Carrie the original was a very good film and it always amazes me that film companies feel the need to try to replicate a film that needs no second run out.i feel the whole point of the original was sissy looked like a normal geeky teen who you could imagine getting bullied or taunted at school.you cannot imagine that from the very pretty woman playing carrie on this version it just doesnt work.stop trying to get a fast buck and produce original clever material hollywood.or take a leaf out of uk films and the smal budget quality they churn out year after year

Fake, want to be movie critics I've read said this was shot for shot. It wasn't... at all. When it comes to a lot of the same dialogue, it's adapted from the same book! The supernatural angle straight from her shower change is much more prominent. She's doing A LOT more 011 stuff. It's in no was as bad as the first posters lamented. Yes, it was dumb to try to remake a classic horror popcorn flick, but this is a nice update. I think it stands up. It's not great, but it's good. More relatable for kids, a fun comparison for those born in the same decade as the first.

Uh,I'm just gonna jump in,alright instead of reading the synopsis,OK? So,Carrie,2013...what could go wrong?! Carrie is probably one of of King's worst adaptions ever since,probably Thinner. Chloe Mortez portrays Carrie,is bad! Its not shes not a good actress but shes not as creepy as Spececk or Bettis!..shes just this sad little depressed girl and Julianne Moore as Mrs. White was just this sad,mental piece of depression! Piper Laurie was so creepy and mad as Margaret but Moore just silently said all of the sinful stuff and when she'd be done,she'd just go upstairs and cut or hit herself while Carrie like..sowed a shirt or something in the closet,or somethin! Like come on,DETAIL???!!! The prom scene was also lousy it was just Chloe Mortez who by the way,was also not creepy at the prom,like in the original versions,Bettis or Spececk would just intensely creepily stare and Chloe would just smile evily and like..ehhhhh? That wasn't creepy,at all,uh,here im done!! This is crap!!!

I am HUGE fan of the 1976 Carrie, when I think about Carrie, I think about Sissy Spacek specifically. I have also read the novel, seen the sequel (The Rage Carrie 2) and the TV version from 2002. When I first heard about the 2013 version being made, I was at first, very shocked, and wondered, why? Until I found out about the casting and the director. Chloë Grace Moretz being announced as Carrie and Julianne Moore being announced as Margaret White really got my attention, and then of course, so did Kimberly Peirce being chosen as the director. How interesting I thought it would be to find out that a female director would make a version of Carrie; a win-win especially since she also directed the award-winning film Boys Don't Cry. What increased my hype even more was the fact that we would be promised a film based ONLY on the novel by Stephen King, and NOT the original 1976 classic. The teaser trailer that came out on October 2012 even showed a bird's eye view of the town on fire, and narration of Carrie's acquaintances, and so I knew that this WAS truly going to be a FAITHFUL adaptation to the novel. However, on October 18, 2013 I was proved VERY wrong. What happened to this movie? That was one of the taglines for this film when it was being promoted, that is really my question. What happened to Carrie? This movie was totally an adaptation of the original film, NOT the novel, as promised. I was SHOCKED, not in a good way. And yes it's been stated many times, but it was so similar to the original that the original screenwriter (Lawrence D. Cohen) got credit. There were so many missed, wasted opportunities that happened with this movie. I was so happy to see a DIFFERENT version that took only from the book.Now, if the original film did not exist, this would be a decent movie. But, either way, let me start with the two stars: Chloë Grace Moretz as Carrie White. BIG MISTAKE. I love Chloë overall, she's super talented, she's brilliant in Let Me In, Kick-Ass, Hugo, etc. but she either should not have been cast as Carrie, or someone should have given more effort in making her look like a believable outcast. There's NO way that any guy in high school wouldn't want to ask her out, I just couldn't buy her as an ostracized, abused girl; and therefore the revenge scene did not work. Julianne Moore, however, was perfectly cast as Margaret; she brought many differences to the role and more personality that made audiences squeal. SPOILERS: The climax prom scene: The blood being dumped on Carrie, why did it look like jell-o? That's all I'm asking about that part. I will say, the deaths of the bullies was very well orchestrated. However, the bullies (Tina, Heather, Lizzy and Nicki, Jackie) were not built up very well, some don't even know who Tina and Heather are, everyone knows Lizzy and Nicki but only because they're twins. The deaths were very creative, but since the characters were not fleshed out, the meaning of the deaths became essentially insignificant. They made it very unclear that it was TINA who played the video of Carrie in the shower at the prom. And also, why were there so many survivors? Not to sound malicious, but during the prom scene, there are only supposed to be at most five survivors, pretty much everyone (but the bullies and Freddy "Beak" Holt, the boy with the camera) survived. This makes the story much less tragic. And what happened to George and Erika (the couple that was nice to Carrie at the prom)? Now, the showdown between Chris, Billy and Carrie was also well-done, I will say, the CGI was a little bit "video game-like" but watchable. Chris and Billy definitely got what they truly deserved in this version, so score for that! The showdown between Carrie and Margaret, however, was a bit disappointing. It was no different from the original. The confrontation between Carrie and Sue was also a positive of this version; the rain of stones should not have been done however, that was from the 1976 original script, NOT the novel. The rain of stones only happens when Carrie is a little girl in the novel. The last scene was very infuriating. Whoever approved of that ending should not have been a part of this movie, I'm talking about the one with Carrie's grave cracking and you hear Carrie screaming. That made no sense whatsoever; the alternate ending is not much better however, although it would have fit a lot more, then the movie would start with a birth scene, and end with a birth scene.If you have never heard of Carrie, or you have never seen the original or read the novel, you will probably enjoy this movie, I will say; mainly younger teens, in my opinion. But, if you are a die-hard fan of Brian De Palma's cult classic, then this is a very disappointing, and possibly even insulting movie. Apparently, the movie was supposed to be 45 minutes longer, involving more gory deaths, more destruction at the prom, the aftermath of the prom, and more social media. One video of Carrie getting her period was not enough to call this a modern version. It felt like it was done just because it was set in today's time. In fact, it didn't even feel like this movie took place in 2013, more like 2005. Proms don't take place at schools anymore. Overall, this was a very unnecessary movie, well, it reminds me of one thing: There is a much better movie that remains a classic even after 40 years for a reason to watch. Hopefully if/when the next Carrie remake comes (it will eventually), it'll be done right.