Mehdi Hoffman There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Freeman This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

BMovieMan There wasn't a moment of suspense or horror in this movie. Sure, some knives, cars etc flew around and the scenes in the closet were ok, but I never believed the pain Carrie suffered or the way she transformed... this story has a lot of potential, really, but not this way!

Coventry I notice that I've become a lot more tolerant and open-minded regarding remakes of genuine horror classics! 10-15 years ago, around the time when remakes of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "The Fog" were getting released, I was fanatically against the trend and even encouraged others to boycott all these titles. My perception gradually changed over the years. Of course I still think that Brian DePalma's original "Carrie" is a powerful genre landmark and that another remake is completely unnecessary, but if that's what it takes to attract new & younger audiences, then so be it. I even daresay the 2013 version is fairly enjoyable, mostly thanks to a very solid & plausible performance by Julianne Moore and a surprisingly big amount of bloody murders and explicit make-up effects. This 2013 remake is almost identical to the 1976 original, except that the script is updated with typical post-Millennium atrocities. When poor Carrie White hysterically panicked for getting her very first menstruation at school in 1976, she got laughed at and bullied by the other girls in the shower. In 2013, she gets laughed at and simultaneously filmed by a dozen of smartphones, so that afterwards she gets cyber-bullied yet again on the internet. As I said, "Carrie" is a reasonably good film and I'm trying to be mostly positive, but there are nevertheless a few unforgivable mistakes here. First and foremost, the casting of Chloë Grace-Moretz. She certainly isn't a bad actress, but she's far too attractive and trendy to depict the unique titular character. Regardless of what pitiable clothing she wears or how pale her skin looks, this natural born cute girl simply cannot pass for the timid, introvert and religiously oppressed ugly duckling Carrie White! I know I'm sounding like a dinosaur again, but Sissy Spacek was phenomenally well-cast in the original for her looks and charisma, whereas here it's the other way around. Secondly, and this perhaps largely the achievement of Sissy Spacek also, the 1976 Carrie somehow remained a "human" and a "victim" when she went on her murdering rampage after the pig-blood incident at the prom. 2013 Carrie seemingly transforms into a sort of mean and unstoppable killer-robot, devoid of any emotion whatsoever. But hey, Julianne Moore's performance is truly impressive and arguably even more better than the almighty Piper Laurie in DePalma's original. Her depiction of the insanely religious Margaret White is intense, disturbing and genuinely petrifying. Other strong points include Kimberly Peirce's surefooted direction and the bloody carnage Carrie leaves behind at her senior prom.

Marko Err Usually horror movie is defined by cruelty of script not by overall quality of movie. The Julian Moore performance stood out and was really fascinating ( especially compared to other crew).

joshua-pokemon-quinlan 10 out of 10 stars for this movie.Loved this movie and loved Chloe as Carrie. Her performance was amazing as was Julianna Moore. I loved the fact that they spared the teacher in this one. Loved it