself. Only this is still mixed with the secrets of the past, a few flashbacks of the first “Carrie” (we understand that the sequel is not completely self-sufficient after all) and endless, terribly drawn-out scenes, which in the jargon of the writers are called “water”, that is, when in fact nothing good happens, except walking around the bush.
The plot to the very end is advanced only in imperceptible steps, there are no obvious turns. Our heroine suffers, then loves, then does nothing, then suffers again and is terribly surprised by her telekinesis abilities. In fact, the film seems to have come off the pages of a ladies’ novel with an admixture of mysticism (although there is no real mysticism here). An hour and forty minutes – like, say, two hundred and sixty pages of “combination” in the style of Daniela Steele or Bertrice Small (I don’t know who writes how, maybe we should cite a more non-professional writer as an example).
She, so simple, so homely, lives in a city where tragedy happened long ago. She can move objects, but that doesn't tell her anything. She doesn't believe the one who says, "Girl, you're unique," because "what nonsense, it doesn't happen, oh, leave me alone." He falls in love with her, such a perfect guy, they are brought together by a tragedy - the heroine's dog hit on the road. But his friends, typical American non-hooligans, are not as simple as it seems at first glance.
And so on. This sequel was not needed at all, it should not exist, it is like a major splinter in the universe of poor girl Carrie, like sweet sweet honey in a barrel of tar - the thing is that this barrel should be exactly tar! It's designed! No need to create stories where they do not belong. You do not need to parasitize on works that are deliberately tuned to psychologism and a deep dramatic component - there is neither this nor that here. It's just chewing the obvious. Boring, ladies and gentlemen.
You can't help comparing Rachel to Carrie. On the one hand, it is not necessary: two different heroines. Rachel repeats the fate of Carrie. Rachel is still identified with Carrie, as evidenced, for example, by the scene (which has been seen before and is not suitable here at all) with training on how to paint your lips correctly. Or the teenagers saying that Rachel is as inconspicuous as anyone could love her. Of course, she's like another Carrie, but there's one big, big BUT. Rachel is not a joke: she is just an ordinary girl who walks around quietly and nobody really touches her. She is not some strange pious mouse, so it was not necessary to give her telekinesis, able to save from offense and bitterness. Why make such references to the personality of Carrie?
Apparently Matt Shea didn't care about such subtle questions. I didn’t care how boring the movie would look. The finale looks ridiculous: I do not believe in the ongoing drama, which happened because of a stupid shameful incident, but exalted to hellish proportions. I do not believe that after the collapse of the ceiling, a depressed person will clearly say with clear eyes, with pure breath: “I am dying, go away, I love you!” This can only be in ladies' novels for overly impressionable housewives.
This movie disappointed me a lot (even though I didn’t expect anything from it). The eternal rule “sequels are worse than the originals” works one hundred percent. It seems that the glory of a successful project just decided again to earn a little more. The failure at the box office proved that the attempt was a waste.
When I found out that there was a sequel to Carrie, I was very surprised, because the first picture had a finished ending, which clearly did not assume that the story would continue. Although there are some hints of continuation in the book. And yet, it was very interesting what Catt Shea would show us.
And he showed us not a continuation, but rather a repetition of the story with Carrie. An interesting move, given the inserts from the first film and the presence of Sue (the heroine of the first part). In the plot, everything is quite simple, and at the same time interesting. I will only note that in this case the main character was not such a “right girl”, she was an ordinary child who did not stand out among peers. Yes, she was mocked, but certainly not bullied as the heroine of the first film.
Therefore, the emotional outburst, which led to bloody consequences, occurred more spontaneously than in Carrie. And here it is worth noting the arguments of Susan Snell that Rachel (the main character of the sequel) received hereditary ability to telekinesis. There was no reasoning about this in the first picture, but in the novel they were just given enough time. But the book clearly states that Carrie's father died before the baby was born, and Carrie 2 says that he is also Rachel's father. A discrepancy with the plots of the film and the book, which, in other words, should not pay much attention, since the picture is only a story based on the novel by Stephen King.
But the acting game does not stand out. Especially the main character, I just didn’t believe her. In the 1976 film, Sissy Spacek looked great. In this case, the actress playing the main character, looked very faded. And the other actors played very mediocre, as a result of which their characters did not look too memorable.
As for special effects, there is nothing to complain about. It really looked realistic. Especially pleased with the bloody scenes (remember that the film is still a genre of “horrors”).
In general, we have a good, but not necessarily, continuation of the first film, which tells a similar story, but in a slightly different entourage. I don’t regret the time spent watching it, even though the film didn’t really catch on. At least it was interesting.