Chloë Moretz - Cleavagy in Entertainment Weekly (July 2013) LQ

She's an interesting actress. I'm actually very interested to see how she will tackle this role. Her and Julianne Moore working together is also quite interesting. Looking forward to this flick!

 

Chloe's a great actress, but the problem I have with this is that Carrie is supposed to be an awkward ugly duckling type of girl, and Chloe is anything but. Will be interesting to see if she can pull this off.

Probably just end up being another in the long line of pointless, unnecessary remakes anyway.

 

just get to "kick ass 2" Chloe. that's what i want to see.

 

If only she should be ugly to get this cast that Kristen Stewart or Miley should win.

 

Wasn't there a very naked shower scene in the original? I wonder how true to it the remake will be?

 

3 words: Charlize Theron, and Monster! Monster (2003 film) won her the 2003 Academy Award for Best Actress, 2003 Golden Globe Award for Best Actress and the 2003 Screen Actors Guild Awards for Outstanding Lead Actress! :lets_do_it_wild:

 

Not a snowball's chance in hell. The good news for me is that my adopted love Judy Greer will be in it but otherwise this is going to be a colossal let-down. FYI, the original Carrie won two Oscars.

The opening scene of the original un-cut version of Carrie will forever live on in my memory for Nancy Allen's "performance". One of the best drive-in movies along with Porky's and Animal House. :thumbsup:

 

MQ/LQ

 

Those pictures don't look too promising for the film do they, the original was genuinely scary and still creeps me out. This looks like it will be sub The Craft, which I enjoyed but was more of a teen movie. Carrie for The Hunger Games/Twilight generation methinks.

 

Well to be fair those photos were not Set or Movie shoot pictures. They're done by Entertainment Weekly for the magazine.

 

well technically she could be naked in it, it's not illegal, as long as it is not sexual or porngraphific. she is not going to be, but she could be

 

moar!

 

Keira Knightley was topless in a film when she was seventeen. The film was rated as an eighteen. So she was able to show her tits in a film that she wasn't legally allowed to watch.

I found that very idiotic.

 

The movie was The Hole, a UK produced movie.
Keira Knightley was 15 when the scenes where shot and the movie was released when she was 16.
The US rating was "R" which means it was allowed for 17 years and up. To be a 18 years age it had to be NC-17.

Ratings in Europe is very different than in the US. In most EU countries to have a 18 years and over rating, the movie have to have "sexually performing genitals in full view" and "extreme bestial violence".

Keira Knightley woud have been allowed to see her own film with her nude from age 15 in some countries and from age 11 in other countries.
It is mostly the US that has these Puritan censures, even though the US produce more violent and sexually charged movies than any other country.

Ratings for The Hole worldwide; (much of these ratings are based more in scariness and violence than the nudity).

 

Thora Birch was 16 when she got them out in American Beauty. They needed her parents' permission and some child labor people on set.

 

Also Thora Birch, and Mena Suvari in American beauty.

 

It's not Puritan, it's called common decency. We prefer not to sexually exploit our children in the cinema if it can be avoided.

 

I really don't want to be an ass... But there it is: a typical pretentious sentence! I don't know every American. But sure are lot of pretentious "I know it best" of them around lately...

And also, you've realised the contradiction on that second phrase, didn't you? "(...) if it can be avoided"?!!

Please don't mix art with sexualy exploitation. There are plenty of both all over the world! Everyone has to be intelligent enough to distinguish them. Otherwise, "cover up your daughters guys because it's making everyone horny"!