If you’ve been reading my reviews for awhile (well, at least for the year I’ve been doing them), then there are some things that you already know about me. You know, of course, of my love and passion for movies and writing. You know what little things in movies bother me a bit (trailers telling too much, movies with no discernible plot or thread, and in general, movies that, to quote the late great Gene Siskel "steal 2 hours from my life, that I’ll never get back. You also know that I’m a child of the 80s, and fan of the culture. Well, here’s another view into who I am, and what I like. I am a Stephen King fan. I began reading his books when I was about 13, and a friend turned me onto Cujo. Since then, I’ve read nearly everything he has cranked out, including my current reading selection "Bag of Bones". He was my inspiration to begin writing, showing me the magic of using words to paint a picture, mental and physical, and convey a powerful message to the reader. One of the things I have learned is that his books do not translate well from the page, to the screen. I have several theories as to why, that I can discuss at length, if you would like to ask, or discuss, email me. But basically, it boils down to the fact that the power of his stories, come from being able to look inside the characters mind, see what’s happening there and see the cause and effects of what transpires in the story. Whenever I see an incarnation of a King book into a movie, I cringe. Examples of failure are: the aforementioned Cujo, Firestarter, Maximum Overdrive, Christine, Thinner, the list could go on. There are exceptions to this rule though. The Shawshank Redemption, Stand By Me (both from the same book, Different Seasons, I’m not sure why Apt Pupil, from the same book, failed), and The Shining (your vision of the human condition will be greatly missed Mr. Kubrick, the theater will seem a bit darker without your presence). Another of the more successful translations, was actually the first.

In 1976, young Brian DePalma took King’s first novel, Carrie, a biting, and gruesome, satire on payback and the struggle to fit in, and made it into what was at the time, an underappreciated classic. As time as gone on, this film has been realized for the great vision that it is.

Now, after 23 years, someone has decided that the story isn’t over, and that there’s more to be told. Hence, we get Rage: Carrie2, a messy, horribly acted, carbon copy of the original.

The plot mirrors the first shamelessly. A young girl, Rachel, who is obviously different from the others, doesn’t quite fit in but wants to. She is separated at birth from her schizophrenic mother, and is raised by two people, whose relation we’re never told. She possesses the power of telekinesis, which only prevails when she’s angry, and now all that’s left for the movie to give us, is a reason for her to be. This comes in the form of the suicide of her best friend, after she becomes the conquest of a star football player (HI’s Bryan), who is a part of a "club" that score points, by scoring women. Stop me, if you’ve heard this before. One of them becomes enamored with Rachel, and thus now risks the scorn of his group for her. Yada yada yada. Any filmgoer with the IQ over a coffee table can see right through this paper-thin masquerade for a plot, and storyline. What made the original better, was that it was infused with emotion, comedy, power and life. This one comes across as a group of teenage eye candy, putting on a production of a known work, and not doing it very well. Someone gave director Katt Shea some pretty faces, some money for effects, and obviously a black and white camera that she felt the need to use. The result, is a mess. Bergl is the only thing that made this movie remotely watchable. Her early scenes of discovery, coping, then adapting to these changes and abilities were handled well by her. But ultimately, she too falls victim to this film’s campy, cardboard plague of mediocrity. There are wasted, and seemingly pointless storylines, such as the attempt to link the movie back to the original, using Amy Irving, the sole survivor of the first movie, as a connection. Her storyline is never really developed, or entertaining. She serves basically as the messenger of information, to explain how this is related to the first movie, and, supposedly, cope with the past, by stopping it this time. I’m guessing times must be lean around her household, if she agreed to do this, because she sleepwalks badly through this one.