Carrie (2013) User Reviews

Unnecessary, but not Bad Remake

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 16 January 2014]

The outcast teenager Carrie White (Chloë Grace Moretz) is bullied by her mates at high-school. Her mother Margaret White (Julianne Moore) is a pious and paranoid woman that sees sin everywhere and the need of self- inflict punishment.

When Carrie has her first period, she does not understand what is happening to her and her mates humiliate her in the changing room. The spiteful Chris Hargensen (Portia Doubleday) videotapes Carrie with her cell phone and posts in Internet. Their teacher Ms. Desjardin (Judy Greer) punishes the students and Chris challenges her and is suspended and consequently she can not go to the prom. Meanwhile Carrie discovers that she has telekinesis and leans how to control her ability.

The popular Sue Snell (Gabriella Wilde) feels bad with her attitude towards Carrie and asks her boyfriend Tommy Ross (Ansel Elgort) to invite Carrie to go with him to the prom to make up for what she did to Carrie. But Chris and her boyfriend Billy Nolan (Alex Russell) plot an evil prank with her friends to seek vengeance for Carrie with tragic consequences.

"Carrie" is an unnecessary remake of the 1976 classic directed by Brian De Palma. Sissy Spacek is unforgettable in the role of Carrie, but Chloë Grace Moretz does not disappoint. The dramatic story of Carrie and her relationship with her insane mother is engaging especially because of Julianne Moore, who is one of my favorite actresses. The conclusion uses state of art special effects and it will satisfy the younger generations. In the end, I have to eat my words and agree that "Carrie" is not a bad remake. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Carrie, a Estranha" ("Carrie, the Weird")

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

Chloë Grace Moretz not right for role

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 29 April 2014]

Carrie White (Chloë Grace Moretz) is a shy introvert who was forced into regular high school after her mother Margaret (Julianne Moore) had always home schooled her. She's been brutalized over the years and was almost killed by her mother during her home birth. She has telekinetic powers that she slowly tries to master. When she has her first period, she is bullied by the all the girls. Chris Hargensen (Portia Doubleday) posts video of the incident. Popular girl Sue Snell (Gabriella Wilde) regrets her part and tries to make up for it.

Chloë tries so very hard to be that shy damaged girl that was played so well by Sissy Spacek in that iconic performance. She's doing what I call near-cry-acting. She is always on the verge of crying as she force herself to look down like a shy teen. It doesn't really fit her. IMO she would make a much better Sue. Although I understand the big star always gets the big title role. She just doesn't fit Carrie that well. Sissy Spacek has that fragile look that Chloë is missing. The only way she could play Carrie is if director Kimberly Peirce allow her to go much darker. I wonder what would happen if Carrie goes to the dark side.

The addition of bigger effects and CGI is interesting but not always good. I like some of the action in the gym. The multiple dumping of the blood is unnecessary. The head through the windshield needs to be much better. Quite frankly, I wouldn't mind if the movie expanded the prom scenes even more.

Weak carbon copy of the original film.

[capkronos · 4/10 · 15 January 2014]

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.

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.

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

[Darrellbjones · 4/10 · 19 October 2013]

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

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.

Pointless, unnecessary retread

[irishm · 2/10 · 28 October 2014]

Okay, there was one clever update: I laughed when the girl whipped out her cell phone in the shower scene and started making a video of naked, bloody, screaming Carrie on the floor... that was certainly a credible thing for a smug teenager to do in the year 2013. Other than that, this remake fell flat.

The girl who played Carrie had a constant wild, bug-eyed stare as she moved around the high school that was so over-the-top it didn't even pass as acting. No bullied girl looks like that, unless she finds herself walking into an active ambush. Sissy Spacek knew that: she played Carrie almost folded in upon herself, head down, books clutched tight to chest, just trying to get from Point A to Point B without making eye contact with anyone or being noticed at all... a tremendously effective choice.

Julianne Moore as Margaret White was okay, and probably the best actor in the movie, but I missed the wonderful Piper Laurie. The actors playing the other teens were all completely, totally, and immediately forgettable.

There were a few random strange things that didn't track with me. The area around the high school didn't look at all like Maine, but being from Maine I'm used to that. The big climax at the end involved hundreds of round rocks falling down, presumably from the upper stories of the house... which was a frame house. Possibly the rocks were supposed to have come from the skies, but that wasn't made clear and it just looked like the wrong kind of building materials were crashing down.

This movie was a curiosity, nothing more. I watched the original right afterwards to get the bad taste out of my mouth. In addition to the previously-mentioned original cast, Nancy Allen rocked the part of nasty Chris, William Katt was such an appealing Tommy, PJ Soles shone as Norma, and John Travolta was a perfect boneheaded Billy. Personally I think Amy Irving's part could have been played by many other actresses with an equally successful result, but she was okay too.

Skip this one; go to the original.

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.

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

[cultfilmfreaksdotcom · 2/10 · 20 October 2013]

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.

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.

Enjoyable despite Chloe and Julianne being too beautiful

[phd_travel · 7/10 · 8 January 2014]

I had misgivings because the original Carrie was so perfectly cast. Who could be as strange looking as Sissy Spacek? Who could look as fanatical as Piper Laurie? Julianne Moore even made to look haggard was still too beautiful to be the crazy mother. After she did that silly Psycho remake how could she do this? And Chloe Moretz is just too pretty - she's more the hot girl in school than the freak. Even though she acts awkward and shy.

But despite this, it turned out to be quite enjoyable because the story is such a good one and it's perennially entertaining. The main plot elements are quite faithfully followed except a couple of feel good changes which I think are for the better. The violence is slightly more graphic but still not too violent. And in the end having attractive leads makes a show easier to watch so Julianne and Chloe's good looks don't actually spoil the horror. The supporting cast are quite well cast - they look more like teenagers than John Travolta and Amy Irving did. Liked Judy Greer in the Betty Buckley teacher role.

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.

Amazing remake.

[harmonyrose10 · 7/10 · 9 November 2013]

A re imagining telling of the story Carrie based on the novel by Stephen King. In my opinion Carrie's Chloe Grace Moretz is mesmerizing. Carrie 2013 is amazing for it's acting and it is also great for keeping some of the scenes from the original that are not shown in the book. I found that this version of Carrie focused more on the mother and daughter relationship story. Carrie loves her mother and her mother loves her. (Also said by Kimberly Pierce.)I agree with her. It also shows that Margaret is trying to be the best parent that she does not know how to be. (Also said by Chloe Grace Moretz.) I also agree with her. Both movies have different qualities. The original you see has more of a creepy and insane feel to it. In this adaptation of the story, you see Carrie as a bit more innocent and that she is not hurting innocent people. Even though she does in the book. But I guess it depends what you like. I would recommend you watch it if you loved the original.

Take Sissy Spacek to the prom instead.

[A_Random_Guy_22 · 4/10 · 20 October 2013]

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.

A familiar story elevated by the performances from its two leading ladies.

[BrentHankins · 7/10 · 17 October 2013]

With bullying and school violence firmly embedded in the public consciousness, it seems only fitting that a film about the consequences of mistreating your peers should get a modern-day makeover, and nearly forty years after Sissy Spacek and her prom dress were drenched in pig's blood, Carrie is back on the big screen in this re-imagining of the 1976 cult classic.

Chloë Grace Moretz stars as the titular teenager, whose strict upbringing at the hands of a religious fanatic mother (Julianne Moore) has left her sky, awkward, and a constant target for the cruelty of the popular crowd. Moretz turns in a stellar performance as a wide-eyed teen longing for a normal life, and Moore is creepily unhinged, terrifyingly devout and completely detached from anything resembling reality.

But let's be honest - moviegoers will spend the entire film anticipating the iconic prom scene, and when Carrie's frustration finally boils over into rage and she unleashes her power on those that have wronged her, it feels incredibly satisfying. It's a shame that the climax is marred by excessive and unnecessary usage of CG effects, but when compared to the overall experience this is a pretty minor irritant.

Carrie paints an authentic (and at times, uncomfortable) portrait of a young girl's sense of alienation, loneliness, and desire to be understood and accepted by those around her. Director Kimberly Peirce plays it safe with this remake, keeping the story beats and plot progression nearly identical, but updating them for new audiences and providing insight in the evolution of bullying in the age of social media. It feels a bit familiar, but still fresh enough to warrant giving this one a look.

As if made for the subtlety-impaired

[LordJiggy · 3/10 · 6 January 2014]

Whew, with cable everyone knows the basic story of "Carrie," thanks to the very effective film put together by the not-so-closet misogynist Brian ("How many times can I kill my wife the actress in my own films") DePalma. Along with the gore, it was anchored by two tremendous performances from Piper Laurie as her nutty mom and an Academy Award nominated performance by a radiant and truly gifted Sissy Spacek.

Ms. Moore and Ms. Moretz are also gifted actresses, but for the love of anything with cinematic worth, who thought this script was even competent? (SPOILER) It's not enough that the religious fanatic mom (a stereotype that was old and tired long before the original film) is so stupid she doesn't know she's pregnant, no, we have to show she's extra disturbed by having her gouge herself with fingernails and sewing implements.

Ms. Moretz was let down not only by the script, but by the director. Chloe convincingly shows us a frightened, abused child, but then it's time to (SPOILER) bust out the library books and discover, really early on, that she has powers. And she's playing with the powers through the movie until the end. In the DePalma film Carrie's response to the horrible hazing was a primal psychic scream of inchoate outrage, the abused child striking out blindly against all those who had tormented her (real and imagined), a terrified tantrum, but in this far inferior remake, Moretz's Carrie is consciously vengeful, stalking and striking and finding in a way that made her far less sympathetic than Spacek's Carrie.

Sorry, it was just a waste of time. Ms. Moretz, you can do so much better than this.

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.

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.

SuperCarrie to the rescue!

[theTRUTH-hurts · 1/10 · 18 January 2014]

Once just a shy, demure, unassuming teenager, Carrie White was doused with pig's blood on one fateful day and suddenly emerged as (drum roll please) Supppperrrrrr Carrrrriiiiieeeee. By gently slithering her arms, looking constipated and occasionally twitching to let you that she means business, SuperCarrie quickly lays waste to all of the "bad" guys with sadistic glee while also showing her soft side by using her magical abilities to levitate squeaky-voiced gym teachers and knocked-up teenage Jezebels to safety. Incredible! To one up her competition in the super heroes sweepstakes, Carrie also manages to lift up and fly right out of the gym... and she doesn't even need spandex and a cape to do it. Impressive! Carrie's other super powers appear to be psychic abilities to anticipate what everyone is going to do before they do it and x-ray vision so she can see the gender of a newly-fertilized egg inside your belly before you even have a chance to say "Hey, wasn't I supposed to have my period LAST week?" Amazing! If that's not enough, SuperCarrie also doesn't let anything get her down... not even death itself! She may seem out of commission after pelting herself with a thousand and one smooth pebbles and then crushing her entire body underneath a house, but don't be fooled. You'll find investing your hard-earned money on things like embalming, caskets and grave markers to be a waste when SuperCarrie miraculously springs back to life, cracks her CGI tombstone (because - you know - real tombstones or even plaster ones painted to look like real tombstones are just way too hard to crack so they must be made out of cartoon) and then causes a metal guitar riff to sound out from nowhere.

Professor Xavier, there's someone I'd like you to meet...