IMDb > Carrie (2013) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Carrie
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Carrie More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 35:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 350 reviews in total 

239 out of 352 people found the following review useful:

The epitome of pointless movie remakes.

Author: GoneWithTheTwins from www.GoneWithTheTwins.com
17 October 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is the epitome of pointless movie remakes. Never does a scene improve upon the original, or even introduce an element that might have been overlooked or under-explored from Stephen King's source material. It's not a shot-for-shot redo, but in its attempt to be faithful to the themes and subject matter, nothing is presented with any spontaneity or flair. There are no surprises and the creepiness of 1976's theatrical adaptation has somehow completely vanished. Do the filmmakers honestly believe they'll find audiences that are unaware of "Carrie's" plot or the steady build to the spectacularly tumultuous finale? Carrie White (Chloe Grace Moretz) is shy and odd, attempting to stay out of the spotlight whenever possible. At school, she has no friends and interacts with teachers and students as little as possible. Her mother Margaret (Julianne Moore) is a fanatical, abusively castigating woman, mentally traumatized from her own unhealthily zealous upbringing. When the misinformed Carrie has her first period in Ms. Desjardin's (Judy Greer) P.E. class, she thinks she's dying and is mercilessly ostracized by her classmates. Tormentor Sue Snell (Gabriella Wilde) recognizes her cruelty and convinces her boyfriend Tommy Ross (Ansel Elgort) to take Carrie to the prom as atonement. But bullying ringleader Chris Hargensen (Portia Doubleday) and her violent lover Billy Nolan (Alex Russell) decide to lash out at Carrie again, this time blaming her for their banishment from prom. The opening sequence adds a touch of extra blood and distress to Carrie's origins, with Margaret's uncertainty foreshadowing the teen's own naivety toward her physical maturation. But it also warns of the primary visual difference with this update: highly ineffective computer graphics. "Carrie" is the sort of story that doesn't need to be augmented with flashy, manipulated imagery, so it's particularly disappointing that the use of CG only impairs the disturbing qualities of the blood-splattering conclusion. Viewers will also likely scoff at the inclusion of a camera phone, internet uploading, and a "Dancing with the Stars" reference. Slightly modernized recreations of strikingly iconic sequences are almost laughable. Chloe Grace Moretz is sadly miscast as Carrie, clearly unable to convey the unsettling awkwardness, reclusiveness, and eventual ghoulishness necessary for deadly telekinetic mayhem. She's cute, capable, reasoning, opinionated on her own competent interpretation of the bible, and quickly learns to discipline her supernatural gift, which appears to drastically contradict the previously terrifying aura of an abused soul pushed to the limits. Instead of snapping, with her mind spiraling out of control, she is instead a lucid killer specifically exacting revenge. As soon as she dominates her otherworldly powers, she's a superhero - not a crazed, unresponsive medium of reprisal. It also doesn't help that the supporting characters are entirely black and white: in their interactions with Carrie, each one is either genuinely remorseful or a vengeful serial killer in the making. Julianne Moore is more comfortable in her role, convincingly looking the part, but isn't scripted to bring fresh concepts to the table. And Judy Greer is a pathetically comical choice for the gym teacher. In compensation for an obvious avoidance of nudity, a Cronenberg-esque body horror idea is appended, along with a brief courtroom skit (perhaps for realism), twin girl accomplices (Karissa and Katie Strain, seemingly because they were handy) and a supremely out-of-place dressing montage (like something out of a romantic comedy). The bland, repetitive revisions to Brian De Palma's classic thriller repeatedly summon questions as to why anyone thought it would be fruitful to rethink "Carrie" so similarly, especially in regards to informed audiences of 2013. - The Massie Twins

Was the above review useful to you?

146 out of 223 people found the following review useful:

Take Sissy Spacek to the prom instead.

4/10
Author: A_Random_Guy_22 from United Kingdom
20 October 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Having followed this film from its initial announcement up to its release, I can assure you it's not at all what we were promised. Several interviews with the cast and crew members claim it to be a more faithful adaptation of its original source; the 1974 novel penned by Stephen King. It's not. No, Screen Gems and MGM's 2013 revamp of 'Carrie' is more akin to that of the 1976 film, which featured numerous changes from the book - all of which are still present here. This is only a minor gripe as its not an issue, per say, I just don't appreciate being misled. On we go.

Moretz plays the titular character and, whilst a fantastic young actress, she was definitely lacking something here and her performance is just short of believable. Most of the time, it just came off flat. I said from the get-go she was a miscast, but I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt - and she just didn't quite pull it off for me. It would've been advisable to hire someone a tad older with more experience, but I digress.

On the completely other hand, Moore delivers an absolutely brilliant performance as Carrie's psychotic mother, Margaret. Fantastically creepy, and while she may be no Piper Laurie (1976's original), her superb portrayal is the best thing in this movie - and one that longs to be in a better film.

Let me compare with the original for one second. The 1976 film slowly builds Carrie's powers so when it comes to it, the prom destruction is a complete shock. But here? Oh, no. It was more like watching Matilda than Carrie. Levitating books, humans... you name it. By the time it gets to prom, the extent of her powers are no longer a surprise and it all comes off as rather tame actually. I certainly didn't get any satisfaction from it. They cranked the CGI up to 110, however. In this case, less is definitely more. Director take note.

The supporting cast do their best with what they're given, notably Portia Doubleday as Carrie's nemesis Sue, making the film not completely without its merits, but when it comes down to it, 2013's Carrie really just feels like a pale imitation of the 1976 film. It doesn't bring anything new or fresh to the table and it doesn't even feel like it tries to, which I suppose is fine if you've never read the book or seen any of the film adaptations. But if you have, you might be better off taking another visit to that prom.

Like going to your own prom and not being crowned anything, there's no real payoff. 4/10.

Was the above review useful to you?

140 out of 218 people found the following review useful:

Unnecessary Remake

5/10
Author: zenstation13 from United States
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

72 out of 98 people found the following review useful:

Not terrible, but you will probably find yourself bored and disappointed

4/10
Author: Darrellbjones from United States
19 October 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

First off, let me start out by saying this isn't a terrible movie. It certainly is not one of the worst horror movie remakes out there, but I can't help but feel disappointed from the 2013 version of Carrie. First off, this movie does not really add anything new to the mix. It's basically a copy of the original 1976 film, just with a modern setting. I generally am less critical of remakes than most, so the fact that I didn't like this should indicate that it just wasn't that good. I found myself bored throughout a lot of the movie. I've already seen the original, so why do I need to pay to see the exact movie again?

The director really should have gone out of her way to differentiate this film from its predecessor, instead of making a near shot-for-shot remake like 1998's Psycho. One example of a remake that attempts to add something new to the mix is Rob Zombie's Halloween. While that film was pretty weak also, at least it tried to inject something new to the storyline. The only thing I can say that was better about the 2013 Carrie is that the gym teacher lived. I never understood why she died in the 1976 version since she was one of the few people that was nice to Carrie, so her survival made more sense in this movie. Other than that, the original far surpasses this version. If you haven't seen the original, you might like this film as you have nothing to compare it with. However, some that haven't seen the original still might find themselves bored. One last criticism with this version is the prom scene. You'd think with the special effects improvements between 1976 and 2013, this version's killer prom sequence would blow the original's out of the water. Not the case, as the original killer prom scene was much better in my opinion

Overall, this wasn't a terrible film, but cannot even remotely compare to the original. Those that haven't seen the first film might very well enjoy it, but for those who have, you most likely will leave the theater disappointed. This remake was completely unnecessary, and adds absolutely nothing to the mix. If you've seen the original, then you've basically seen this as it's a hollow copy of it.

Final Rating: 4/10

Was the above review useful to you?

65 out of 90 people found the following review useful:

They'll All Laugh At... What Exactly?

2/10
Author: cultfilmfreaksdotcom from Orange County, CA
20 October 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Take away the telekinetic powers, the hyper-religious mother and a bucket of pig's blood on the noggin, the original CARRIE, a suspenseful Stephen King adaptation directed by Brian De Palma, is really about a high school girl who doesn't fit in. That fact is obvious just by looking at Sissy Spacek's Carrie White, who seems as though she's never belonged to any campus clique judging by her distant, dazed expression.

While Spacek was a natural beauty in earlier films like BADLANDS and PRIME CUT, she was turned into a homely outcast… But Chloë Grace Moretz doesn't have any problem whatsoever: Lose the permanent scowl and she's cuter than most of the girls, even the popular bullies…

So it doesn't quite work when sympathetic Sue Snell, played by an elfin Gabriella Wilde, talks boyfriend Tommy Ross into escorting Carrie to the prom. Sappy scenes bordering on awkward TWILIGHT romance gives the impression he's one lucky guy with two lovely girlfriends… But Carrie has a load of trouble at home in the form of crazy mom Margaret White....

Without further comparing this to the original, Julianne Moore, filling the famous Piper Laurie role, tries her over-the-top best with spooky long hair and an icy disposition, but acts more like a kooky soccer mom in dire need of xanax than the main ingredient for her daughter's deep rooted problems…

Enter Carrie's freewheeling use of telekinesis… Her ability to easily manipulate elements, like a young Jedi or a Hogwarts pupil, makes you forget she's a troubled girl who can't control ominous powers. In one scene, as her schoolbooks float jovially around the bedroom, you'd think she discovered a quick way of finishing chores or perhaps a time-filling substitute for not having a Facebook or Twitter account.

And then, once we arrive at the inevitable doomsday prom, when Carrie goes to town with hellishly lethal vengeance, you'll wonder if this entire remake occurred just to witness a group of young people being slaughtered care-of computer-generated effects...

If that's the case, the maligned 90's sequel THE RAGE: CARRIE 2 covered this unnecessary ground already.

Was the above review useful to you?

63 out of 97 people found the following review useful:

Awful

1/10
Author: CescaM from United Kingdom
21 October 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Absolutely, truly dreadful "re-imagining" of this film. The original came close to the Steven King book - this is truly trash and I can hardly believe that Julianne Moore consented to be in it.

There was none of the original feeling of Sue's sympathy nor the feeling that Tommy really liked Carrie. And where was the evil Billy? Every single character was eminently forgettable.

I suppose money is money, though.

People, please don't waste your time with this. It is the worst King adaptation I have ever seen. There is loads of material from the best horror writer the word has ever seen - and we are offered this dross. Watch the original: it's not perfect but it's miles ahead of this rubbish.

Was the above review useful to you?

82 out of 141 people found the following review useful:

Not Very Necessary. ...

1/10
Author: Bollywood_Stoolsoftener (bollywoodstoolsoftener@live.com) from New Delhi
30 October 2013

The original film adaptation of the novel CARRIE has creepy atmosphere, laudable acting, excellent story development and the perfect tension-building pace. This film has none of those things in common with its predecessor. This one also lacks the character development and chemistry between the principle characters that was present in the original version. The characters seem very two- dimensional. The director has stated that he wished to make the story more accessible to a broader audience. Translation: This is a dumbed-down version of the original, for the legions of lameness out there. Film critic Beth Accomando said that it "makes obvious all that the original film made subtle and does so with less complexity." I could not agree more. If you are going to remake something, especially something so well-known, you must have something to change or add to it to make it your own. In my opinion, this film failed to do so. Any of the changes that were present actually weakened the resulting product. I can't see how the original is rivaled in any way. Even if I hadn't seen the original first, this would have been average at best for me.

Was the above review useful to you?

27 out of 34 people found the following review useful:

Weak carbon copy of the original film.

4/10
Author: capkronos (capkronos00@hotmail.com) from Ohio, USA
15 January 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I noticed that Lawrence D. Cohen, who'd adapted the Stephen King-penned outsider's revenge novel for the Brian De Plama original, is again credited with this adaptation. Did he actually re-write this or did they just re-use his old script? Either way, I was shocked at just how closely this followed the 1976 film. Much of the same dialogue, many of the same camera movements (the pan shot up to show the bucket; the camera beginning to spin around Carrie and Tommy as they dance, etc.) plus weak copycat shots of everything from the fire erupting behind Carrie to the blood falling on her from multiple angles (laughably overdone in this one) are all recycled here once again. They even cloned the silly "getting ready for Prom" montage and if you think the one here is any less corny than the one in the original, you are mistaken. It is one thing to adapt a famous novel that's already been filmed and try to update it for the times, but it is a whole other thing to weakly emulate another director's visual style when you are doing so.

What few "new" things have been added here are sadly not to the overall betterment of the core story. Including cyber-bullying in the mix is - in theory - a good way to update it, but it isn't elaborated upon enough to make it the least bit interesting and is presented almost like an afterthought instead of it being an integral part of the story. Images of Carrie's locker room humiliation being projected in front of everyone at Prom were simply carried over from THE RAGE: CARRIE 2 (1999), where they project embarrassing videos of Rachel at a party. In other words, this movie does absolutely nothing fresh or new with the concept. Nothing.

Moretz's "blossoming" from an outcast to someone who could possibly be accepted by her peer group didn't come off at all. The transformation for Sissy Spacek in the original film was dramatic as she went from awkward, mumbling Plain Jane to a nice-looking, appealing Prom date. Here, Moretz looks exactly the same before and after. Her fresh-faced, squeaky-clean appearance throughout the film makes it's a hard swallow that Tommy (vacantly played by Ansel Elgort) could look at her wearing a dress and then suddenly be like "Wow!" when he barely paid her any mind before. I thought both Spacek and Angela Bettis in the 2002 version pulled this off better. Both actresses also actually modulated their performances; something young Moretz simply does not yet have the gravitas or skill to do.

It's not just Moretz who pales in comparison. Julianne Moore is one of the best actresses working today, but she simply cannot compete with Piper Laurie's go-for-broke, thoroughly unhinged portrayal in the 1976 film. Moore is simply too low-key and restrained to make the part the least bit memorable; the same exact trap Patricia Clarkson fell into in the 2002 version. Whiny-voiced Judy Greer is just plain awful as the gym teacher and is absolutely no match for Betty Buckley's mixture of strength and compassion. A key scene in the original film (Buckley's character discussing her own Prom night disaster with Carrie used as a sort-of 'calm before the storm') has been removed from this one for no good reason. The fate of the character has also been altered; stripping this of an important element of horror and tragedy. None of the young actors portraying the bullies are able to broadly paint their personalities on screen in a memorable or notable way. Portia Doubleday probably comes closest in her portrayal of ringleader Chris Hargensen but she still doesn't seem quite as nasty and vindictive as Nancy Allen.

There was a haunting elegance to the direction, score and photography in the original film and all of that is absent here. This film's ordinary visual presentation, point-and-shoot cinematography, generic music score and CGI effects do absolutely nothing to spruce up the familiar story. In other words, what exactly is the point? Like many other soulless cash-grabs remakes, this will be completely forgotten here in a few years while the original film will forever live on as a genre classic.

Was the above review useful to you?

144 out of 270 people found the following review useful:

Well-Done Remake

8/10
Author: Slasher_Lover23 from United States
18 October 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In the remake of the original Brian De Palma film, and based off of the novel by Stephen King, Carrie tells the story of young Carrie White (Chloe Grace Moretz) who goes through life being tormented by classmates and teachers. The only person she feels close to is her religion- obsessed mother Margaret (Julianne Moore). After a cruel joke, one of the popular girls, Sue Snell (Gabriella Wilde) decides to provide an act of kindness to Carrie by allowing her boyfriend to ask her to prom. But along the way, Carrie starts to develop telekinetic abilities that could bring disastrous results if she's pushed too far.

I believe that to compare this remake with the original and say which is better would be completely wrong and impossible. Both films have very strong aspects of their own that make them both able to stand on their own. But to discuss this version as a remake itself, I would definitely have to say it was VERY well-done. The film really gets into the emotional side of the story, we really get to know Carrie and get a sense of her loneliness. This in part is due to an excellent performance by Chloe Grace Moretz in what I really think is her best performance to date. She portrays the emotions of Carrie with such ease that you really feel for the character and think of her as a real person. But when it switches gears and her evil side appears, Moretz provides a very chilling performance. We are also given Julianne Moore as Carrie's mother. From the start of the film and until the very end, Moore shows just how unhinged Margaret White is, and she does it perfectly. Her performances leaves the viewer really unsettled with her dead and haunting performance. As for the effects, unfortunately this remake is filled with a lot of CGI. Does it completely ruin the film? No. But it does take away a lot of the effect. The prom scene for example, while much more violent (which I was pleased about), the CGI was really noticeable. But despite this, some of the effects combined with amazing camera shots is very well-done. One example being when two characters are involved in a car crash, the impacts in the crash were very cool (and slightly disturbing) to watch.

So overall, Carrie is a very well-done and perfectly modernized remake that lets us get in touch emotionally with our lead, plenty of bloody moments, and most of all, amazing performances by Moretz and Moore.

My rating: 8/10

Was the above review useful to you?

25 out of 35 people found the following review useful:

Just watch the original instead...

4/10
Author: dragana rrrrrrrrrr from Serbia
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.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 35:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history