Mike Flanagan’s new Carrie TV show is now drawing its first reviews, and the verdict is split between admiration and frustration. The eight-episode reimagining of Stephen King’s 1974 horror novel has been described by some critics as a fresh, modern take with strong performances and thoughtful themes, while others say it loses some of the fear and distinctiveness that made Carrie endure.
That divide is landing now because the series is finally in view, and the early reaction centers on whether a story this familiar can justify being expanded for television. Summer H. Howell plays Carrie White, the bullied high schooler who turns her telekinetic powers on the classmates who tormented her, giving the new version a face and force that critics are already weighing against King’s original book.
For supporters, the update is the point. Nate Richard said Flanagan has created a new take on Carrie White that, while imperfect, is highly addictive. Eric Diaz said Carrie succeeds in almost every way. Alexander Zalben went further, calling it something really special and exciting, and said the eight-episode series is bloody terrific, expertly directed and acted, and completely justifies its existence by recontextualizing the classic tale in a modern context. Katie Doll also treated the scale of the task itself as part of the achievement, saying that considering the magnitude of living up to this legacy, this is a win for Flanagan and King.
But the same expansion that earns praise also draws the sharpest criticism. Daniel Feinberg said it probably was not the adaptation of Carrie he wanted and argued that this version is less distinctive and far less scary than it should be. Chris Evangelista said Carrie simply does not lend itself to a TV approach and pointed out that King’s novel is one of his shortest, which means a series has to stretch the narrative out considerably. Maria Lattila warned that anyone expecting a faithful take on King’s story will be sorely disappointed, and Feinberg added that the new things this version does well do not make up for the old things that Carrie has always done well.
That is the central issue now: whether the television format deepens the material or dilutes it. Some critics see a topical, timely and tragic update that makes a case for why today’s generation could use it, while others hear more references, more subplots and less terror than the story needs. However much the responses differ, the first wave of reviews suggests Flanagan has done more than repeat Carrie for TV; he has turned the question of whether it belongs there into the story’s main test.
