Carrie (2013) User Reviews

A Fair Adaptation

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 27 October 2014]

A reimagining of the classic horror tale about Carrie White (Chloe Grace Moretz), a shy girl outcast by her peers and sheltered by her deeply religious mother (Julianne Moore), who unleashes telekinetic terror on her small town after being pushed too far at her senior prom.

This film is criticized pretty harshly by audiences, especially horror fans. And for the most part, these criticisms are unfair. One minor problem with the film is the use of CGI when it was not necessary. And the major problem was remaking a classic. As it is impossible to improve on a classic, any attempt will be met with strong resistance.

But there are many strengths. First and foremost, Chloe Moretz, who is easily the best actress of her generation. Horror fans are lucky she has worked extensively in the genre, because her roles have brought much strength to otherwise average films. While perhaps not as awkward as Sissy Spacek, she handles the role well.

There are some aspects that are closer to the novel, including the more violent and intense climax, and the pregnancy subplot. This version has a more sympathetic Sue and Tommy as well as a more self-confident Carrie. These are different takes on characters that make an important, nuanced difference and allows for different interpretations. The updating of technology adds a different angle, too. This is its own movie in many respects.

Is the original better? Of course. It is a classic and directed by the legendary Brian DePalma. It probably should not have been tampered with (although it has been before). But if it had to be done, the people involved could have done much worse than this.

Unnecessary Remake

[zenstation13 · 5/10 · 20 October 2013]

This movie is hardly a scene-by-scene account of Brian De Palma brilliantly 'Carrie'. Yes, it impossible not to compare any remake to its original version, especially when the original is considered a classic. It is sad that with these days' shortage of originality, even a seemingly talented director such as Kimberly Peirce, succumbs to the commercial appeal of movie-making in the sole interest of monetary gain resulting in watered-down quality. Well, I'm not even sure if this movie will make its money back, given the mediocrity in all aspects of its quality. But then again, there are a lot of junks out there that make tons of money. All the efforts for the reimagining, whether it be an attempt to create a franchise or sequel or to modernize the narrative has totally undermined the essence of this otherwise compelling story. The destructiveness of social isolation, religious fanaticism, BULLYING, to name a few, underlined in Stephen King's novel were in no way conveyed effectively in this movie. There is a lack of connection in Moretz's performance and  she is unconvincing as a socially deprived and awkward girl. Julianna Moore as always delivers a competent performance.  But she can only carry the movie so far. As talented as Moretz is, she is a miscast for this movie.  As such, the movie is moderately entertaining at best.

The fourth telling of this story adds nothing new.

[The_Film_Cricket · 19 October 2013]

How well you respond to the new remake of "Carrie" may depend greatly on how your mind is associated with the material that inspired it. If this is your introduction to this enterprise, it may be kind to suggest that you check out Brian DePalma's original 1976 horror classic, or Stephen King's 1974 debut novel. That's where you get the true meat of the story. Kimberly Peirce's remake is glossy, pretty and professionally made, but it adds almost nothing new. It is violent and energetic, but it lacks the sustained melancholy creepiness that made the original so memorable. Peirce has the parts of the story in the right order but her film lacks a sense of tone and mood. She can play the notes, but not the music.

DePalma's film remains a permanent fixture of our popular culture because he understood that the foundation of Stephen King's best work comes from his ability to pry supernatural events out of a foundation of realism – i.e. the more realistic his environment, the scarier the magical stuff plays out. Plus, it had the added bonus of a previously unknown actress named Sissy Spacek in a brilliant performance that made her a star. Knowing that, it may be possible that no filmmaker could have revised this material. By this point there may not be anything new to explore. After the book, the 1976 movie, a 1999 sequel and a 2002 TV movie, we know this story so well that the narrative of a remake is more or less perfunctory. It becomes less a story and more of a checklist keywords: prom, dirty pillows, pig blood, tampons, prayer closet, telekinesis. The pieces are here, but there are very few surprises.

The story is one of alienation. We know that the world is populated with more young people like Carrie then than the prom queens who torment her, and with all the news stories lately about the horrors of bullying, this new film might have been a good chance to shed some light on the subject. Yet, there seems to have been no ambition to expand on the original idea. Pierce, who is openly gay, understands alienation first hand. She previously made "Boys Don't Cry," the story of Brandon Teena, a girl suffering a sexual identity crisis (for that film Hilary Swank got an Oscar for Best Actress). She also made "Stop-Loss" about a soldier who returns home from Iraq, but refuses to go back. Here, in her first big commercial film, she seems to have lost her creative edge. The movie is long on plot but very short on personality.

One of the biggest problems lies in the casting of Chloë Grace Moretz in the title role. She's so conventionally pretty that we have trouble believing that she could ever be a wallflower. This is a story about a girl who is so spaced away from the world that she might as well be invisible. She's trapped in a body that offers a telekinetic ability that she can neither control nor adequately explain. Moretz is not a bad actress, but she has such a strong screen presence that we don't feel her defenselessness.

The people around Carrie aren't people, so much as standard movie requirements. There's the snobbish queen bee (Portia Doubleday) who torments Carrie at school. There's her lunkhead boyfriend (Alex Russell) who acquires the pig blood. There's the nice guy (Ansel Elgort) who agrees to take Carrie to prom. There's the P.E. coach (Judy Greer) who defends Carrie against her tormentors. There's the principal (Barry Shabaka Henley) who is so petrified of a lawsuit that he can hardly speak. These characters aren't given personalities; they are just functions of the plot.

The one performance in the film that does work is Julianne Moore as Carrie's hyper-religious mother, Margaret. Moore does a nice job of playing a woman so encased in her own God-fearing paranoia that she shuts out a world that she feels pleasures itself at the altar of a fallen creation – which includes pretty much everyone. The worst of this vantage point she pushes on Carrie herself, locking her in a closet and declaring that her special power makes her a tool of the devil. The set designer has done a good job of creating Margaret and Carrie's home as a sponge-cleaned den of claustrophobia and blandness.

The scenes between Carrie and her mother are the best parts of this story because they reveal two broken personalities that eventually face off in a final conflict that seems to have been preordained from the moment that Carrie came into the world. The rest of the movie is pretty much a tired march through a story that's been told three times before. There are some nice touches. The prom scene is well made. Peirce allows Moretz to wave her arms during the final telekinetic fury as if she were conducting a symphony of terror and mayhem. Yet, it's a moment of originality so clever that you wish the rest of the movie had followed.

Is "Carrie" entertaining? Not really. If you know this story already, there's no real reason to see this one. It only goes to further the mystery of why remakes are even necessary. Why remake this movie beyond the attempt to cash in on a brand name? Why not remake movies that were bad? Make them better. 37 years after the Brian DePalma's masterwork, horror fans are still talking about it. This film is so forgettable that 37 years after this remake, horror fans may have to be reminded that it was ever made in the first place.

** (of four)

Tweaking

[kosmasp · 7/10 · 13 June 2014]

Some might remember this for it's viral marketing (putting a woman with powers into a café as a teaser to this was almost geniuses) or for the fact that it tried to recreate a classic horror movie. Whatever your point is or was coming into this, you will see a very solid horror movie that updated a classic and took it into the current time. There are themes explored here, that weren't touched upon in the original, which is a smooth move.

Other than that Moretz delivers one strong lead performance. If you know the original or have read the description you will know where this is heading. It won't spoil too much or take too much away from it though, because it is well directed. It might be too neat in places, but overall this does have punches and it's not afraid to deliver them. Overall not as good as the classic, but way better than one could expect it to be

Reminiscence The Camp

[billygoat1071 · 7/10 · 17 October 2013]

To be honest, the 1976 version of Carrie was only great for that period. It's not hard to see how the audience reacted to the film back in the days, but now it's nothing more than an entertaining campy relic. The only thing that many would still be amazed is its iconic prom scene. Another adaptation could be a great idea, especially for this generation when the context of the story has become more relevant. Unfortunately, it seems everyone behind this new version can't let go of the past and the ambition leans more on recapturing the best moments of the original. However, solid filmmaking and great cast makes the film watchable. It's almost like the same movie, but with people using modern technology and CGI death scenes. But the rest, it's difficult to know what else is the difference.

While fans will always defend the De Palma version, a remake is reasonable. Bullying has become a serious subject, and sometimes the bullied fights back ending up doing something worse. Those real life incidents resembles so much in this classic story, but the film wasn't so focused at that point until the end. Although we get to see more of Carrie being curious about her special abilities and Margaret's briefest backstories, which are interesting addition to the plot, that didn't make up enough to show its bigger picture. Again, the movie is more fond to its campiness. It at least gives a bit of satisfaction to those who crave for horror violence. The famous prom scene has found some inventive ways to kill its characters, despite of CGI.

The direction has its own style which works throughout. If there's anything else elevated, then that's most likely the performances. From the original, most of the cast (aside of Sissy Spacek) were probably too broad and sort of hammed it up. It's from the 70's, sure, but then we need a more credible and darker depiction of high school. Chloe Grace Moretz gives a genuine intimidation and eventual natural madness to the character. Julianne Moore is the improvement among. She manifests the pain beneath Margaret White's fanaticism, which is quite compelling.

The best advice to see Carrie is to not be familiar with the other adaptations, because the existence of those kind of affected the surprises, though I wished the film stepped forward more on its message to make it feel distinct than the camp that made this story such an icon. Overall, it's neither inferior nor superior compared to the original; it's all straightforward remake with modern time elements. Despite of being disappointing, Carrie is still an entertaining film. It's a great story anyway, and giving it a second look with a different vision might be alright. In the end, it's a needless re-adaptation than we thought it would be.

A decent enough, if unnecessary, horror remake

[Tweekums · 7/10 · 13 September 2020]

Carrie White is somewhat a loner; raised by a fanatical mother who believes just about everything is sinful and bullied at school. She hasn't been told about what it means to become a woman so when she has her first period, in the shower after gym class, she is terrified. The other girls mock her and one, Christine "Chris" Hargensen, even films her on a phone. This lead to Chris being suspended and being banned from attending the upcoming prom; she determines to have her revenge on Carrie. As well as becoming a woman Carrie starts to develop telekinetic powers. Another girl, feeling guilty, asks her boyfriend to take Carrie to the prom... when Chris puts her revenge into action Carrie's powers erupt in a deadly way.

The original 1976 film is rightly considered a horror classic; even those who have never seen it, or read the book, are likely to know what happens at Carrie's prom... which slightly lessens the impact of the scene in this film. Trying to judge this film on its own is difficult but I'll try. It starts well with the characters being introduced and developed and no real violence before the infamous prom scene. Chloë Grace Moretz is the right age for the role and her acting is impressive; unfortunately she doesn't feel as vulnerable as Sissy Spacek did in the original. Julianne Moore is suitably disturbing as Carrie's overbearing mother and the rest of the cast are solid enough. The special effects are pretty good and there are some impressive shocks. Overall I don't think this remake was needed but it turned out better than I expected... certainly worth the 50p I paid for the DVD.

Remake Rather Than Reimaging...But Still GOOD!

[ThomEure · 8/10 · 20 October 2013]

I have been eagerly awaiting this movie since I heard of the casting of Chloe Grace Moretz. I could totally picture her portraying the character in the style and feel created by Sissy Spacek and followed up by Angela Bettis (2002 TV movie). I knew she would be a worthy successor after seeing the film Let Me In. I was, however, skeptical of the casting of Julianne Moore as the religious fanatic mother of Carrie, Margaret White.

After seeing the film twice this weekend, Julianne Moore turned out a creepy performance that should definitely garner her an Academy Award nod. Her portrayal of Margaret White was an emotional witches brew of fanaticism, insanity, and maternal instinct. For me, it was an unexpected treat.

As for Carrie, Chloe Grace Moretz did a fine job. She had big shoes to fill, and her performance does not top that of Sissy Spacek. However, she does hold her own. In all three versions of Carrie, each actress has portrayed Carrie in a different way. Each excelling in making the role their own while maintaining the artistic concept of Carrie herself. Chloe did deliver a chilling performance during the scenes where Carrie is exacting her revenge.

As for the movie itself, I would describe it as a remake of the 1976 film sprinkled with some additional elements from the Stephen King novel. It was very well made, and the modernization is appropriate without being too obvious of the change in times, i.e cell phones, the Internet, etc.

In closing, Carrie is an extremely competent attempt at remaking a classic. As I say with all remakes, you have to go into it with an open mind and not with the mind set of comparing it to the original. If you do that, you will find Carrie is a good movie.

Not the 1976 original still a good well done modern reboot.

[blanbrn · 7/10 · 26 October 2021]

Watched the 76 original "Carrie" and I liked it with Sissy as the tale was good with a teen girl that was picked on, well finally watched the 2013 remake and it was good and well done for modern standards and I like the style and theme that mixed a sexy and religion like feel together. Same plot Carrie(good work from Chloe Grace Moretz) is a shy teen girl who's not in the click and she can not escape the hands of her overprotective bible freak mom(Julianne Moore). At school the in girl crowd of cheerleaders and sexy girls torment her(wow the shower scene with blood and soap, plus I liked the eye candy of seeing the sexy wicked girls wearing those sexy colored bras, it was a mix of pink, red, blue, and multi colored bras!). Carrie has special and evil powers though as her telekinetic force like ways help her after taking a blood shower at the prom. Not the classic still if you like horror and liked the original then you will like and enjoy the 2013 "Carrie" remake.

Imperfect, yet solid..ehem..remake

[kshirad · 22 November 2013]

Remakes are often trashed by viewers, occasionally who have seen the older version. This one, i have to say, was pure entertainment. To be frank, there's nothing bad in this movie. But, i didn't say it's not flawed. I was just expecting another horror flick with jump scares and blood spewing all over the place. One minute into the movie, i was rather surprised.

The story is about an innocent teenage girl named Carrie (Chloë Grace Moretz), whom has a mentally abusive mother (Julianne Moore). Her life was very miserable. She got bullied at school and her neighborhood condemn her as being a freak. Until, she found out that she has a telekinetic power that could control every single thing. But, she doesn't know how far her power could go and do to the people who pushes her. All is well until one night that changed it all.

The movie is a remake of the 1976 version. I am glad to say that it was never boring. I was pinned down to the seat and saw the whole thing, especially the climax which i won't spoil any of it.

Julianne Moore, wow! I can't say a word about her performance here. She brought the hell out of her and made me witness her craziness. It was all very freaky and horrifying. Chloë Grace Moretz played the role as Carrie convincingly and made me feel about her character. All of the cast were well-acted.

Though, there's just a minor thing i would criticize.

The CGI wasn't all that spectacular. Sometimes we could see that it's not real. And the pacing was a bit off. Yet, i'd have to say it was well-executed and the effect was pretty gruesome at times.

Conclusion: Very solid remake and recommended for people who loves to be scared, and believe me, you WILL know her name.

Decent attempt

[tb7682 · 7/10 · 28 October 2013]

My husband, mother, and I decided to see Carrie this weekend to put us in the Halloween spirit. Carrie is a remake from the original late 1970's movie. I can't say that I remember much of the original Carrie so I won't have much to compare it with. However, this movie is pretty good. It follows the same story line as the original movie just adapted to our lifestyle today. The special effects are obviously way better than the original with the more advanced technology we have today. The actors were great as well. There were many of them that I have not heard of before but they played their characters well. The most impressive was Chloe Grace Moretz. She looked and acted exactly like an awkward teenage girl that had no clue how to fit in. My mother said that it was good but wasn't as good as the original. I believe this will be a common complaint for those that were alive when the original came out. Overall, it was a decent attempt at a classic.

Just watch the original instead...

[radulovicka · 4/10 · 6 January 2014]

Disclaimer: this movie can prove to be "scarrie" for those who are not a fan of the horror genre in general. For those of us who are, at least for me, this movie was everything but scary. First of all, when I heard that Chloe Moretz will be taking the role of Carrie, I was afraid that she might not be able to pull it off. In fact, the only thing I was pleased to hear was that Julianne Moore will be playing Carrie's mother. She is a great choice for the role but the way she handled it, as well as everything else about this movie is - over the top. I could sense the idea of wanting to make a good remake of a classic, but in the end they just missed it... Chloe Moretz is a very good, promising young actress, I don't even wanna talk about acting abilities of Julianne Moore, but they just didn't seem real here. What makes the original Carrie truly disturbing is that it's really slow paced. In its essence, it's a drama about a teenage girl that is being deprived of an ordinary teenage life and experiences that come with it due to her fanatically religious and psychologically extremely questionable mother, to put it lightly. And yes, the plot is pretty much the same and everything, but the general feel is that they rushed it. As I said, everything is over the top, the acting is exaggerated, the relationships between the characters are unconvincing, but it's biggest flaw is that you KNOW what's coming. You have Carrie doing her telekinesis stunts from the very beginning. It's almost as if she was practicing this skill from waaaaaay back, making pencils float around the room, flying the bread over to the toaster - you know, the usual stuff. So when the real thing was supposed to happen, the x was out of the equation making it quite frustrating to watch. It seems to me that, to make a remake of such a classic film you need to put so much thought and effort into every little detail to make it at least convincing enough, if you're not aiming to top the original. This movie seemed like someone got the idea "hey let's make a remake of some classic horror movie... hmmm... which one should we pick... the Exorcist? no, that's to heavy. hey, how about Carrie? Sure! it has a young girl as a lead, we sure have plenty of those, and there's a mother - oh, no, don't tell me? are you thinking what I'm thinking? JULIANNE freakin' MOORE!" And off they went with their brilliant idea and messed it all up. It was to hasty, it was thoughtless, unconvincing and at the end all I could to was to pick the flaws as I was comparing it to the original. I could go on and on about which aspects of the movie I disliked the most, instead I'll just give it a 4/10 and never watch it again. The 2013 version, at least.

This Was actually pretty damn good

[Jacobhemphill96 · 8/10 · 3 November 2013]

As a fan of the book and the original 1976 film my expectations for this were mixed. But just yesterday I saw this with two friends and loved every minute of it. It is very faithful to the original source material with a few modern takes on the story. There was also a bit more blood . Chloe grace moretz is not my first choice to play carrie but from what I saw she did very well. You feel for her and feel the pain she's going Through and understand why she does what she does in the end. Julianne Moore did especially well as the crazy religious bitch mother. The original was a little silly and over the top but Moore plays it so well it feels like I'm watching it for the first time. The prom scene is straight up awesome and has some very intense death scenes . Overall the film is very good And I highly recommend it.

A girl has secret amazing powers to move things with her mind , but a terrible trap is being laid for her, and making her angry could prove to be deadly.

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 6 September 2018]

Carrie White (Chloë Grace Moretz) is a shy , withdrawn and unpopular 17 year old who doesn't make friends easily and is slowly pushed to the edge of insanity by frequent bullying from both her classmate. Carrie is really harassed by her demented, Christian-fundamentalist fanatic mother, Margaret (Julianne Moore) . Being relentlessly overprotected by the religious fanatic mummy and mocked by the in-crowd . Finally , she is asked and invited to the high school Prom by a good-looking boy . After her classmates teased her about her horrified reaction to her unexpected first period, one of them , Sue Snell(Gabriele Wilde) takes pity on her and gets Tommy Ross (Ansel Elgort) , her boyfriend and class hunk to invite Carrie to the senior Prom . Meantime, another girl who has been banned from the prom for her continued aggressive behavior is not as forgiving and plans a prank to embarrass Carrie in front of the whole school . At first, she believes her life is on the up with help from Tommy, but when the happiest moment of Carrie unleashes a horrific vendetta . What they don't realise is that Carrie has telekinesis powers and she carries out a merciless vengeance in which get they deserve .

Thunderously overwhrought pile of Grand Guignol horror film and full of guts , gore , and bloodstained mayhem . The plot is well known , plain and simple: a girl with with considerable skills , realizing she's been made the butt of a nasty joke and she then executes a bloody revenge , ensuing a blood feast . It stars Chloë Grace Moretz who gives anguished as well as sensitive acting similar to Sissy Spacek . She plays a timid girl whose upbringing sheltered has in no way prepared her to deal with the supernatural gift of telekinesis .Displaying her considerable telekinesis talents when her life is ruined by bullies who play a cruel and humiliating prank on her. This is the first screen adaptation where Carrie is played by an actual teenager. Chloë Grace Moretz was 15 during filming, whereas Sissy Spacek and Angela Bettis, who played the role in Carrie (1976) and Carrie (2002) respectively, were 26 and 28 when they played Carrie . Julianne Moore is decent as the religious fanatic , her own domineering, religious mother . They are accompanied by a good support with plenty of young talents such as : Gabriella Wilde , Portia Doubleday , Zoë Belkin , Karissa Strain and Ansel Elgort . As well as veteran actors as Judy Greer as Gym teacher and Barry Shabaka Henley as Principal Morton . The motion picture was professionally directed by Kimberly Peirce , but with no originality , being merely a copy from original movie . Pennsylvania-born Kimberly is a director and writer, known for Boys Don't Cry (1999), Stop-loss (2008) and Carrie (2013). She is a longtime friend of Brian De Palma, original director of 1976's Carrie (1976) which she remade in 2013. She directed two actors in Oscar nominated performances: Hilary Swank and Chloë Sevigny. Swank won the award for Boys Don't Cry (1999).

Other versions about this famous story based on Stephen King novel are the following ones : The classic and the best , including one of the great shocks of cinema by Brian De Palma , 1976, with Sissy Spacek , Piper Laurie , John Travolta , William Katt , Amy Irving , Nancy Allen , P.J. Soles , Betty Buckley , Sydney Lassick . 1999 The rage: Carrie 2 by Katt Shea, Robert Mandel with Emily Bergl , Jason London , Dylan Bruno , John Doe , Rachel Blanchard , Gordon Clapp . Carrie 2002 by David Carson with Angela Bettis as Carietta 'Carrie' White , Patricia Clarkson as Margaret White , Rena Sofer , Kandyse McClure as Sue Snell , and Emilie de Ravin .

Carrie's New Power, Sloppy CGI

[chow913 · 6/10 · 20 September 2015]

IMDb calls this a "reimagining" (no such word in dictionary) instead of a "remake." That's just plain silly.

IMDb also credits Stephen King as the author of the original novel which the actual film credits DO NOT!

Actually this is more of a retelling of the classic 1976 'Carrie' scene for scene line for line. "They're all going to laugh at you!" Begging the question why do we need a SIXTH (by my count) remake of a film which is already beloved?

Because, Carrie needs to unleash her new supernatural power, really sloppy CGI! Worst of all they mix in real fire with bad CGI Playstation fire which of course only highlights how fake the CGI looks! Come on guys. Cavemen had fire. You don't need to CGI it!

As negative as I'm being I actually did enjoy this film much more than I expected simply because it stayed about 95% true to the original. That's right, they actually recognized what a great screenplay the original was and stuck with it.

The remake also corrects the major major problem which I and many fans had with the original, the slow as sxxx pacing! It was dragged out way to long. The remake gets to the point a whole lot faster. For example, Carrie crashes the boy's bike about 20 minutes in in the remake. While the original took an hour and a half to get there.

The 5% change in the screenplay is mostly for the better and some things are spelled out more clearly. For example, the bully Sue Snell clearly does feel remorse for her actions in the beginning and clearly tries to save Carrie from the pig's blood in the climax while in the original it's implied that she set Carrie up to go to the prom with her boyfriend so she'd be voted prom queen and could be targeted with pig's blood.

There is also a further explanation for why they chose pig's blood and not paint or manure. In the remake a cell phone video of Carrie's opening menstruation scene is shown on a big screen TV during the climax, hence the blood connection.

The screenplay changes for the worse are really the rest of the climax. I cannot imagine the climax in the original going any better. I loved the way the doors just open for her and then close behind her locking EVERYONE to burn to death as the deserve to for laughing at her covered in pig's blood.

The remake goes overboard on CGI and silly levitation shots. Worse yet, there are survivors! There are fire trucks and ambulances and we see people being treated for injuries including Ms. Desjarin the gym teacher! WTF? The original was so much better! No one was able to call emergency services because everyone died!

The second biggest problem to the FX or rather lack there of is the casting of Chloe Grace Mortez. Not that she's a bad actress, but she's the prettiest girl in school and she's being bullied? Come on! Sissy Spacek was great at portraying Carrie as the ultra nerdy shy girl whom would be bullied. We're supposed to pity Carrie, but it's hard to pity the prettiest girl in school. The remake could have easily solved this by casting an overweight or simply unattractive actress. But no, Hollywood couldn't do that.

So all in all this REMAKE is worth a watch as it corrects the major pacing problem of the original and the production quality is strong except for the shoddy FX.

Also good to see a cameo by Hart Bochner playing a slime ball the way only he can.

Best of all, NO JOHN TRAVOLTA! That's a major improvement.

"Carrie" was a movie, that I don't know if I liked it or not..

[funnycommentor · 6/10 · 4 August 2022]

The plot of the movie was kinda interesting, but when I first read the plot, I thought it was a fantasy movie. Eventually, it was a horror-fantasy movie. It wasn't scary and there weren't any jumpscares. But, it was very bloody and there were too many kills. By the way, the kills was the best part of the movie. The storyline was just okay, nothing wow. The characters were too many, but only the 2 main characters were well-developed (Carrie and her mother). It was a very emotionally intense movie, the bullying scenes were very upsetting and it was kinda emotional (especially, the ending scene). Overall, it was a kinda slow paced movie, only the last 20 minutes were super intense. The ending scene was unexpected and it was very sad.. I don't know if that movie was better than the original, because I haven't watched the original. In my opinion, it was just an average film.

Not Bad, But Could Have Been Better

[citruspanda · 6/10 · 21 June 2016]

When I first read a Stephen King novel, which was a couple of years ago, I realized that with an author like King it has to be very difficult to capture his imagination on film. The novel wasn't Carrie, it was the Tommyknockers, but the idea still applies. In 1976, when the original film came out, that was about as close to the original novel that anyone was going to get, and Brian De Palma did a magnificent job turning an amazing novel into an amazing film. But can that be repeated?

The answer is, unfortunately, no. Carrie (2013), while not quite living up to the original, is still a decent movie on its own, and would likely have seemed better had it not been faced with its predecessors. The 1976 film was opposed the same way, but with less pressure. When Stephen King released Carrie in 1974, he was still a new and up-and-coming author. The original film was held to a less strict standard than this recent remake. But let's talk about the movie by itself. It was good. Yep. However, that's pretty much all that comes to my mind. Not horrible, not so egregiously poorly made that I never want to even hear the name of the movie again, like some people seem to think. But also not amazing. Not so amazingly outstanding that it is my first choice any time my friends and I have a movie night. But it is, invariably, good.

First, I'll talk about the good parts of the movie. The acting was great, really quite good, but only with the two main characters. Chloe Grace Moretz is a and outstanding actress, and the same goes for Julianne Moore. Two outstanding actresses in two very difficult and complex roles. The supporting actors/actresses did an OK job as well, but nothing outstanding. Next comes the story and plot line. As to be expected, the story is quite decent. But you can't really go wrong when the mastermind behind it is Stephen King. However, even though the story is already existent, it can still be difficult to execute it well, and this is the case here. The movie starts out interesting, and compelling for sure, and the ending is very well done. But the fact is, the middle section was fairly boring, and you will probably find yourself rather tired of the movie and looking at the clock to see what time it is. There is only so long the characters of Carrie and her mother can carry the movie. I say this because Julianne Moore and Chloe Grace Moretz did such an amazing job with their roles, and that can't really be said for everyone. Right there is where the movie takes a fall. Acting is one of the most necessary things in a movie, and Carrie just can't quite deliver on that front. And honestly, that's one of the only bad things about the movie. However, without good acting, a movie can take a serious hit, and that is what happened here.

But despite this, the ending result was a rather average movie with varying levels of interest. You are brought to sympathize toward Carrie, and it really is a heart-wrenching story. The realness of Carrie's surroundings is something we can all feel, and most people know what it feels like to be left out and ostracized; it is a fear we all have. Because of this, I give Carrie a 6/10. If I were you, I would rent the movie to make sure you like it before you put forth any money for it. But hey, that's just me.

Carrie on

[Prismark10 · 4/10 · 30 October 2018]

This remake of Carrie lacks Brian de Palma's distinctive visual style. It also adds little that is new to the 1976 original.

Carrie White (Chloë Grace Moretz) has been raised by her over zealot religious mother Margaret (Julianne Moore.) She is socially awkward and has little idea how her body works such as menstruation.

At high school the shy and reserved Carrie faces bullying when she has her first period. Carrie also realises that she has telekinetic powers and tries to harness her powers.

One of the high school girl's wants to make amends for her bullying by getting her boyfriend to take Carrie out to the school prom. Another bully though plans to take revenge.

Moretz lacks the awkwardness and weirdness of Sissy Spacek.

Seriously not bad!!

[dilloncamp · 7/10 · 20 March 2021]

Compared to the original this "remake" is actually pretty damn good.

Very dark and very tense. You really get a feel of why Carrie is the way she is.

Also seeing Carrie have actually knowledge and sympathy towards those who showed her compassion was a nice turn from the original. Instead of her blindly killing everyone in her path no matter what they have done for her.

Julian Moore plays Carrie's extremely protective and religiously insane mother exceptionally, and Chloe plays a great Carrie, both really making you feel for each of the characters while being equally terrified of both.

A very worthy remake.

[Big_D_Box_Office_Score · 8/10 · 18 October 2013]

We should all know the rundown by now...Carrie is the remake of the 1976 cult classic flick by the same name, which was based on the famous Stephen King novel. In the '76 movie, Sissy Spacek plays the outcast teen-aged girl, abused by her classmates in school and by her mother at home, until she discovers her psychic powers...then all hell breaks loose. It's a classic revenge tale, and the original movie was good enough to earn Spacek an Oscar. Know this: the 2013 version isn't a direct remake of the '76 movie. While it does feel like a loving homage to the older flick, it actually stays closer to the book in terms of plot, with some modern touches perfectly sprinkled in, allowing Carrie White to feel right at home in 2013. Now know this: This movie is good. Very good. Julianne Moore takes us to a very creepy place as Margaret White, and Chloë Grace Moretz SHINES as Carrie, proving that she's got more up her acting sleeves than Hit-Girl. By the time you get to the end of this movie, even though you know damn well what's going to happen...you WANT the prom to go smoothly. You WANT Carrie to be happy, and you HOPE that none of those terrible things actually happen. You're in Carrie's corner the whole way. And when revenge time comes along, it's done with a purpose. Special effects get dabbed in here and there, but never overdone. (Slo-mo makes one scene sooo much more deliciously satisfying...) Although I'll say that it feels like there may have been a scene or two that didn't make the final edit, and you can really tell where that scene was...a bit sloppy on that editing there... Carrie does the source material justice. Welcome to our generation, Ms. Carrie White. 4 out of 5 on the BDBOS.

Did we need this?

[dinokiller-70950 · 6/10 · 25 June 2022]

The remake was good but not really needed. The original was more then good enough. The biggest problem I had was with the casting. Chloë Grace Moretz is a fantastic actor. And even as Carrie she is strong and shines as bright as ever but Carrie is described by Stephen King as somewhat overweight, a bit ugly with pimples on her back, buttocks and face. As good of an actor as she is she is not able to be ugly.

Awful

[MikeWright75 · 1/10 · 16 January 2014]

This remake was very disappointing, and highlights how you cannot mend something that isn't broken. The original movie was fast paced, character orientated with a style and mood unique to that movie. It managed to capture Carrie's isolation, her fear and shyness, her tentative reaching out for normality. This was a fiasco of poorly paced, poorly characterised, vacuous and grossly miscast mish mash of baloney.

For starters, the casting was dire. We have Carrie, a beautiful pouting nubile girl who no red blooded male in his right mind is going avoid like the plague. Her mother, slightly loopy but not enough to make us fear for Carrie's life. The evil Chris, who has about as much character and charisma as a plate of cold fries.... need I go on? Each character was just a pale ghost of the original, and nurtured not one ounce of sympathy or connection from the viewer.

The final denouement, which had a hell of a lot to live up to, was disappointing in the extreme and barely worth watching. I felt cheated after seeing this movie. But I can only blame myself for even going there. The original is a masterpiece of film making - a classic that cannot be bettered. Leave it alone.

Better than expected.

[billbeast · 7/10 · 1 December 2013]

I must admit that after watching the trailer for the movie, I was very disappointed. The movie didn't look good, but as Australia gets very little horror in cinemas I go and see every release from the genre.

I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed the movie. Traditionally, nothing much happens until right at the very end but Kimberly Peirce manages to keep you entertained and enthralled in the story and gets you ready for the explosive climax.

The climax is definitely the best part of the movie, and it's much more violent than I expected and I loved it. Death scenes were great, and I feel that Carrie really redeems herself in the last scene.

The acting was great. Julianne Moore is terrific as the overly religious Margaret White and plays her with a terrifying amount of believability. Chloe Moretz was good as Carrie, but I really do feel like she is too pretty for the role. If they had made her look more average before the prom it would've been nice. Judy Greer was great as sympathetic P.E teacher that seems to be Carrie's only friend and I would've liked to have seen that relationship explored a little more.

Im not a huge fan of the original film, and I think this remake is one of the better ones from the last few years. It doesn't overload with violence like many others and it's got just the right amount of gloss that I think older audience will be able to enjoy it too.

Buffy goes to the prom.....

[Dolomede · 2/10 · 8 July 2014]

No, it doesn't work. Sissy Space managed to portray a genuine isolated outsider, she acted and looked like one. Chloe Grace works the other way, she looks like one of the regular girls trying to be an outsider. This makes her metamorphosis into a beautiful young woman for the prom scene have considerably less impact than Spacek's. You could see Tommy actually taking this girl to the prom.

The prom scene itself is now X-Men meet Buffy - beautiful girls being hurled around telekinetically; multiple angle replays of cascading blood; selective slaughter. The Spacek version showed someone driven beyond self control by events, whose hidden powers were working at the level of the Id so all present suffered. This Carrie makes judgement calls in the middle of her carnage and although a nastier film graphically, this is an example of the PC hovering on the fringes of the film throughout. Finally, the last five seconds of the remake are a total anticlimax. They should have had the courage to revisit the image that made entire cinemas scream back in '76. It confirms what a disappointing effort this really is.

pointless remake

[trashgang · 6/10 · 1 November 2013]

Halloween night 2013, a night to go to the movies to watch some previews of new horror flicks. After the wonderful remake this year of classics like Evil Dead and Maniac it was time for Carrie. The old one did had his scary moments but attending a lot of teens in the cinema I was already concerned and after watching Carrie I was right. This wasn't that good after all.

What annoyed me the most were two things, first of all the faults in editing. You know the shots cation reaction. There were so many mistakes to see in the expression of faces that I even thought that Carrie was involved doing those things but I guess they didn't had enough time to edit because at the end the mother has knifes and scissors in her body which are being removed by Carrie but suddenly when picking up the body of the mother they are back. But there is more, when Carrie is being stabbed in the back she falls down the stairs and when laying on the ground there's no blood or stabbing sign on her back, next shot she's bleeding. And I can go on and on, Carrie in the shower appearing to be naked having her periods when laying in the floor you can easily spot her underwear. Not a good sign all those mistakes. Secondly at one moment it was more about the prom night in stead of Carrie herself. To be honest, it had a teenage feeling and was clearly made for twelve year old to enter this flick (which shows at the theater).

Was it all that bad, not at all, the most important moments from the classic were in the remake, Carrie having her periods, Carrie at the proms with the blood and the attack of the mother with knifes and scissors. But for a horror it was rather lame. I did like the acting presence of Julianne Moore (Margaret White), but Chloe surely didn't look like Sissy Spacek, back the Carrie had some creepiness over her, here when Carrie is doing her supernatural stuff it looked like some wizard from The Hobbit. It didn't work out and it was even a bit exaggerated sometimes on parts she moves things and people. The only enjoyable part was with the car at the end, the way they got injured and done in slo-mo did work but overall it lacked a bit of horror. A pointless remake that I will forget rather quickly.

Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 2/5 Story 2,5/5 Comedy 0/5

A portrait of Western high school society instead of a straight splatter movie

[kluseba · 8/10 · 23 October 2013]

"Carrie" is based on a popular Steven King novel and has already been brought to the cinemas of this world in the seventies. This new version is a refreshing revamp and the topic is maybe more actual than ever before.

Students are more and more living in a world where their parents get divorced and only care about their careers. Young students get in contact with alcohol, drugs and sex at very young age and have nothing left to discover. Hypersexualisation is omnipresent in all medias where artificial American pop stars and models have replaced authentic and honourable idols. Young people struggle to accept authorities at home, at school and even in situations of their everyday lives. It's hard for them to face confusion and frustration and instead of being mature enough to criticize themselves and their families, they project their bad feelings on other relatives, teachers and class mates. The main targets are shy and somewhat different people at school which they only see as weird outcasts. I guess we all have seen or heard of students who refused to go to school because they were going through hell there or who even went as far to take their own precious lives. While Eastern societies have kept some respect for authorities, the so-called democratic and free Western world has led to a system where everybody is criticizing everything and having an opinion about anything. People often feel the need to become monsters themselves to face the monsters around them. This fast paced, individual, material world is no good place for those who try to be different. Carrie is a symbol for all those who are suffering at such a young age and her final revenge is a symbol for the growing fear, hatred and pain that those young people feel inside and can't catalyse. In every school in every town in the Western world, we have a few potential Carries walking around like time-bombs. School shootings and suicide rates among students show us where the worst places.

This movie manages to stay close to the original novel. At the same time, the events are playing in the present and a few necessary details have been added. Carrie is not only bullied at school. She is also bullied in social media when the antagonists upload movies of her on Youtube. Social media are hard to control and have become an anonymous place where anybody feels free to spread news about other people.

Apart of her struggles at school, she has to deal with an extremely religious and severe mother. In the opening moments, you see how the mother thinks about killing her newborn child with a knife. This scene really touched me. Religious fanaticism is another big problem in our societies. People think their religion is the only one that counts and they go very far to spread this message in sometimes very ignorant and violent ways. There is no problem at all with being religious but with hating and judging people who think differently.

Carrie's situation at home is not only connected to religious fanaticism but also to another problem in modern society. I'm talking about nuclear families with divorced parents, single parents, parents with new partners and so on. These days, people are having their first sexual experiences at a very young age and a lot of women get pregnant or even married before finishing their studies or having a stable job. These young parents always got everything and want to get everything no matter what. They want to have the perfect husband, they want to have many healthy children, they want to have a big house, a big television, a big car and the newest electronic devices, they want to have a job where there is not much to do but where they can get a lot of money, they want to go on vacation at least twice a year to escape from reality and so on. And while they are trying to get everything at the same time, their illusions are shattered and those who suffer are their own children who are growing up in a big mess. Carrie is growing up without a father and only hears bad things about him as she is completely controlled by her mother.

This movie tells us the progressive downfall of a young and beautiful girl who just tries to be normal and get new friends. She tries really hard to do so and is very mature and a few people really care for her in a good way like the gym teacher or another girl from the water ball team at school. But if you get so much hate from everybody around you day by day as Carrie gets, you start to meet everybody with anger, ignorance and suspicion. You won't let the few ones who try to help you get close to you because you don't want to get hurt again and everybody soon becomes a potential enemy.

"Carrie" is a suspenseful drama and only becomes a horror movie once more than one hour has passed. What follows is a tale of emotional destruction of the world around Carrie and finally of herself. Most viewers empathize and sympathize with her but once people get out of the cinemas, they close their eyes and ignore the Carries in the real world. The final scene shows us that even a bloody massacre with hundreds of victims doesn't change a thing at all. Some people sprayed ugly graffiti on Carrie's grave telling her to go to hell. The bullying of that poor child even continues after her death.

If you care about thoughtful dramas and psychological suspense movies with strong character developments and good actors, this film is for you. Those who expect an atmospheric horror film or a splatter movie should look elsewhere.