Thursday, August 23, 2012


I'm a massive Chloe Moretz fangirl.  I have no shame in admitting that. Chloe Grace Moretz has been one of my favorite young actresses of the past few years.  When she was only fourteen years old, Chloë Grace Moretz (at the time) had 39 acting roles to her name and was recently voted the "Favorite Movie Star Under 25" over the four main castmates of the Harry Potter films at the People's Choice Awards. Moretz has taken on (and completely owned) a vast majority of roles and showed her acting chops each and every time, with a large amount of them taking place in our beloved genre.  She is highly respected for her decisions to play unconventional and challenging roles and even more so for portraying them with such prowess and elegance.  After much dismay over the announcement of the Carrie remake and Moretz as the star, I took it upon myself to write an analysis of Chloe Moretz as Carrie White.  It's an article I am very proud of and will hopefully be able to stand behind once the film is released.  Yesterday, the first images of Moretz were released as Carrie and the internet was thrown into an uproar about her appearance of being "too pretty". 

I'd kindly like to direct the naysayers to the photo on the left.  Audiences seem to forget that for a moment, Sissy Spacek looked remarkably beautiful.  It is true that for the rest of the film she appeared ridiculously greasy and tattered, but the prom scene showed Sissy Spacek in her natural element, as an ethereal goddess.  In the 1970s, this sort of look was idolized.  The long hair with middle part, natural makeup, tiny frame, and dewy skin made Spacek glow under the lights at the Bates Hotel prom and people seem to forget that.  Chloe Moretz is getting gussied up for the prom in 2012.  As someone who only graduated high school a mere 4 and a half years ago, take it from me when I say that Chloe looks rather plain for a modern prom.  Girls today spend about as much money on a dress as some do for their wedding gowns, spend hundreds of dollars on hair, nails, shoes, tans, makeup, and look as if they're about to walk the red carpet at the Oscars.  It's almost as if Toddlers and Tiaras grew up.  Newsflash people, it's not 1970 anymore, and this film is set in modern times.  Looking at this photo I can tell that Chloe isn't wearing any eyeliner and her hair looks as if she did it herself.  In today's modern era of CosmoGirl beauty standards...she looks incredibly out of place.  Exactly the way Carrie should look.

Julianne Moore on the other hand looks fantastic as Margaret White.  While she may not be donning the infamous frizzy 'do of Piper Laurie, she looks perfect for a modern religious nutjob momma.  Julianne Moore is one of the most beautiful actresses of our time (and seems to have stopped aging...) and she looks like she's been to Hell and back in this photo.  Good lord, the damage to the ends of her hair make me want to drench her in conditioner.  What frustrates me the most about this entire situation is that it seems that people are unable to fathom the concept that fashion styles and the standards of beauty have changed dramatically since the initial creation of Carrie.  While it will be impossible to invoke the initial sensation of the original film, I firmly believe that the casting choices have left director Kimberly Peirce with an opportunity to bottle lightning.  Kimberly Peirce has consistently provided audiences with quality films and I see this as no exception.  Hell, my biggest complaint is that Portia Doubleday is playing my main bitch, Chris Hargensen.  Nancy Allen's shoes are going to be the toughest to fill.

5 comment(s):

Spike Ghost said...

I couldn't put my finger on what i found weird on Julianne Moore's picture. Now i know, it's her hair! Nonetheless she looks amazing. For Chloe, i did think she looked too pretty but you opened my eyes about today's proms being way more glamorous than they were. Thank you for the article and your opinion :D

Spike Ghost said...

Though even though i am only 21 the last time i was "involved" in anything that has to do with a prom was in 2003 i think, when my sister bought her dress for hers. So i guess that can explain my ignorance at first.

Anonymous said...

Like most remakes, this one is completely unnecessary. Try doing an original story for a change.

jay said...

I think they could have chosen a better picture to share. It would have been great if they tried to display Carrie as creepy or lonely instead of putting blood on her and trying to live up to the original. I'm hopeful for the movie. If it actually is different from the Brian De Palma instead of trying to be like it, then it might be worth it. Let's face it, this movie isn't going to live up to the original. It needs to establish itself separate.'s the 1998 version of Psycho.

Unknown said...

Great analysis. I hope it's as good as it is starting to look. I liked the tv remake of Carrie, even though it has that bad made for TV flavor all over it.

Related Posts with Thumbnails