1999; Rated R; 93 Minutes
Amy Irving: Sue Snell
Emily Bergl: Rachel
Jason London: Jesse
Dylan Bruno: Mark
J. Smith-Cameron: Barbara
Produced by Paul Monash and Patrick J. Palmer; Directed
by Katt Shea; Screenwritten by Rafael Moreu
by DAVID KEYES
Rage: Carrie 2" is a film where the makers seem to be just
as bored with the setup as we are. Its central plot borrows
endlessly from the formula of the original movie; girl has
secret powers, mother is wacko, girl gets picked on, girl
gets boyfriend, girl gets friends, girl gets pranked, girl
goes wacko. The major difference, however, is that in the
original film, director Brian DePalma knew how to create
a character we could sympathize with, and he knew how to
turn her into the villain when we least expect it. That
movie, you might say, happened with the right timing and
precision. Katt Shea, who directed the sequel, knows how
to modernize a style and mood, but has no passion or effort
when it comes to continuing a story like this, nor does
she allow the main character to be sympathizable. Things
occur here almost squarely as they did in the first, which
is for the most part distracting, repetitive, and unusable
at a time when horror is just a genre of tired clichés.
here's the real deal: "The Rage: Carrie 2" is not a bad
movie; just a misguided one. Parts of it work well on their
own terms, but others are ineffective and obvious. It's
about a girl named Rachel, who is laughed at behind her
back by snobbish teens who consider her appearance to be
"evil," or "satanic" (funny how they always consider these
people to be Satan worshipers when they wear complete black).
When she falls in love with a football player, the sex-crazed
varsity team decides to prank her during one of the team's
victory parties. They manipulate her into the trap, and
once it's revealed, she goes nutzoid and turns the party
into a blood bath. In other words, it's the original "Carrie"
minus the terror.
film opens with an intriguing scene involving the painting
of a red line across the living room of a candlelit house.
The woman who strokes the paint across walls and lamps continuously
repeats the same words while doing so: "don't take my daughter,"
she demands. The little girl she speaks of watches on in
confusion. Later that evening, that woman is wheeled out
of her house and into an asylum. The young girl sees this,
and then reenters the house, where doors slam behind her
with no contact, and windows slam up and down without warning.
She covers her ears and yells "stop it!" time and time again.
Afterwards, when she settles down with her dog in the closet,
we can tell that this is undoubtedly one of those 'gifted'
flash forward about ten or fifteen years. Rachel, the girl
from the first sequence, is full-grown and under authority
of careless foster parents. On her way to school, Rachel's
best friend confides in her that the night before, she lost
her virginity. Later we learn that the boy she lost her
virginity to is a football player who, along with the rest
of the football team, sleeps with girls merely to earn points
in a game they have created. Offscreen, the girl learns
that her sexual experience was simply a one-night stand,
and then commits suicide by jumping from the roof. Rachel
emerges from the school and finds her friend crushed on
the hood of a car. At one point, while the soundtrack deafens
the audience with an annoying chord, lockers and doors slam
together, symbolizing the mental abilities that Rachel girl
the events that surround her begin to go noticed by a school
counselor named Sue (Amy Irving). Sue is, of course, the
sole survivor of the original film, and so through a duration
of her screen time, she remembers the disturbing moments
that took place in the original film through effective flashbacks.
An administrator asks the Sue, "you're not helping Rachel
to try and save the girl who died twenty years ago, are
you?" She says no, but if you've seen the first film, you
obviously know she's lying.
the script offers two situations that carry out the climax.
For one, Rachel begins to grow close to the only non-sexually
driven football player, named Jesse (Jason London). On the
other hand, Sue investigates Rachel's past and learns from
her still-insane mother that her real father is Ralph White—
undoubtedly the same man who fathered legendary Carrie White.
Rachel is, of course, unaware of her father's true identity,
and even though Ms. Snell attempts to tell her of it during
a scene in which she discovers the remains of the old high
school which Carrie destroyed, the scenario is never explained
as well as it should be.
say that, yes, it's possible for telekinesis to be a hereditary
trait from the father. Does it only develop in his daughters,
or in his sons as well? What if he has 15 children? Do they
all have to have different mothers, or can the same child
develop the same traits as her sister with the same identical
parents? And if the father is capable of carrying this thing,
why does the movie leave an open door of what happened to
Ralph? Isn't it possible that he could be out there impregnating
another woman, who will star in "Carrie 3?" Does that mean
that this series will be continued in another twenty years?
both of those situations (Rachel's developing life and Sue's
discovery) find culmination in the film's final scene (naturally),
which is probably the first in horror history containing
(1) flying CDs, (2) castration with a spear gun, (3) glasses
shattering in a person's eyes, and (4) an death by an arrow
in the head for two people on opposite sides of a door.
Twenty years ago, if all of these things had been incorporated
into a horror movie, people would have covered their eyes,
screamed, or ran out of the theater feeling nauseous. Nowadays,
all it does is allow the audience to dim their eyes and
say to themselves, "it's not scary, but it's interesting."
pile upon situations and neither emerge effective or competent.
Sometimes, when a horror movie uses an exhaustive set of
clichés to maneuver the script through all the plot holes,
its necessary to burst out into laughter while in the theater,
because it gets so ridiculous its hilarious. "The Rage:
Carrie 2" never reaches that level of horrendousness, because
it has some intrigue around the edges. But the edges are
not what we pay attention to here. The internal conflict
never gets off the ground, is predictable, and for the most
part, dull. Still, I wouldn't label it an absolutely "bad"
movie. Maybe incompetent, but certainly not bad.
1999, David Keyes, Cinemaphile.org.
Please e-mail the author here
if the above review contains any spelling or grammar mistakes.