Carrie (2013) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
403 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Weak carbon copy of the original film.
capkronos15 January 2014
Warning: 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.
46 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not terrible, but you will probably find yourself bored and disappointed
Darrellbjones19 October 2013
Warning: 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
80 out of 112 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The epitome of pointless movie remakes.
GoneWithTheTwins17 October 2013
Warning: 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
257 out of 382 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
They'll All Laugh At... What Exactly?
cultfilmfreaksdotcom20 October 2013
Warning: 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.
79 out of 113 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Take Sissy Spacek to the prom instead.
A_Random_Guy_2220 October 2013
Warning: 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.
157 out of 242 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Unnecessary, but not Bad Remake
claudio_carvalho16 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
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")
26 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Horrible Remake
xxmrsqueenxx-263-65832629 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
There was so much cut from this movie that it just seems poorly edited and mismatched. Chloe is no Carrie, for one she is too beautiful to be Carrie. I couldn't believe that they would have cast someone that beautiful for the role of Carrie. Carrie was always odd looking or had an odd look about her, Chloe was miscast. The characters were boring and flat. I felt that Chris, was supposed to always be a vindictive mean cold hearted girl, but in this movie, she seemed nicer and not much cold hearted at all. I couldn't believe how they could say this was better than the original, when it wasn't even as scary or creepy as the original. This faded so far from the book and original story line that it all just made no sense. They even cut the shower scene, a scene that I always thought was a key point on why Carrie was so mad at everyone to begin with. The actors didn't even pronounce the gym teachers name right. Seriously? The co-stars couldn't act their way out of a wet paper bag. This has got to be one of the worse remakes I have seen in a long time. If I was Chloe, I would be embarrassed!
44 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Unnecessary Remake
zenstation1320 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.
154 out of 251 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Remake Rather Than Reimaging...But Still GOOD!
ThomEure20 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.
98 out of 166 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Just watch the original instead...
radulovicka6 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.
42 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
This Was actually pretty damn good
Jacobhemphill963 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.
87 out of 155 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Well-Done Remake
Slasher_Lover2318 October 2013
Warning: 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
156 out of 289 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Get ready for disappointment!
Houmatt18 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Yeah, I was quite disappointed with this film. Allow me to explain...and this comes with a spoiler warning.

When I first heard this was being done, I just shook my head. Because you had a 1976 film version, a made-for-TV film version (which was serving as, believe it or not, a pilot for an ongoing series), and a stage musical(!). So why are we going back to this particular well? Then I heard the simply adorable Chloe Moretz was cast in the title role. It did not feel right for me at all, primarily because of Sissy Spacek, who played the role in the 1976 version at the age of 26. But, Carrie White, chronologically speaking, was 16 in King's novel. As is Moretz. Okay. And then I heard this film would be "closer to King's novel." So I was sold.

But as I watched the opening credits I noticed the following: "Screenplay by Lawrence D. Cohen and Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa." Up to this point, I had only seen a single writing credit for the latter. And Cohen wrote the 1976 film. So why was it there? And then I found out: There are several elements lifted from the earlier film version, to the point I am certain the WGA required Cohen be given credit. This was making it less an adaptation of King's novel, and more of a remake of a 37-year-old film. So much for the promise of a closer adaptation.

But then it gets worse. Much, much worse. You get your first hint of foreboding when Carrie tells her mother where she got her power from. I was left thinking, do you know this? But then we get to the prom. The video slide show made no sense to me whatsoever. In fact, I am sure it was placed there as a setup for what happens later, which is lame, lame, lame. But I digress.

Telekinesis is the ability to move and/or manipulate objects with your mind. And what is Carrie doing? After she locks her mother in a room by way of super-heating a sliding bolt, the climax shows her levitating and hovering over a floor, cracking open a stretch of road by stomping on it, stopping a car from hitting her by creating a force field or shield, and for good measure, letting another girl know she is pregnant AND the baby's gender! Carrie doesn't merely have "the power". She is a full-on mutant! I was half expecting Agent Coulson or Professor Xavier to make a cameo in a post-credit scene or something.

I do not expect King to like this film. I know I didn't. Wait for it on Redbox if you feel you must watch this waste.
43 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A very worthy remake.
Big_D_Box_Office_Score18 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 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.
102 out of 188 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
SuperCarrie to the rescue!
theTRUTH-hurts18 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
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...
25 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
As if made for the subtlety-impaired
LordJiggy6 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
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.
13 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Nice Remake
foergun_2769 November 2013
I have just watched new Carrie movie and i don't know why people complain about this movie.

I have read the book several times and watched the old Carrie movie again several times. I don't accept any complains about the story. Story was good in 1976 and it is still good in 2013. I like the Chole's and Julianne Moore's performance. Especially Julianna Moore is fantastic in this movie.

Remakes are hard to like because people always compare it with the old movie. If they like the old movie, they will complain about the new one. This is why this movie has low rating. But they don't understand one point, if you don't remake Carrie, new generation will not know about it at all. How many young person would watch 1976 Carrie? Carrie was one of the best choice to make a remake. It is not like remaking "Oldboy" movie (which they did unfortunately).

To sum up, i liked Carrie (2013) and it was a good remake. I really enjoyed it because i am fan of the book and the old movie. If you don't know anything about Carrie you will like the movie. If you like the book and the 1976 Carrie movie, again you will like this too. The only way to not like this movie is to have obsession about the old movie (or you are not fan of this kind of movies at all)
30 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Blasphemy of the Modern Day Carrie
annette-barron19 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I am not an expert writer but I just watched something so hideous that I had to write a review to get it off of my chest. I am an avid watcher of horror movies...and remakes of Stephen King novels are my favorite. Of course I've seen the original Carrie countless of times and I enjoy it every time I watch with the ending always leaving me wanting more. When I heard of yet another remake of this movie, I was excited to see it even though other remakes have been disappointing at best. Well, I have to say that this remake was the worst of them all. It appeared this remake was trying to stick to the original but with a 21st century spin with cell phones and limos. This movie missed the mark. Since the movie was a dud from the beginning I was hoping that at least the Tommy Ross character was a dreamboat like William Katt was back in the day...NOT! Ansel Elgort not incredibly gorgeous and his acting left a horrible taste in my mouth. He was not believable at all. I have to give it to Julianne Moore, she definitely gave the best performance in the movie (the best of the worst). The prom scene was just a horrible regurgitation of the original movie. To say I was disappointed is just an understatement. This movie SUCKED! $6.99 to view this movie; I want a refund. This movie is not worth your time. I actually had to watch the original to erase that blasphemy from my memory...and to see the dreamy William Katt again play the Tommy Ross I know and love.
18 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Julianne Moore
Kirpianuscus8 August 2018
She is the basic motif to see this not bad but far to be the most inspired version of Stephen King's Carrie. It is the film for young public. Not only for the presence of the every day technology, but for the traits of teenagers films. Julianne Moore has the virtue to remind the source. And Chloe Grace Moretz - to give a decent performance for a role who preserves deep shadow of great Sissy Spacek . maybe, I am too old for enjoy this version. Who must be for the desire to serve the new expectations of public. But the basic good points of it are the performance of Julianne Moore as the mother and the invitation to read (again) the novel.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
As many others have said, pretty much pointless
mj685383 April 2016
It is just a plain remake of the original movie with nothing of substance added. The main difference is it doesn't have that wonderful, creepy performance by Sissy Spaceck as Carrie, which is a big negative.

The only thing this movie adds is a little extra dimension to Carrie's mom - she seems to display signs of schizophrenia or borderline personality disorder rather than just being an evil bible basher, but that alone doesn't make this movie worth watching.

I'd give it a better rating if it was the first time this movie was made, but the original is pretty much identical but better cast so I ended up watching only the first 45 minutes before getting bored and writing this review instead of watching the rest of it...
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It's pitiful
Leofwine_draca6 April 2016
This 2013 CARRIE is actually the third adaptation of Stephen King's first published novel. I'd missed the previous and long forgotten version, but the De Palma original has long been a favourite of mine due to the exemplary direction which helps to lift it above the source material.

Inevitably, this cookie cutter remake is entirely redundant and feels like weak sauce compared to the 1970s film. In some places the remake plays out shot-for-shot, while at other times the story has been needlessly updated to the modern age, i.e. the characters have smart phones. The only thing it has going for it is that it puts bits of the novel back in that De Palma took out, but he took them out for a reason and I think his film is the better for it. However, if you're looking for cheap CGI effects, which the original certainly did not have, then you might prefer this version.

And how half-hearted this all feels. Chloe Grace Moretz has long been overrated as the 'next big thing', famous only for her roles in the KICK ASS movies and failing to prove her worth elsewhere. She's a victim of miscasting in this one, failing to do much with the role and feeling over the top in her mannerisms. The less said about Julianne Moore, who gives a weak imitation of Piper Laurie for her part, the better. The worst thing about this as a whole though is Kimberly Pierce's direction. It's insipid, making crucial set-pieces look silly (the whole repeating of the falling bucket makes this feel like one of Jackie Chan's death-defying stunts), and it comes as no surprise that as a director she has zero experience in the genre.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Though remakes are tricky, the cast of Carrie use their talents and special effects to make it worth seeing.
Amari-Sali17 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Amongst the many actors and actresses who I love seeing in films or television shows, is Chloe Moretz. Though mostly known for being the foul mouthed Hit Girl in Kick Ass, and often being the little girl who seems more mature than how we usually picture 16 year olds, in this film we are reminded that as much as she has the ability to be strong, ferocious, and cunning, at the same time, as shown in part in Kick Ass 2, she is still very much a young girl. Which leads to why Carrie perhaps was the perfect role for her, for it seems to continue to show her evolution as an actress and show she isn't a one trick pony.

However, I would be doing a disservice to the movie if I didn't mention her co- stars who really help push Carrie into a figure who you not only feel sympathy for, but want to see get revenge. First I must mention Julianne Moore who plays Margaret White, Carrie's mother, who is a haunting presence with intense eyes and intense beliefs, which makes her the parent you would only wish on enemies. Also, I must mention Portia Doubleday as school bully Chris. She takes on the very familiar role of the popular girl who bullies a helpless girl, and gives it new life. Then, there is Gabrielle Wilde, as the sort of innocent, and seeking redemption Sue; Judy Greer as Miss Desjardin, the school gym teacher who is one of the few, and first, to stick up for Chloe; and then there is Ansel Elgort who plays Tommy, the boy who Carrie gets a crush on, is Sue's boyfriend, and is the one who takes her to that fateful prom.

Now, I'm sure most of you know the story since pretty much the trailer gives it away. A young quiet girl has a religious zealot for a mother and finds herself constantly bullied at school. One incident though begins to push her too far and with this, she has an almost X-Men like awakening in which powers manifest. At first she is confused, then intrigued, but as life gets harder and people become more difficult to deal with, she stops being the victim to circumstances, largely out of her control, and decides to get revenge on those who have long been hurting her. Needless to say, it is an interesting movie to release on Spirit Day.

As for praise when it comes to this film, though highly cliché to say, I must admit that the film was a bit intense, but it is all thanks to Julianne Moore's performance. Her work as Margaret White is terrifying to the point where she could be the mother of all horror icons, the one who nurtured them in such a way that no wonder they all became twisted, that is how good she is. Her intensity, her use of religious madness, and the gruesomeness of the acts she commits against herself and Carrie, make your heart race and sometimes makes you want to turn your head due to the things she does. As for Chloe Moretz, she continues what we saw in Kick Ass 2, which is showing that as much as she is capable of being a bad-ass, she can also play soft, someone you can sympathize with, even imagine in a romance movie. And ultimately I feel that those who don't know the story may even have hope that all would work out in the end for her. Then with Portia Doubleday's Chris, I feel she breaks the mold when it comes to what we think of when it comes to teen-aged female villains. For a long time the standard has been based on Mean Girls, Regina George specifically, but I feel Portia has found a way to set a new precedent of the type of bully you love to hate. Lastly, I must mention that one of the main things this remake benefits from is the special effects. Between Chloe's powers and the death of some characters, you see some of the things which help justify the remake past making money.

But, no movie is without fault. First and foremost, the amount of powers displayed by Carrie made me think I was watching a long introduction of a new X- Men character, or an alternate Jean Grey back-story. How often, and how open, she was with using telekinesis and studying it made it so that when it came to the big finish, it didn't seem as grand as it did in the original movie. Also, as much as I love Moore's performance, it can be divisive due to it possibly being seen as over the top, and maybe clichéd considering she is a Christian who twists the bible to fit her sense of morality. But probably my biggest issue was the whole revenge plot which came from almost getting suspended and not getting to go to prom. It seems so ridiculous and juvenile that though you are willing to go with it, at the same time as you see the effort put into the revenge, you can't help but roll your eyes.

Overall: Worth Seeing

Those who saw the original only have reason to see this due to the special effects you wish the original had and because Moore definitely goes further than the original mom. As for newcomers, though not the best horror or thriller out there, the performances and gore are sure to entertain you and give you something to talk about. However, I don't know if this is the type of film I would rush to see since it is good, but certainly doesn't have the makings of a classic. Still, I think it made for a nice way to spend a little more than an hour and a half.
33 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Margaret & Carrie as a Convincing Abraham & Isaac Tragedy
r-g-mirabel17 October 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Caution: This may contain spoilers.

We all knew it would happen--the film would inevitably be compared to the 1976 original helmed by Brian DePalma with the estimable Sissy Spacek in the title role. A sharply divided reception was predictable. And that's a shame. The Kim Pierce iteration is one that pays homage to the original here and there, but was ultimately meant to stand on its own as an adaptation of the classic Stephen King novel. But we all knew that a remake, by simple virtue of being a remake, would elicit the position that it is completely unnecessary. Again, that's a shame. In the hands of Kim Pierce, the plot focuses on social issues that necessitate a retelling. It is evident from how the present film is handled that it is not created in the same vein as remakes of Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Psycho, or any other project meant to turn a quick buck for a studio at the expense of originality or a younger generation's unawareness of the original. Times have changed, and the problem of bullying has evolved along with it. It is this problem that the socially-conscious Pierce sought to address.

Having watched both the original and the remake with a much younger nephew, certain moments in the original, while still terrifying, were lost to him for stylistic reasons--something a viewer might call campiness. This is something the remake has remedied. I suppose what was effective in the 1970s is not as effective to a less sensitized generation of moviegoers who crave realism over theatricality. A younger audience is likely to appreciate the naturalness of Julianne Moore's acting, or relate far better to Chloe Grace Moretz's portrayal of the sheltered teen.

While the target audience will surely appreciate the film, so will fans of the Stephen King novel. Many (but not all) plot elements that were woefully omitted from the 1976 film are given a rightful place in the new film, giving the story much more coherence and unity.

The most striking aspect is the mother-daughter relationship. Pierce, Moretz, and Moore handle the dynamic beautifully. The love-hate-fear relationship is more fully fleshed out than in the original. Whereas Piper Laurie's portrayal of Margaret White, remarkable in its own right, is of a maniacal fundamentalist who oppresses her daughter, Juliane Moore's is of a damaged woman who has probably lived through one too many mental breakdowns. While viewers will always appreciate the theatricality of Piper Laurie, there is a certain undeniable grittiness to Moore's more psychological version of Carrie's abusive mother.

Moore's Margaret is not all fire-and-brimstone, either. There are flashes where one sees profound maternal instinct and care for her daughter. Certain added scenes give Pierce the opportunity to put Margaret and Carrie in a kind of "Abraham and Issac" scenario which makes it difficult for the audience to completely think of Margaret White as an antagonist. Moore's Margaret is at times Carrie's enemy, and at other times her protector--an uncomfortable situation for the viewer, and Pierce pulls it off flawlessly.

I had misgivings about the casting decision with Miss Moretz. She is a beautiful young lady who I feared would not portray the outcast well. This misgiving was soon forgotten, however, early as the film progressed. Sure she's a beautiful girl, but she pulled off Carrie's shy awkwardness convincingly. She is not Sissy Spacek, but she didn't try to be. Comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges. We will always have Spacek's bloody, wide eyed visage in our minds when we think of Carrie. But while Spacek gave off creepy, Moretz's portrayal is more human and sympathetic. One might view Spacek's Carrie as robotically vengeful, whereas Moretz's telekinetic feats lead to unintended, regrettable consequences. To Moretz, the power is at times too much for the girl to handle. Overall, Moretz's Carrie is closer to the one I envision when I think about the novel. I prefer Spacek's iconic stare, admittedly, but that's not to say Moretz wasn't convincing. Rather, her portrayal was prodigious--of high caliber for an actor her age.

Perhaps the greatest "pro" the remake has over the original is the more well-rounded secondaries: Sue, Tommy, Chris, and Billy. Fans of the book may have been bothered by Travolta's drunken greaser portrayal of Billy Nolan. At last, Alex Russell's Billy is closer to the sociopathic teen in King's book. Sue and Chris are not mere pawns in the storyline here. The acting ability of certain secondaries seems wanting at times, but the characters themselves are given a greater purpose here.

Does this live up to the original? I suppose that would be a completely subjective assessment. Both films have pros and cons. Taken on its own, however, the film is not a great one, but it's strong. It flows naturally. It is deeply psychological, not just for Carrie and Margaret, but for the other characters, too. Ultimately, it was worthwhile, and I don't doubt it will be memorable to its target audience as the 1976 film is for older viewers.

There are some more concerns, however. It is clear that some scenes were filmed and left out. Like the original, bits and pieces of the deleted scenes found their way into various places in the plot. It makes me wonder whether Pierce envisioned the film to be even closer to the novel, as stated in early interviews. Note that Judy Greer stated in a more recent interview that upon seeing the finished product, from the beginning it did not follow the shooting script. Apparently there were huge and significant alterations made in the studio during the release date delay. Such is a common practice for a studio or test audience to trim excellent, essential scenes out of a film for brevity. Here's to hoping for a Director's Cut for the home release honoring Pierce's original vision. Perhaps my rating will be even higher then.
31 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
MikeWright7516 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.
28 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
This isn't horror, it's a lifetime movie of the week with cussing!
santiagonunez1619 October 2013
I saw the original Carrie at the drive in when I was a kid and was looking forward to the re-make. Unfortunately, this was a huge let down of a horror film. Can you even call it horror? Where the original felt creepy, this was just plain slow and dramatic. The scares have been replaced with emotional and dramatic scenes of child abuse. Carrie is bullied, her mother abuses her, and she's coming of age except her puberty is telekinesis, with a little revenge. Had this been a drama, it might work better instead of hiding behind the image of an all out horror film. The magic of the original is gone. If you want to see a scary movie, see the original, if you want to see the drama version of Carrie and be bored out your mind, then check this out! Personally, I like scary movies to be scary and thrilling. This is neither, maybe next time they'll get a remake right.
46 out of 89 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed