User Score
6.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 207 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 27 out of 207

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Apr 12, 2014
    1
    It's Impressive how these people try so hard to do a remake of a film that don't need, making a really good movie (the old ones) into this mess, small and tennager horror movie, this is really a "don't need remake"
  2. Feb 23, 2014
    5
    There are some good things and some bad things about this remake of Carrie, hence the mediocre rating. Let's start with the bad things. First of all, the stereotypes are so absurd and overblown that the film is at times tough to get through due to the ridiculousness of it. Anyone who has been in high school can tell that the stereotype these films portray it to be is very off base. This movie goes further than most with it. Another weak element was the lack of development for the protagonist. The movie hinges on you pitying Carrie and all she goes through and then turning that pity on its head in the closing scenes. Without any substantial development, however, there is a disconnect between the audience and the viewer. This makes the closing scenes more superficial. Speaking of Carrie, Chloe Grace Moretz is one of the best young actors in Hollywood but she struggled at times, especially early on. I don't know if that's what the director was shooting for but her introverted behavior didn't feel natural at all. Nonetheless, there were other times when she was incredible, which brings us to the positives in the movie. The acting by most of the cast was very good and Julianne Moore was brilliant. She stole the movie, in my opinion. One of the best things about the movie, funny enough, is the alternate ending. I'm not sure why they didn't use that one but wow, it is so much better than the theatrical one. I'd suggest anyone watching this movie to watch that version. Expand
  3. Feb 22, 2014
    7
    I haven't seen the original version which was based on the novel by Stephen King, the famous horror story writer. Kinda simple and plain story, but very good. Better than modern gore movie on teen subject. Well remade movie from the director of 'Boys Don't Cry'.

    Recently I have not seen any good horror so this movie gave me what I was expecting from this genre, a watching satisfaction.
    I know many people did not like it, but my horror movie taste is vastly different from most of the movie buffs so I like it better than them.

    Julianne Moore and Chloe Moretz were good as usual. They had main roles in the story and a couple of others had a decent one. For Chloe it is a good progress, gives an opportunity to learn herself from different character from different genres.

    A little explanation was needed about the story before the first scene commence. It confuses a bit about daughter's psychic powers. It is no more 70s you know, people think very broadly in all the angles about what they see. The end was good, but like said, opening should have explained well. I think we can expect a sequel, maybe a prequel.

    This is not everyone's cup of a tea. Only a few people like me will like this movie and others give as usual logic explanation for following the critic's path.
    Expand
  4. Feb 18, 2014
    9
    Pierce's version of the Stephen King novel can't help but feel like the remake that it is, but that doesn't mean it's not totally worthwhile and extremely watchable. Julianne Moore and Chloe Grace Moretz do fantastic work here, bringing the story to life for a newer generation. I think it worked quite well.
  5. Feb 15, 2014
    9
    I am giving this rating based off of this movie standing alone not compared to the original. I loved the original and this one was also very good. My only complaint is comparing this one to the original, that is they are nearly 99% identical and if you saw the first one absolutely nothing will be new or exciting. Its a tough choice for me because I wanted something new but similar and what I got was a great carbon copy. This is more for new watchers or someone who wanted to see the movie a second time. Expand
  6. Feb 15, 2014
    8
    This movie was a surprise to me! I was expecting it to be another typical horror movie. But this movie has a great story. well acted, well paced, very interesting! I watched the old "Carrie" a day later, and this new version is ALOT better!
  7. Feb 9, 2014
    6
    You will watch it and probably enjoy it but it doesn't add much as a remake. I usually love Chloe Moretz acting but in this movie she just didn't impress me.
  8. Jan 28, 2014
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. No es una mala película, pero pierde todo el sentido en la última parte. Es muy creíble todo el inicio, y parte del desarrollo, pero al final se torna ilógico y claramente irreal. Expand
  9. Jan 27, 2014
    5
    I love Chloe in this movie before the prom mishap. Before all that, she portrays the tortured bullied kid-perfectly. Her mom freaked me out-which was the point.....but she did a great job.
    My point is: I wasn't scared. I was sad, and then disappointed. I know they couldn't change the ending-but I wish they did. Watch it if your bored, but don't watch it if your tight on time
  10. Jan 26, 2014
    5
    This movie is very good, but I think the directors could do a better job. Based on the Stephen's book, this film is somewhat true to the real story. Surprised me negatively.
  11. Jan 22, 2014
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Não entendo por que este filme recebeu algumas críticas negativas. Um remake muito bom! Muitos não gostam devido ao fato do original ser considerado um clássico - também prefiro a versão de 1976, mas em termos de produção e fidelidade ao livro esse remake é melhor.

    Primeiramente, é bom ver que Carrie está gostando do caos no baile, diferente dos outros filmes onde ela aparentemente está em transe. Além disso, ela mostra uma parte humana salvando Rita Desjardin. É satisfatório ver Carrie dando um tempinho para a Chris Hargensen no fim do filme. A atualização de tempos também foi necessária - inclusão de smartphones.
    Expand
  12. Jan 21, 2014
    6
    The 2013 remake of Brian De Palma's classic and adaptation of Stephen King's novel of the same name makes up for enjoyable viewing, with decent performances and cinematography. But unfortunately, Carrie is damaged by poor casting, a lack of scares and plenty of unnecessary CG. Though it is certainly flawed, I still enjoyed this unnecessary remake.
  13. Jan 19, 2014
    2
    As a remake Carrie is a bad movie, on its own, its just as bad.

    The main actress does a good job until its time to go nuts, then I have to say she just doesn't have a game on (time for psychotic telekinesis funtime) face, maybe I'm wrong, maybe she has just one of those "too sweet" faces and I'm mislead by it.

    The story is either too simple and predictable or the montage of the
    scenes is just bad, I can't really tell which one, maybe both, all I know is that I got bored watching this movie and pretty much waiting for the "kill everyone" scene.

    When comparing to the 1976 Carrie its like it missed everything, considering that the plot is almost exactly the same, the old version could grab your mind into the movie and feel it, something that this movie never ever achieved to even remotely do it.

    That's why sometimes a remake is better when it doesn't follow the same exact plot, if you are going to make a copy of something, at least do it better.
    Expand
  14. Jan 19, 2014
    10
    Carrie is a 2013 horror film directed by Peirce Kinberly with Chloe Grace Moretz and Julianne Moore.
    Taken from Carrie by Stephen King and eponymous 1976 film by Brian De Palma , tells the story of the young Carrie White , a girl who is constantly abused by his classmates and lives with his mother Margaret , a fundamentalist Christian has segregated in the house since he was born .
    Shortly after being the victim of a bad joke by some companion, Carrie discovers to have telekinetic powers and begin to train in their use.
    The film begins well with the birth scene of Carrie, in which we see the folly of Margaret as she thought it was a tumor. Going forward with the film , we understand that it is set in today's world , this that the story was closer to us and also to explain better the problem of bullying and religious extremism .
    Also stressed by the fact that Peirce is not De Palma , but director gets along very well in some places showing good ideas filmmaking .
    Also worthy of praise are the two main actresses Chloe Moretz and Julianne Moore. The young Chloe proves to be very good in the role of Carrie , especially in awkward movements and the shyness that can leak from its behavior (the only small flaw is that it's too pretty to be Carrie , who in the book , moreover, was fat) . Julianne Moore on the other hand is perfect in the role of Margaret ; expression disturbing and lost in the void , he manages to show us his inner insanity , identical to how it was described on the book and doing a job, in my opinion, better than that of Laurie ( but she was fabulous in that part ) .
    The discussions that exist between mother and daughter are very well done , describing a strange love-hate relationship between the two .
    The issues of bullying , contempt toward the other and the religious bigotry (especially the first two ) are dealt with in a very harsh and dramatic and Peirce here has tried to emphasize how cruel they can be with scenes not present neither in the book nor in the film De Palma .
    To conclude this new Carrie is a film worthy and a great remake even if it is the same level as that of the '70s.
    Expand
  15. Jan 18, 2014
    0
    Any movie starring Julianne Moore is a disaster waiting to happen. This one is particularly bad. Horrid acting, a lead character that is just too weird to feel any sympathy for, the question is: why the remake, if the original is just so much better ?
  16. Jan 17, 2014
    4
    It cannot compare to the original. Not only did the story arc advance in a nearly identical fashion to the original, but there was an abundance of recycled lines from the original scrip as well. With that, it lacked creativity and the only refreshing thing about it was having a modern context and special effects. Poor acting in a new film is naturally more unforgiving then in an old film. Brain DePalma's tones and themes remain more effective then adding a few cell phones to the story and brief CGI. Still an entertaining movie, but would need to be creepier and more heartfelt to actually do justice. Expand
  17. Jan 16, 2014
    6
    I'm surprised to be giving this a recommendation really didn't expect much, but although there might not be much originality this film is a solid watch. B
  18. Jan 16, 2014
    8
    The original is a classic and, all knee-jerk remake reactions aside, this 2013 update isn’t that bad…it even has some points that are better. For the most part, not much has changed from the Sissy Spacek film so this remake can easily work in favor of fans of the original as it can be used as a gateway to gather interest in seeing the original (or it can be a point of hatred as it really is almost dead-on to the original). Advancements in special effects also helped make the most meaningful moments of revenge a little more interesting this time around and, I have to say, Julianne Moore proved to be the best yet with playing Margaret White. It’s easy to hate on a remake for no other reason than it’s a remake but “Carrie” keeps itself true to the original and Chloë Grace Moretz is fantastic as Carrie and really filled in Sissy Spacek’s shoes nicely. Expand
  19. Jan 16, 2014
    8
    Carrie is brilliantly acted and emphasises on a relatable problem but as a horror movie, it is just not scary.

    P.S: I haven't watched the original Carrie so I can't criticize it based on its originality.
  20. Jan 15, 2014
    5
    Carrie is a great story, there is nothing to criticize. The movie of 1976 was an incredible adaptation. But this film is just one remake more for the list. The score that I give it is only awarded because of the plot. The only thing that it is actually good, is that this story is develop in the year 2013, so all the technology that we have is included on the movie; so Carrie has to face cyber bulling, in addition to the laughs and bad comments of the others. Beside that all the rest are pure fillers and silly attempts to be more accepted. The performances are not even close to the ones of Brian de Palma and most of them do not transmit the insanity, obsession, commitment, trauma and huge anger of Carrie, her mom, the teacher, Sue and Chris, respectively. Also the famous prom scene seems to be too exaggerated, I mean the protagonist only lose control, but in this movie was like a hunt; and her powers were beyond telekinesis. And the ending in the house was totally meaningless. Maybe Carrie should return form death and grab the arm of Kimberly Peirce, to take her to hell. Expand
  21. Jan 13, 2014
    0
    If this is not one the worst remake/films of all time, I don't know what is. Awful acting, Poorly done special effects that are far too fake looking and unrealistic, and it's a pretty much a shot for shot remake of the original with nothing different about it aside from a **** cast.

    Do not bother with this garbage. Watch the original instead.
  22. Jan 11, 2014
    5
    A estranhesa da carrie ta muito moderna ela vai ao shoping, controla os poderes treina eles bacana adoro a Cloe mas ainda prefiro a 2 versao so filme onde a Sissy spacek
  23. Jan 10, 2014
    5
    How do we solve a problem like Carrie? This film came off as the 'High School Musical' version of Brian DePalma's classic film. Though it did add more texture seen in the book, this film was not scary, well acted or even that interesting. Everyone in this film was so fit and beautiful it felt more like I was watching a blood drenched 'She's All That' than a remake of a horror classic.
  24. Jan 8, 2014
    8
    After over 150 viewings Brian De Palma's 1976 version of 'Carrie' remains my favourite film of all time. Therefore, if anyone was going to take issue with this remake it was going to be me. The first thing to be said about this new version is that as a film in its own right it does work. Kimberly Peirce is to be commended for doing a credible job in attempting to put a fresh slant on the material. The big question hanging over the whole enterprise, though, is whether a remake was really necessary. The answer to that has to be a resounding NO. However good Peirce's version is it compares unfavourably, in every aspect, to the sublime master class of De Palma's film. I have always viewed the original as more of a social commentary than an out and out horror movie and De Palma effortlessly switched gears between the comedy, horror and romance. This combination made his vision a very satisfying experience
    Performance wise, Chloe Grace Moretz is actually better than I think she has been given critical credit for in the title role, but let's face it she was never going to come close to topping Sissy Spacek's iconic playing of the character. Likewise Julianne Moore, an actress whom I greatly admire, grounds her Margaret White in a more believable reality than did Piper Laurie. However, I still prefer Laurie's over the top loon. Also one misses Nancy Allen, Amy Irving, John Travolta, Betty Buckley and PJ Soles. Their replacements do not come close to the incarnations of those original actors. In fact Ansel Elgort (Tommy Ross) and Barry Shebaka Henley (Principle Morton) are noticeably inferior to their original counterparts.
    Even though Peirce has stated that she was returning to the book for this new version, it does feel at times as if she is cherry picking from the novel as well as plagiarising De Palma's film. For older viewers the new version suffers also from audience expectation as scenes and lines of dialogue are anticipated and compared, even if unwittingly, to the superior original. The prom scene 2013 totally lacks the magic and romanticism of De Palma's version and the blood falling on the hapless Carrie, shot from three angles, is totally mis-judged. Similarly, Moretz's playing of the all encompassing revenge that follows is interpreted here as being enjoyable, where as Spacek plays the scene as cathartic, with eyes staring blankly in shock. On the plus side Peirce does handle well the scenes of Carrie's experimentation and discovery of her telekinetic powers. Where her version fails most is with the style. Brian De Palma is all about style, and his set pieces are just jaw droppingly brilliant. He incorporates split screen and slow motion amazingly and to great romantic and nail biting effect. Aided no end by his talented leading lady and her vulnerable and achingly believable portrayal, De Palma's take on the story WILL never be bettered. Also in his corner is that great Pino Donnagio score; The moving relationship that is seen to develop between Spacek and Buckley (which is totally redundant in the new version) and THAT ending. Peirces's last scene was never going to recapture what De Palma achieved. Her ending is somewhat lame and superfluous, underlining the fact that whilst her 'Carrie' is enjoyable entertainment, De Palma's 'Carrie' is a justifiably revered classic.
    Expand
  25. Jan 3, 2014
    9
    I like both the original and this newest version. The acting is actually pretty good and updated. The effects notwithstanding the story remains the best part of course. I would be curious as to what Mr. King feels but I can tell you that I enjoyed the entire film. Chloe Moretz does a very good job as does Julianne Moore in bringing us the emotion of the characters.
  26. Jan 2, 2014
    8
    Carrie is a magical horror movie, not only it contains most of the scary things a good horror movie needs but it also spices it up with some moral. In fact, it shows what does bullying lead to. There isn't a lot of nudity which is rare these days so I recommend you to watch this beast. The whole movie is not that scary but it contains a lot of disturbing bloody scenes and cruel killing ways, that won't make you
    uncomfortable if you're a true horror/thriller fan. The script is
    written well enough. The directors did a good job. It could be so easy
    to make a Carrie two because of the magical ending of the movie. I
    gave the film 8/10 because it wasn't too scary and I never give more
    than 9/10 so 8/10 in considered very good! Now go and watch it.
    Expand
  27. Dec 21, 2013
    7
    This movie wasn't the most incredible of the world, but I can say that is a good movie, because almost everything worked up. The actors were good especially Cholë and Julianne, they were very good, Julianne was so good that i was feeling a little bit of scared because she is insane and Cholë was very good, because in the book she is ugly and weird and Cholë is the opposite so she had to be great to make everybody belive that Carrie is weird. But there is a problem in the movie that they could make a better make up on Cholë to her look ugly and also because some parts that are totally different of the book Expand
  28. Dec 19, 2013
    7
    I don't think that remakes are unnecessary, invites a new generation to appreciate old classic with a new face, i agree that this new Carrie is not as strange as the old, but is so interesting like, it is not as dark as the old, but is so interesting like.
  29. Dec 18, 2013
    8
    I been waiting tor this movie since summer where the first teaser arrived. That had been all the wait worth. The movie takes on school bullying, and also a lot of blood too. If you like thrilling movies I recommend this.
  30. Dec 9, 2013
    8
    Isn't dificult to undertand the history, it's nearly a "BloodMary" history, a girl witch everybody make "bullyng" with her and she has super powers and kill everyone, the stronger point isn't the Horror, but the drama, the movie shows how crazy a "super religious" mom is, and why Carrie is so strange, but she wants to be diferent and she will try to be diferent, the movie has some pretty good special effects, a good development, like the movie continues very well and mixed with some horror parts, the movie meets the genre and the objective very well, it's a good Drama and Horror movie in my opinion. Expand
  31. Dec 9, 2013
    8
    It has more scenes of drama than horror, so if you’re looking for that in this film, you won’t find it.

    But I liked it. Julianne Moore is spectacular and Chloë Grace Moretz is great as the “poor Carrie,” although I think that she could’ve been a little better as the “vengeful Carrie”.

    It’s a good movie.
  32. Dec 6, 2013
    7
    "Carrie" (2013) A MoviesForever Review.

    Although critics are considering it as a remake, it is not, it is a re-imagening of the book, which is a classic. This one is flawed, although it is entertaining. Some actors are not fitting, especially the gym teacher, and some acting is not good, it is passable but should've been better, and here I am not talking about Julianne Moore nor Chloe
    Grace Moretz, they did a great job, but if you compare them to Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie you will not be pleased much. I have nothing to say except that the 1976 version is an instant classic, although missing some aspects of the book, other than that it is a timeless classic, so there is no purpose of this "re-imagening" I can think of except money, but I didn't regret the experience, not one second of it.

    A MoviesForever Review
    Expand
  33. Dec 5, 2013
    4
    This movie was set in this era which I think was a mistake. The 70s is a more interesting setting and high school frankly was more interesting. This remake didn't need to happen and got a lot of hype for no reason. The original blows this one out of the water.
  34. Nov 27, 2013
    4
    I didn't particularly care for it. I don't think there is any way they could make the movie similar to the book. They have tried to do so multiple times and failed. This remake is no exception. The stones fell after the prom when they were supposed to fall when she was a little girl, too many people survived the mayhem at the school, and the girl who got pregnant was supposed to lose her baby in the womb. The movie gets a 4 from me because I think they did do a good job at making the movie in today's time period with cell phone cameras, laptops, etc. I appreciated the adaptation into the modern times and think that was the only positive quality the movie presented. However, once the bucket of blood fell onto Carrie that's where the movie flopped and fell onto itself. While the destruction and carnage was depicted well, it was obvious that the makers of the movie put all of their ideas and hard work into the other parts of the movie. The end phase of the movie started strong but severely lacked the flare it needed in order to finish off strong. Expand
  35. Nov 22, 2013
    5
    An average movie for a great novel. Carrie is entertaining in its first half hour, but once the action starts, it becomes laughable. The cast disappoints, not even Julianne Moore could bring a nice performance.
  36. Nov 21, 2013
    10
    Carrie is an excellent film, keeps the suspense from beginning to end. Good actors, good music, script, photography, good special effects. A great remake.
  37. Nov 19, 2013
    10
    For a couple years the thriller movies were nothing but a parody movie material. But in Carrie (2013) you can see the real meaning of the thriller. The cast is very successful. Especially Chloe Grace Moretz. Remake movies have %30 of success in my opinion. And Carrie is the part of the lucky %30. It was great. 10/10
  38. Nov 17, 2013
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. In Julie Taymor's Across the Universe(the 2008 musical that recounts the late-sixties by making narrative use of the Beatles' songbook), a high school girl expresses an unrequited love for, presumably, the golden boy, the star quarterback, in a languorous version of "I Want to Hold Your Hand", as she walks away from her thronged colleagues, the football players and cheerleaders. Because the audience is well-versed in the symbiotic relationship between these teenage kings and queens, it comes as a shock when Taymor cuts to the comely blonde decked out with school spirit, a P.O.V shot from the Asian brunette's perspective, sitting in the grandstands, making her erotic longings known through Paul McCartney's rock and roll poetry. When football practice starts, the lovesick cheerleader proceeds to walk through the busy field, untouched by a collision of male bodies who display complete indifference to the female presence, a set-piece in which the sports arena is juxtaposed against musical art that recalls the "Is There Anybody Here for Love" sequence in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, when a similarly ignored(but straight) Jane Russell maneuvers her way through all those kinetic and self-involved Olympians going about their training. The intertextuality between these filmic texts posits that the closeted teen would have longed for Marilyn(not a swimmer or a gymnast); she prefers blondes, too. A lesbian cheerleader, of course, upsets the whole prep sports ecosystem. Sue Snell knows this. The filmmaker, a woman, who helmed Boys Don't Cry, remakes Sue, or rather, appraises the Amy Irving character's true nature, since she would understand the interior lives of girls better than the source material's male creators. Sadly, the filmmaker, barely strays from the narrative template laid down by Brian DePalma in the 1976 original(adapted from the Stephen King novel). Still, arguably, the filmmaker manages to resolve a plot point involving Sue and her boyfriend Tommy Ross that, to this day, leaves, for some, an aftertaste of contrivance; the plot point in which the "nice" girl, as atonement for helping corner Carrie against the shower wall with pelted tampons, asks her prom date to accompany the school misfit instead. Miss Collins is suspicious, and so are we, because no high school girl alive could possibly be that altruistic. Rightly so, the gym teacher tells Tommy, "Don't you think you're just gonna look a little ridiculous when you walk into the prom with Carrie White?" Now with the remake, Sue's charitable gesture makes sense. Not willing to put her image at risk, she sends Tommy as her surrogate. On a subtextual level, the filmmaker outs Sue, even though, in all likelihood, it never crossed King's mind that he was creating an ambiguous girl. The writer, however, has no control over how a story will be interpreted by the reader after its deliverance. As a commodity, a novel to be sold on the marketplace, the artist knows that it now belongs to the people, with a life of its own. Naturally, an aggressively straight male like DePalma would have a different take on the King novel than a lesbian, who, perhaps, knowing what it was like to be different at such an unformed age, wouldn't want Carrie to self-immolate in a fire, alone and unloved. But this production isn't an indie like her auspicious debut. Expected to meet the commercial expectations of profitability demanded by a major studio, she keeps the film in the closet, too, and goes through the motions of shooting a routine horror flick. You have to look closer for the movie that could have been. Right away, the filmmaker establishes a connection between the clandestine possibles, during P.E. class, when Carrie errantly serves the volleyball straight into Sue's back, whereas in the original, Carrie is isolated in the back row, unable to dig the incoming kill. Instead of raising her voice in anger, Sue just looks back at Carrie, a look that transcends physical pain. This time around, in the ensuing lock room melee, Sue is more of an onlooker than an instigator, considerably less pro-active; she doesn't tear off the tampon dispensary cover like her 70s-era counterpart. Later, in the backseat of Tommy's car, Sue looks distracted during intercourse, as if she's undergoing an epiphany about her sexual orientation, akin to Lana(in Boys Don't Cry), who knows Brandon is a girl when they have sex near her spinach-canning factory jobsite, because in a P.O.V. shot, she sees "his" clevage. Just before Chris dumps pig's blood on the prom queen, she texts Sue, and refers to Carrie as "your girl". Conspicuously, Sue doesn't clamor her way back into the flaming gymnasium to check on Tommy. In retrospect, we now realize that she doesn't love him enough to risk her life. This misplaced love, after 37 years, finds purchase in a burning house, where Sue, quite pointedly, bravely treads with the goal of saving her secret love. Expand
  39. Nov 13, 2013
    5
    In a partly unnecessary remake, Carrie has lost some of its dread and now looks terribly dismal instead of frightening. With the change, and also Chloe Morets as the leading actress, it seems this version is trying to invoke more sympathy to relatable case of bullying than to scare the audience with terror, which in its credit, works decently well. The talents give relatively good performance, although some of the script and characterization are muddled with exaggeration. The movie barely offers anything in term of novelty as it follows the source firmly, furthermore the plot is highly predictable and very 90s, in the end Carrie feels like a mild psychology thriller at best.

    Chloe Moretz as the titular abused girl is the embodiment of a dejected teen. It's nigh impossible to not feel compassionate towards her as she pleads and cries. This is strange since Carrie had somber tone in her, audience would feel apprehension, compared to that Chloe looks rather more innocent. She delivers more empathy inducing scenes and actually makes viewers cheer for her. If it's an intended objective of the movie, it's fairly effective.

    The role of creepy and misguidedly religious mother falls into Julianne Moore. She does a good job of setting unnerving sense of inescapable mentally threatening parent. It's not quite as scary, although it is disturbing. Relationship between her and the daughter is a strange, an affectionately insane one. The rest of the cast is mixed bag. Antagonist role of Chris (Portia Doubleday) is very unlikely to jump from high school prank to homicide attempt in one leap.

    Sue (Gabriella Wilde) is plain weird, it seems that there could be more interactions between her and Carrie, perhaps to offer more complex friendship plot, instead of exclusively apologetic distant gazes and failure to communicate. The movie's gym teacher, Desjardin (Judy Greer) has crude yet protective sense, she's a more youthful authority figure who is comfortable in high school environment, but her role seems a bit limited.

    The film is marred by a few unintentionally funny moments, and honestly the latter part is much more timid than most horror movies. Looking at Carrie discovering her power and becoming the telekinesis menace to society can be mistaken with X-men gone wrong. Some scenes are meant to be dramatic, but ultimately the closing feels anticlimactic. Aside from the tingling sense of eerie parental guidance and the unsettling corruption of innocence, Carrie is missing intense suspense; even its jump scares are juvenile.

    Despite the use of more relevant topic of bullying, great talents behind it, and the same ridiculous amount of blood, Carrie is merely a toned down dull rework of old movie.
    Expand
  40. Nov 11, 2013
    7
    Halloween has a very fundamental, ABC rubric in the cinematic film world; A usually stands for absurdity, and the countless absurd efforts to scare people in a genre that defines it’s own rules; B is for blood, lots and lots of blood; and C is for Carrie. Hailed as the most popular film to watch on Halloween, Carrie has been in the film world since its first adaptation in 1976, a performance made iconic by Sissy Spacek. Since then, the character has really struggled to find any solid footing in a sequel and a made for television movie. In its third attempt, director Kimberly Peirce (Boys Don’t Cry, Stop-Loss) delivers a surprisingly satisfying modern retelling of beloved horror novelist Stephen King’s first ever published novel. Serving more as an homage and ode to the novel and classic film, Peirce and company tip their hats and inevitably add small nuanced changes to the story as it appeals to a new generation that can understand the ridicule and embarrassment of traumatic high school pranks with the inclusion of social media and modern technology. Yes, Facebook and smartphones have a lot to do with Carrie’s demising high school reputation.

    Carrie White (the iconic role this time portrayed by Chloë Grace Moretz) is a young, socially handicapped high schooler who just wants a normal life with normal friends. Unfortunately for her, her mother Margaret White (Julianne Moore) is a Christian extremist who doesn’t allow Carrie to do much, other than attend school and pray. In her last year of high school, weeks before prom, Carrie awkwardly finds herself trickling into the gym showers once all the other girls have finished, and has her first period. Frantic and hysterical, Carrie seeks refuge in her peers, who laugh and throw tampons and sanitary products at her while screaming for help in the showers. What starts off as a stark symbol of womanhood, quickly progresses into a whirlwind of blood and suffering.

    Unable to share any of her real world issues with her mother, Carrie confides in her school gym teacher Ms. Desjardin (Judy Greer) who reassures Carrie, protects her and occasionally slaps her out of it, while Carrie is experimenting with her newly discovered telekinetic abilities. The popular girls, malicious and evil (in a way only high school girls know how to be) led by Chris Hargensen (Portia Doubleday) make Carrie’s life a living hell during their last days in school. As prom nears and the guilt of her actions take a toll on her, one of the only girls with a soul, Sue Snell (Gabriella Wilde), moved by pure emotion and empathy, asks her dreamy boyfriend Tommy Ross (played by Ansel Elgort) to take Carrie to the prom. And if you know anything about Carrie and her time at the prom, you can imagine how it all went.

    Peirce’s re-imagining of the classic is actually quite good. With the exception of one heavily-FXed destruction scene near the film’s finale and the final frame’s of the movie that maybe hints at a sequel, the film has a keen cinematic eye thanks to its talented director. The film itself, for once in a high-profile October release, is not an unexplained marathon of blood, gore and cheap thrills. Instead, Peirce’s Carrie is a subtle and nuanced straight horror film with an intent to honour its predecessor.

    One of the things that Carrie doesn’t have going for her is her outdated story and lack of a real ‘scary power’. Lets face it, once X-Men was made into a movie and Professor X became the face of telekinesis, a little girl with an unexplained ability to move things with her mind don’t really scare people anymore, unless your pranking them.

    From page to screen, Carrie is bound to be a well oiled, money making machine. What is most impressive about this adaptation of the iconic character is the marketing that both MGM and Screen Gems did to ensure the film is a hit. The studios brought an impressive line-up in front and behind the camera. From Julianne Moore, who nails the self-sacrificing, insane iconic Margaret White character effortlessly, to Moretz, who, has an unexplained terror in her facial expressions to sell the characters to a new generation of horror obsessed audience, the film succeeds at not being an overshadowed relic. Unfortunately for Moretz, Carrie moved objects in the original film with her eyes, not her hands like Moretz did in this adaptation. It is hard for any horror fan to deny that Spacek‘s eyes in the original Carrie will forever be the eyes and face of the iconic character.

    Along with the cast, the film adaptation also failed to have any real competition and strategically slotted itself in a Halloween season absent of any ‘paranormal activity’ or other masked murdering icons. It should easily retain a spot atop the box office until Halloween. Not to mention the ingenious viral campaign the film took to promote the troubled, misunderstood teen.
    Expand
  41. Nov 10, 2013
    8
    Esta pelicula me gusto mucho, me parecio muy buena.Esta version de "Carrie" tuvo muchas cosas nuevas a comparacion de la version original, fue un poco mas sangrienta.Me gusto la actuacion de Chloe Moretz.
  42. Nov 9, 2013
    10
    If your looking for a great creepy movie with some but less notably a bit of horror I definitely recommend going to see this movie. By far the best horror movie of this year, this remake does the original movie and Stephen King's book much justice. Chloe Moretz did a wonderful job embracing the emotions of Carrie and Julianne Moore is just downright scary. I recommend this movie for anyone, it's not over the top scary, it's got a solid story and leaves you with goosebumps as you exit the theater. Expand
  43. Nov 7, 2013
    8
    As a true fan of the original, I pretty much expected this to be trash, but here is a big "Good Job Team!" to the production staff on Carrie 2013.

    Chloë Grace Moretz does an incredible job channeling the modern Carrie and bringing the character to life in a way that is genuine and thoughtful. For such an attractive young woman to play a high school pariah is nothing new. Moretz
    radiates an aura of introversion, even as the camera is focusing in on her you can feel her very spirit trying to hide and not be noticed by the world that is so strange and cruel to her.

    Who could play Ms White today and terrify me as much as Piper Laurie had in the 70's; Julianne Moore.
    All I will say is that he gasping ragged prayers still make my skin crawl. Thank you Ms Moore for a fantastic job.

    I do have one small complaint: This film had an amazing opportunity within it to show people the intense pain of bullying, both online and at school. I feel if they had embraced that issue this film would have been a 10; as is it feels like they glossed over it.
    Expand
  44. Nov 6, 2013
    6
    La versión dirigida por Brian De Palma en 1976 fue un éxito total, que inició con la avalancha de las muchas películas (y algunas series) de Stephen King. Ésta versión es no del todo acertada, pero es entretenimiento para los que han leído los libros de dicho escritor. Recomendaría la película a personas que sufren de mucho estrés o quiere asesinar a alguien, ya que la película funciona muy bien en éste ámbito, pero sigue siendo una más del montón de películas de lo que va del año; nada que valga la pena recordar; solamente entretenimiento momentario Expand
  45. Nov 4, 2013
    7
    Based on Stephen King's novel, "Carrie" and the same name as the original in 1976, the new version of "Carrie" is about a poor innocent girl who has telekinesis and she went to a prom until those mean bullies are making a prank to her and she controls her power to destruct the entire high school into a disaster. Chloe Grace-Moretz is playing a main character as Carrie White and she did a pretty good job for portraying an emotional teenage girl, and she also gets the top that is near to the original Carrie. Julianne Moore plays Carrie's mother and she also did great for becoming an insane widow who wants to get rid of Carrie White's life, not as bad as the original, but the original mother stays the top. The story stays very close to the book and it goes different ways like the original movie, but I've seen Carrie White becomes an interesting character that we seen her back problems. She controls her telekinesis powers, she gets comfortable to her new friend, and she becomes insane for destroying everything in the prom for her bullies and to entire school that makes her prank. Even though the new version of Carrie is pretty decent and not as close to the original, but it's a good horror movie to enjoy with teenagers and to other Stephen King fans as well. Carrie is a good old fashion flick with great scares and some chilling moments that I've seen in Halloween, but a good one. Expand
  46. Nov 3, 2013
    9
    I LOVED IT! As a huge fan of the book I was very satisfied with how it was brought to life. It's a little derivative of DePalma's film but has a few touches of its own, enough that I found it enough to stand on its own. Although Pierce largely misses the chance to show the destruction Carrie brings to the whole town in the book (budget concerns perhaps?) and the ending doesn't match DePalma's, special effects elevate the prom and Chris and Billy's comeuppance (which is truly inspired and my favorite scene) past DePalma's, plus she found a good way to incorporate the book's meteor shower. Pierce also reinvents the film as drama that effectively builds tension more effectively than a simple horror film from the get go, plus Carrie's development of her power (which is well known to be a metaphor for burgeoning womanhood) progresses much more organically. Chloë Grace Moretz crushes it; it's been a common criticism that she's too pretty to be Carrie but upon seeing it, I'm letting it slide, because she not only pulls it off by bringing a heartbreaking frailty, it kind of makes things even more shocking, because you wonder just how messed up her life had to be to make her the kind of person she is at the start of the film. Not that anyone should hope for tragedy, but I found myself really praying that things would work out better despite the fact that we all know what's going to happen. Gabriella Wilde was also very good as Sue Snell, she make the sense of regret that leads to her ill-fated benevolence believable (it aways seemed far-fetched to me). The always reliable Judy Greer is in fine form as Miss Dejarden, and Julianne Moore chews the scenery as the part of Carrie's mom calls for (recreated by Pierce as a paranoid schizophrenic). The novel Carrie is one of my favorite books, so I wouldn't give it my seal of approval if I wasn't genuinely impressed. Tip of the hat to all involved. Expand
  47. Nov 1, 2013
    3
    Thousands of kilometers behind the original acting. The new Carie is as scary as my little nephew when upset. The mother, just powerless. The gentle athlete, inexistent, Jacob's like. Nothing more to add for me.
  48. Nov 1, 2013
    5
    Chloe Moretz is the new age-appropriate teenager with telekinetic powers and Julianne Moore plays her deeply disturbed, uber-religious mother. The plot pretty much follows the original DePalma classic with the addition of cell phones and the internet. What it lacks is any soul. Everything leading up to the big prom scene is uninteresting and even her blood-soaked reprisal lacks originality or flash (despite the fire). The performances are all uninspired…as a matter of fact, the whole bloody movie is anemic and downright dull. Expand
  49. Oct 31, 2013
    8
    Pretty good film, the 2nd half of the film is where stuff gets tasty and where there's lots of tension. It's a really up movie and makes me wonder how people come up with this kind of I mean these people are crazier than me and I didn't even think that was possible.
  50. Oct 30, 2013
    10
    Perfect. For the sake of a review for a 'remake' I believe you should forget that it is one, and focus on how good this film is on it's own two feet. Carrie is an unbelievably good film; tense, gripping with brilliant acting and great rampant destruction... What more could you want?
  51. Oct 30, 2013
    8
    "This 'reimagining' of Carrie (the classic 1976) is the best remake I have ever seen in a long time. Shouldn't be missed."
    Carrie, played by Chloe Moretz, is a shy outcast in her high school, she lives with her abusive and mentally-disturbed religious mother Margaret, played by Julianne Moore, the keeps her locked up in a crowded closet filled with crosses and Jesus bleeding (black ink?)
    on a stake. Carrie endures humiliation after experiencing her first period, in which she thought she was bleeding to death, in front of her whole classmates (with the main antagonist Chris, played by Portia, and her friend Sue, played by Gabrielle) who mockingly videotapes the incident as well as telling her to 'plug it up'. Sue, feeling bad about her involvement, decides to convince her long-time boyfriend and prom date (Tommy, played by Ansel Elgort) to take Carrie to their final senior prom. Meanwhile, Carrie develops telekinetic powers 'witch' (dry joke) she uses it to her full advantage when her mother Margaret forbids her to go in fear of 'Adam' taking her virginity due to the slight exposure of her 'dirty pillows.' She does forewarn Carrie that 'they are all going to laugh at you' to which of no avail. When Carrie is at the prom, it all starts out well despite the awkward setting that she has placed herself in, still determined that this will be her night. AND THEN...all hell breaks loose, after Chris (banned from the Prom, exacts revenge) dumps a bucket of pig's blood on Carrie and her beautifully home-made dress. The prom scene isn't terrifying; it's invigorating even if that sounds a tad bit masochistic. We get to feel all the emotions of Carrie; anger, frustration, embarrassment and vengeance. One by one, the body count doubles in tremendously gruesome deaths living up to its 'R'. The final scene with Carrie and her mother is sadistic and tragic, more so than the scenes leading up to it. The ending is decent to the book, cracks and all; we get to hear the bittersweet track by the Cults.
    Chloe Grace Moretz plays Carrie straight out of the book. She does her best with the source material and she nails every bit of detail from the Stephen King novel. It's a different approach then Sissy Spacek's shocking wide-eyed performance. She is an actress beyond her age. "...Chloe Grace Moretz delivers a more vulnerable and shocking performance as Carrie White." Julianne Moore is ever 'moore' (dry joke, again) creepy as Margaret with all the head thumping, the bible-reading and the nail-skinning. Gabrielle also does a good job with Sue and is commendable for making the audience truly root for her. Portia gives an exaggerated performance but isn't shocking considering the character was written the exact same way.
    Kimberly Pierce does a good job with Carrie, for what it is, even if it has been butchered by many remakes and sequels since the 1976 film. It's tense and brisk in its pacing which does sacrifice some of the character developments but it keeps the viewer consistently engaged. Kimberly Pierce has left Carrie in a final closing though the ending suggest otherwise. Overall, it's a good teen thriller and I hope I don't have to see another remake any time soon.
    "The first Carrie was horror. This is tragedy." -rogerebert.com
    *Hopefully, they can make it to the third spot on Boxoffice
    Expand
  52. Oct 27, 2013
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie was ok until the prom scene. The part where everyone was supposed to laugh at Carrie and her mother saying in her head over and over, 'they're all gonna laugh at you' was completely left out. This was a HUGE mistake. Whomever is responsible for this stupidass mistake should be ostracized from the film industry. Expand
  53. Oct 26, 2013
    6
    Carrie was alright. It was disappointing compared to that badass teaser released earlier this year, but there was nothing wrong with it. I wasn't really interested in it, but i wasn't bored and I didn't hate any of the material or notice any laughable dialogue. It's a waste of time yeah, and you really don't need to see it, but if you do you won't want to leave.
  54. Oct 26, 2013
    5
    The first half of Kimberly Peirce's "Carrie" couldn't decide whether it wanted to be a horror movie or a "b*tches-go-to-prom" movie, and this made both side lacking. The second half was a fairly satisfying retributionfest except for an incredibly stupid final ten seconds. I went into Carrie expecting a scary movie and I didn't get one. Maybe that's my fault.
    On the plus side, there were
    good-to-strong performances throughout. I was impressed with Elgort as Tommy and especially with Julianne Moore as Momma White. I would have liked a little more carnage during the rampage, but what I got was enjoyable. I thought some of the cinematography was awfully cool, and as said before Julianne Moore was excellent as the mom, but all the pluses just made me wish it were a better film.

    tl;dr: The two sides of the first half foiled one another and the second half was merely passable. The really good aspects just couldn't make up for an ultimately floundering effort.
    Expand
  55. Oct 23, 2013
    7
    Loved the original and when I heard that this movie was being done, I had mixed emotions rushing all over me. After watching the movie, I knew that I have just watched a decent movie but if you think about it more, you will think that it was a bit pointless on making the movie. I considered the movie to be a remake and a bit of a re-imagined version. Remakes are made to fix problems that it's original had and to add something new that wasn't part of the original or it's source material. The only thing new added to this movie that wasn't part of the movie was the involvement of recording a bullying that was happening at the moment, with the use of cellular phones and making it viral. The other one was the rampage scene but if you have read the source material or the book, then you probably know that this was going to happen. The movie didn't fix anything that the original had and nothing memorable or new, was added that wasn't part of the original or the source material. So if nothing new happened in this film then what was the point of making this flick. Remakes should be new and fresh and should not entirely be the same as the original and source material. The movie was not terrible because it had excellent acting from Chloe Moretz and Julianne Moore. The CGI was decent but at least it wasn't horrible. Overall, this Carrie didn't beat the original but it was a decent movie, I still had a lot of fun watching the movie but it still gives me the feeling that sometimes the movie feels pointless. Carrie gets a 7/10. Expand
  56. Oct 23, 2013
    8
    Firstly, let me say that I have never seen the 1976 version of the film. Therefore, I feel I am relatively objective in my review of the movie.

    Well, this movie's plot isn't entirely hard to follow. It tells a simple story, but is very effective. Chloë Grace Moretz who plays "Carrie White" the movies main character, did an excellent job. The movie's dialogue, sound effects, and special
    effects were all very well done, as well as the camera work. Only a pretentious snob would not be impressed by this movie. It was very well done. Gabriella Wilde did an excellent job as "Sue Snell" and Judy Greer did a great job as Miss Desjardin.

    Again, I have never seen the original, but the only critics who would bash this movie are those from the camp of, "It didn't live up to the original." Trust me, this movie is well worth the price of admission. It's not an all-time classic, and it wasn't "scary" in the typical sense of a horror movie, but it was very well done.
    Expand
  57. Oct 22, 2013
    5
    Squandered potential....I was really excited to see this movie. The book Carrie was probably one of the top three novels I've ever read. I absolutely loved it. As a man, I'd never sympathized with a female character like I did poor Carrie White, and really felt like I was feeling what she was feeling. You felt so sorry and miserable for her from beginning to end and you just wanted her to be happy. Of course it doesn't end up that way, and the terrifying finale is both thrilling and tragic at the same time.

    Unfortunately, director K. Pierce decided to almost dogmatically follow the script from Brian DePalma's 1970's film. The 1970's movie was great, but it was great in its own unique way, and the way it played out was quite different from the book, but effective nonetheless. Sissy Spacek's unearthly and creepy performance was what made THAT movie great. Her transformation from strange-looking weirdo, to nice-looking girl at the prom was drastic, and then in the finale with the blood all over her she went completely demonic. It was scary and although the ending to the 1970's movie wasn't nearly as memorable as the book, Spacek's performance certainly was and made up for it.

    What Kimberly Pierce seems to have missed, however, is that Chloe Moretz is not Sissy Spacek. Chloe Moretz is fantastic and likely a far superior acting talent, but she's a natural beauty and no amount of talent was going to allow her to be as plain/weird-looking, nor as terrifying and otherworldly (post climax) as Spacek. Had Kimberly Pierce clued into this at some point, Chloe might have have been allowed to give us a new and possibly even better portrayal of the titular character. Instead, Pierce clumsily tries to force Chloe Moretz to play Sissy Spacek and Brian DePalma's Carrie, instead of Stephen King's or her own version of the character.

    This was an alright movie, and I certainly enjoyed it, but I can't help but scratch my head at how ineptly it was written and produced. Pierce had an opportunity to take one of the best thriller novels of the century and make it her own on screen with a bigger budget, better technology and top-notch acting talent. She elected instead to attempt a slavish copy of the low-budget 1976 version, and the results are predictably disappointing. It's really a shame.
    Expand
  58. Oct 22, 2013
    5
    Although we have talented performers in Chloe Grace Moretz and Julianne Moore (and I always love Judy Greer), they are mere shadows of the performances of Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie. And let's not forget the supporting cast; William Katt with his Cali-fro and blissed out Redford smile, Amy Irving as the so damned earnest good girl, and the lip lickin' evil duo of Nancy Allen and John Travolta playing it up gloriously. The present supporting cast? Made not a single impression. They could have come from The CW central casting. Ms Moretz is a fine actress and I've enjoyed her other roles, but I think she is just too attractive to play the mousy outcast. Sissy Spacek (although ten years older, but still believable as a high schooler) looked not only like an outcast, but like someone almost alien in contrast to her schoolmates. She truly transformed from duck to swan at the prom. Chloe just cleaned up well, and looks nice in a prom dress. There were some minor plot point changes, but it essentially DePalma's version gussied up with some (sometimes dodgy) CGI. Enjoy, if you will, but give me the original any day of the week. Expand
  59. Oct 22, 2013
    6
    Not a bad movie but nothing amazing. This is the same Carrie you've seen or read before, but made with more modern effects and with a bit of a twist to make room for Carrie 2. I see a lot of low scores, and I see a lot of high scores by people with 1 review under their belt. This movie is average, an acceptable depiction of a story you already know, or a good way for youngsters to see the Carrie story because no one wants to watch a movie from the 70's anymore. Expand
  60. Oct 22, 2013
    6
    The characters were to pretty difficult to relate to and the story was far less entertaining then what I was expecting it to be. I came into the theater with a lot of hype and was extremely disappointed, this movie had so much more potential but in the end it was kind of a let down, still a decent movie to watch if you are bored interested in telekinesis though.
  61. Oct 21, 2013
    0
    this remake is crap this remake is crap this remake is crap this remake is crap this remake is crap this remake is crap this remake is crap this remake is crap
  62. Oct 20, 2013
    5
    Were this the only film version of Stephen King's 1974 first best-seller, I think most of its readers would be satisfied with the result; as it is a faithful, straight-forward cinematic telling of the story of Carrie White and her tormentors. Further, those in the theater audience that were not familiar with the book or the story, would probably come away with a feeling of having seen a superior scare/gore-fest. And certainly, Chloe Moretz was very, very good in the title role. However, this film is a re-make of the original 1976 version, directed by Brian De Palma, with Sissy Spacek as Carrie. It is not necessary to go into the many differences here; I would only ask anyone who has not seen the original, to seek it out on-line, and simply click forward to the beginning of the prom scene. Afterwards, make your own comparisons. Expand
  63. Oct 20, 2013
    7
    I think Carrie is one of my favorite underrated remakes of 2013 because I felt that the original version is way better than the new version of Carrie. Although I was a little worried that Sony and MGM were hoping to shed some light of Carrie after a unsuccessful yet unsatisfied 1999 sequel and a disappointing TV movie in 2003. The remake is good, but I don't know if director Kimberly Pierce (best known for the cult classic "Boys Don't Cry") haven't even saw or what the original Carrie is about. Carrie White (originally played by Sissy Spacek, now Chloe Grace Moretz) is a teenager who is scared and frightened (and sorta freaky), she lives with her abusive mother, everyone's laughing at her at school, learning psychic powers, she and Tommy were named prom queen and king until one bucket of blood changes everything (one of the scariest scenes I've ever saw). Since that bucket killed Tommy, you know what happens next and trust me, it's full of gore. Carrie turns from prom queen to a psychotic mentally-stabled zombie (sorta). I won't tell any spoilers, but the remake is incredible. Although it may not be as good as the original, but I gotta give credit to Chloe Grace Moretz (one of the best underrated child stars since Dakota Fanning), she did a great job portraying a sick and demented teenager who has a hard time dealing with all the emotions she has gone through at school and her devilish mom as we speak. I know the reviews were mixed, so hopefully we could see a future cult classic on this remake. But I still wanna check it out before Halloween. Not great, but still a good remake. Expand
  64. Oct 20, 2013
    5
    It's a movie of two parts the first, which includes everything up to the prom "bucket" sequence, is really pretty good. The only weak element for me was Julianne Moore's character. I generally love Moore, but this role is one dimensional and weak. But again, the first part is similar to so many other movies of this type Some Kind of Wonderful, etc. But the revenge sequence at the prom and following was just entirely crappy, boring, and stupid. Sure, she had to get some kind of revenge, but it could have been SO much more creative. Expand
  65. Oct 19, 2013
    10
    Moore is terrifying as a guilt-addled true believer, and Moretz caresses her role when she gets the chance. And the hot topics do indeed remain hot...
  66. Uba
    Oct 19, 2013
    10
    The remake makes justice to the original film and to the novel. Well done!. The cast is perfect. We have the talented Chloe Moretz and the professionally Julianne Moore
  67. Oct 19, 2013
    7
    Filmgoers who are not interested in seeing a modern remake of Carrie are equally unlikely to be won-over by Peirce’s effort since it tells (mostly) the same story without dramatically improving anything but the onscreen visuals. Nevertheless, for viewers who are open to the remake, the assembled cast and crew manage to accomplish their goal of updating the still timely Carrie storyline with a more intense (and gory) retelling of events for the contemporary movie market. While it might not have been necessary, the Carrie remake is still an adept, entertaining, and at times downright haunting, piece of filmmaking. Expand
  68. Oct 19, 2013
    10
    I already knew that critics would be bashing this since it's a remake but this movie was great! Your feel the emotion and pain of Carrie throughout the movie and then she snaps and when she does it is intense I loved it! The only thing negative was that by the end I loved the intensity so much that I was craving for more! All in all a 10 out of 10!
  69. Oct 19, 2013
    6
    This movie has definitely gotten some mixed reactions from everyone whose seen it so far. While I did not see the original "Carrie" movie, this version still felt pretty predictable. But honestly, I enjoyed this movie. There are definitely good parts and there are definitely some bad parts. Chloe Moretz and Julianne Moore definitely make this movie work for sure, and there are some really gruesome and gory shots that I thought looked really cool. Yet at the same time, it felt like some of it really just grossed me out rather than really try to give me that true horror appeal. Plus, there are some very cheesy moments in this movie. Other than that, it's a pretty good movie overall. Some might like it, some might not, but don't take my word for it, see it yourself. Expand
  70. Oct 19, 2013
    4
    The new CARRIE is in essence a shot by shot remake utilizing much of the exact same dialogue and plot points. They needed a new screenwriter for this? Director Kimberly Peirce, BOYS DON'T CRY, adds some grit, makes it all more realistic but in the process loses depth and emotion. And then someone tampered with the ending, tagging on a quick silly series of denouements with no rhyme or reason other than a 2nd rate sequel. This all sounds really bad but actually, the story still has major bite and the two leads are wonderful but nowhere near Sissy Spacek or Piper Laurie from the original. There's really no reason for this remake. Expand
  71. Oct 18, 2013
    2
    in my opinion what i seen in Carrie 2013 ,it as too much action and special effects but why a remake of Carrie Sissy Spacek and Piper were nominated for the oscar for Carrie 1976 The Exorcist (1973) ,The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) Jaws (1975) ,The Omen (1976) ,Carrie (1976) ,Halloween (1978) ,Alien (1979) the best horror movies of the 70's
  72. Oct 18, 2013
    10
    this movie is amazing one of the best remakes q is an fact as it has a great performance moretz julian moore and a great special effects, great direction and modern twist King's novel needed
  73. Oct 18, 2013
    5
    I have been looking forward to seeing this remake of Carrie for months now. Went to the 1st showing with my daughter as we are both horror buffs. My daughter is 15 years old and have been watching horror movies for 8 years. My daughter has not seen the 1st Carrie movie and she thought is was pretty good, like maybe a 7 out of 10 score. I saw the 1st Carrie when it came out long ago. I am giving the 1st Carrie an 8 out of 10 and the new Carrie a 5 out of 10 and here is why. It was as close to a remake as possible but lacks the suspense and horror compared to the 1st Carrie. What you see on the trailer is what you see in the movie which left no thrill. Watch the trailer and that is the movie all summed up in 2.5 minutes. Altho the acting is good, there was nothing new to bring to the table. The prom dance in the school was shorter than the first Carrie movie and not as good or exciting. Altho not near as exciting as the 1st Carrie movie, I did enjoy it but could have been just as satisfied watching it on TV. I was a little bit disappointed as I feel they could have made this movie much more exciting. The best part of the movie was spending time with my daughter. By the looks of what is coming to theatres for this spooky time of the season, its not looking good for us horror buffs. Its a sad sad year for good movies. I can say there were only about 5 good flicks for the year 1013 to date. Bring back the SAW movies. Pitch the Paranormal Activity movies as they are as fake as a 3.00 bill. Gravity sucked and I,m still scratching my head why that movie got good reviews. People who gave that movie a good review must ha been under a strong over dose of drugs or tripping. Captain Phillips was an awesome movie, 10 times better than Gravity. Who can rate a movie with a high score just to hear Sandra Bullock screaming 3/4 of the movie. And I love Sandra Bullock and George Clooney but not in the movie Gravity. Somebody must have needed some pocket change.I have been looking forward to seeing this remake of Carrie for months now. Went to the 1st showing with my daughter as we are both horror buffs. My daughter is 15 years old and have been watching horror movies for 8 years. My daughter has not seen the 1st Carrie movie and she thought is was pretty good, like maybe a 7 out of 10 score. I saw the 1st Carrie when it came out long ago. I am giving the 1st Carrie an 8 out of 10 and the new Carrie a 5 out of 10 and here is why. It was as close to a remake as possible but lacks the suspense and horror compared to the 1st Carrie. What you see on the trailer is what you see in the movie which left no thrill. Watch the trailer and that is the movie all summed up in 2.5 minutes. Altho the acting is good, there was nothing new to bring to the table. The prom dance in the school was shorter than the first Carrie movie and not as good or exciting. Altho not near as exciting as the 1st Carrie movie, I did enjoy it but could have been just as satisfied watching it on TV. I was a little bit disappointed as I feel they could have made this movie much more exciting. The best part of the movie was spending time with my daughter. By the looks of what is coming to theatres for this spooky time of the season, its not looking good for us horror buffs. Its a sad sad year for good movies. I can say there were only about 5 good flicks for the year 1013 to date. Bring back the SAW movies. Pitch the Paranormal Activity movies as they are as fake as a 3.00 bill. Gravity sucked and I,m still scratching my head why that movie got good reviews. People who gave that movie must ha been under a strong over dose of drugs or tripping. Captain Phillips was an awesome movie, 10 times better than Gravity. Who can rate a movie with a high score just to hear Sandra Bullock screaming 3/4 of the movie. And I love Sandra Bullock and George Clooney but not in the movie Gravity. Somebody must have needed some pocket change. Expand
  74. Oct 18, 2013
    8
    Obviously Hollywood has never been amazing at portraying high schools, but this one however is the most realistic I have seen (still not realistic, just the least fake) the fake parts, like students snickering when someone mentions her name, or she walks by them... like come on. Another thing they should have done was to see Carrie from their POV, show us why they all think she's a freak... at most high schools, shy, quiet girls don't usually get made fun of this much... unless of course the real bullying started after the shower scene... But the performances were awesome, Julianne Moore can play so many different things and she was definitely pretty freaky in this. The movie is not that scary in anyway at all, but it is a fun ride while in it, and it gets the audience into it. I honestly feel like this has potential to be a halloween time classic. But I hated the pig scene. Screw that. Expand
Metascore
53

Mixed or average reviews - based on 34 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 11 out of 34
  2. Negative: 5 out of 34
  1. Reviewed by: Jamie Graham
    Nov 29, 2013
    60
    One of the more solid ’70s horror remakes, but it lacks the verve and potency, romance and heartache of the original. Still, the haircuts are a vast improvement...
  2. Reviewed by: Cath Clarke
    Nov 26, 2013
    60
    Moretz is unnervingly talented, but Carrie is not a role she was born to play. She hasn’t a victim’s bone in her body and fluffs the early scenes when the mean girls pick on her.
  3. Reviewed by: Mark Dinning
    Nov 25, 2013
    60
    A remake that doesn’t see the legacy of Carrie White burn in hell. But not one that adds much to it either.