Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

aidan to be honest I like this film yeah no joke either. its campy and it tells the story really good but I still cant decide which mother was the more psychotic there's this one scene that's kind of creepy is when Carrie crushes her moms heart Kind of crazy. and we all know what the story is already since this is the first remake then the one from 2013. this one is cheesy but I like it I know you might be thinking I have a bad choice but I don't think I do I like monster movies not really romance but that's my point this movie isn't all that bad its great stuff it wasn't meant to be released I can understand that to the fullest I still think this doesn't top the 70s version and I'm serious about that also look if you don't want to don't if you're curious just go for it you might not like it yet you might like it. and everyone has a different opinion about certain movies

freeist I love Stephen King's book and I couldn't get through this movie in one sitting. It seems long and the directing shows a flawed vision. Such as the child Carrie bringing fireballs down on her house. It would seem to me that people in the town would never, ever forget an incident like that. Scientists would be investigating it. Or when students have a prank planned for Carrie, why she doesn't notice the crowd gathered around like they're getting ready for a surprise party? One problem is almost all the actors look too old for their parts and the gym teacher (Rena Sofer)--who is older--looks younger than some of the purported high schoolers. Sue Snell's part was totally ruined for me because the actress Kandyse McClure couldn't convince me at any point that she was high school age. That character is so important in this movie. If can't believe her, it's hard to buy the rest of the story.The few that do get over the hurdle of looking like teens turn in above average performances: Emile de Ravin as Carrie's arch-enemy Chris, Meghan Black as Norma, Chelan Simmons as Helen, and Katharine Isabelle as Tina. Katharine Isabelle is a standout in this film. She's beautiful and she steals every scene she's in. Except for her death scene, where bad CGI ruined it for her. It also ruined the rest of the prom scene. I'm not against CGI, either, except when it is done this poorly.Nevertheless, this version does a few things I wish the two other versions would have done. Angela Bettis isn't as good as either Chloe Grace Moretz in the recent (2013) version or Sissy Spacek in the original (1976 version). She looks too old for the part (she's 12 years older than her character). However, they made her up and costumed her perfectly to look like a real harassed, depressed, high school outcast. I wish they had done that with the other two actresses. This version spends a lot more time with the secondary characters, so you get to know them much better. It takes its time setting up the prom scene for the famous "bucket of blood" prank. The movie unfolds as a police investigation, and so everything is a retrospective on events. They show Carrie suffering multiple pranks and incidences, letting you know bullying's a constant her life. All of this is good if the movie does seem a little long.However, I mentioned something in the directing is off. They overplay Carrie's powers at the beginning. There's no way a desk could move across a room and slam into a wall, as opposed to an ashtray falling off the desk, without people suspecting Carrie having a power. What should be unmistakable to people in the movie becomes laughable when the CGI is done so badly.They also implied that Carrie had something like a multiple personality, and after she's soaked in blood, she snaps and her unconscious takes over the power without her remembering what she does. I don't like that interpretation. It makes the rest of her character moot, also her unconscious appears to have some knowledge of electricity and water. In this one, she does wreck the town, as I always thought she should, but the CGI is so cheesy it looks like an early '90s music video.I'm not sure how much of it is the direction and how much is Bettis' performance, but Carrie spends a lot of her screen time rolling her eyes, squinting, and fluttering her eyelids. Other characters mention Carrie having had a seizure in the past. I can accept her being epileptic, the problem is, as they show this so much that you don't see much else about her character. Carrie's character shouldn't be reduced to a neurological dysfunction. They also have her having hid teen magazines in her prayer closet. That does not make sense for this character.Patricia Clarkson as Margaret White, Carrie's mother, is suppose to be a hyper-religious fanatic. She's supposed to be extreme even for a fundamentalist (which she isn't. She's a psychotic.) This must have some fire and brimstone to it. I hate to say, Clarkson is just boring in the part. The director seemed to be shooting for an "American Gothic" look to her, but to me she just looks and acts tired. She doesn't seem like the kind of person who could bully Carrie worse than her schoolmates do, and that's more what Margaret White is. Carrie as a character only makes sense if her mother is that way.If the special effects are a throwback to the 90s, the music is standard '70s TV-movie garbage.Read the book. See the other two version. If you like the story, you can miss this adaptation without any great loss. Except for Katharine Isabelle's parts. Find those on Youtube if you can.

seascape27 This TV version seemed to showcase the extent of Carrie's powers more, and having her kill people then not even remember doing it was REALLY scary, when you think about it. Bad enough to have an extremely powerful psychokinetic on a killing spree, but worse when that person suddenly snaps out of it and claim complete ignorance of anything he/she did...The unique twist ending with Sue Snell helping Carrie and Carrie getting a chance to live and start over again was a highly original take.Patricia Clarkson TOTALLY nails the role of the crazy, religious zealot mother. Angela Bettis - not to be unkind, but she has a weird bug-eyed look about her that makes her VERY convincing as an outcast.

ashley wetherall 2 points before I start.Firstly I would like to start this review by saying I really love the 1976 version of Carrie. I think it is one of the the best horror movies ever made. It is also one of the saddest horrors ever made.Secondly I don't see why people are bad mouthing this TV version from 2002. It may not be a classic but it is a very good remake that is more faithful to the source novel than the original film.In My opinion the 2002 version of Carrie is one of the best TV adaptations of a Stephen King novel, up there with IT and the 1979 version of Salems Lot. All the actors play there parts very well. Plus anyone who has read Carrie will realise how close to the novel this version is, well apart from the ending. This was changed due to the fact that this version was originally intended as a pilot for a series.The film starts with the survivors of prom giving evidence to the police. This comes directly from the novel and the story is told in flash back. Angela Bettis makes for an interesting Carrie White. Unlike Sissy Spacek Carrie who comes a cross as a deer in headlights, Bettis Carrie isn't as naive or scared of her tormentors and in a couple of scenes she actually verbally fights back,(Reminding Sue Schell that the only reason she speaking to her in a shop is that none of her friends are around to see). Carrie in this version is fully aware that Tommy was asked to take her to the prom by Sue.This In-fact this is the major difference between the two films. In many ways Carrie is more street wise than her 1976 counterpart. The original Carrie is purposely slick and overplayed, where as this version is subtler and more realistic.This really shows in the the way Carrie is bullied by the other girls and there general reactions to Carrie in general its very realistically played out, making they're nastiness all the more shocking.Patricia Clarkson interpretation of Margret White is one of quiet insanity. It actually makes her performance all the more unnerving.Rena Sofers ,Miss Desjarden is actually a lot better than the original Betty Buckleys, Miss Collins (the gym teacher). This mainly to do with the fact that the role is actually better written than in the original 1976 version. The scene at the prom where she reminds Carrie that High Schools isn't the be all and end all is brilliantly played out.She also shares a great scene where she and the headmaster are confronted by Chris Hargensen father.(This comes directly from Stephen Kings book). The rest of the cast are very good and many have gone on to bigger things. Emilie de Ravin went on to appear in LOST and Kandyse McClure became part of the cast of the New Battlestar Galactica not to mention the always excellent Katharine Isabelle (a real bitch in this version) who has become a cult star of indie horror movies. This adaptation of Carrie only really fails on 2 points. The first is that some of its digital Special Effects don't always work. This was mainly to do with budget restraints. The second is its look. It just looks too made for TV, Its flatly directed and has no real grandeur. This probably why some the reviews have been bad. Also i would like to point out that many of the negative reviews come from people who have never read the book. I really liked this adaptation of Carrie and have watched almost as many times as the original. I'm aware that I've compared the two films in this review but I hope people reading this will not be put off especially as a new version of Carrie is on its way. I hope this version will not be forgotten as its only real flaw was that it was a TV movie.