Every so often I hear someone complain that we are getting a sequel we don’t need. I always find this to be an odd statement because really we don’t need any movie. They are simply made to entertain. They are all pointless and unneeded so they all become needed to be made from the standpoint of their creator. That being said, once in a while I come across a movie I watch and I realize I am being way to literal, and this is what they mean by we don’t need this movie.
That is not to say the movie was terrible. I can’t honestly say it was some flaming dumpster fire and nobody should ever watch it. The acting was good, the visuals were nice, the sound was good enough but could have used some better music I thought. I mean come on, it was the late 90’s and the movie cost you 21 million bucks to make and you couldn’t be me some good tunes? The movie was a flop by the way, grossing only 17 million on that 21 million budget and it isn’t hard to see why. have you seen Carrie (1976) ? If the answer is yes than you have essentially seen this one. The movie takes place 20 years after Carrie, yes it is a direct sequel. Sue is now the counselor at the new school that replaced the one Carrie torched. Rachel or telekinetic friend is the unknown half sister of Carrie ( same father) and the story goes like this.
Jocks are sleeping with girls at the school for points in a game they are playing, Rachel’s friend gets upset and takes a walk off the top of the school, Rachel and one of the Jocks fall for each other, jocks don’t like it, jocks target Rachel, Rachel goes ballistic at a house party and kills everyone and burns the place to cinders after they show a sex tape her and her boyfriend didn’t know the jocks made. The End. Seriously this is less a sequel to Carrie and more of a re-imagining or retelling. The movie isn’t exactly bad, it is just the same story, and isn’t done as well. Except the end scene where stuff dies, I am willing to debate that those 2 scenes are about equal in quality.
Savior Gaming 