The Rage: Carrie 2 Reviews

Page 1 of 45
TheDudeLebowski65
Super Reviewer
April 17, 2012
This film offers nothing new, and plays out like a case of been there done that. The result is a bad film with a poor script and a low budget vibe. This film relies more on the gore elements this time around, and focuses less on the story, not that it matters because when it does, it navigates familiar territory that becomes predictable. The film suffers greatly due to its bad cast and poorly written script. The film is a pointless unnecessary sequel. I've thrown that term around quite a bit in describing horror sequels, but this is true with The Rage. I thought the film was bad with little substance. The film tends to play more on the gore effects. Director Katt Shea is more focused on grossing out the audience than scaring it. Considering that this is a sequel to a horror classic, you'd think that they would make it good. Unfortunately the result is a film that misses the mark and is a victim of its own conception because of the fact that it relies on gore and other assorted special effects. If more attention would have been given to its story, then the film might have been better, but it's not to be. The film has a high body count and if you love gore, you may enjoy this film. But to those whore are expecting a film like Carrie, you'll be sadly disappointed. The Rage plays out like a gore fest with slasher film elements due to a high body count. Nothing original is at work here, thus fans of the classic film will find this film pointless, stupid and a slap in the face of the original.
Super Reviewer
½ June 23, 2009
yea so ive never heard of Emily Bergl but apparently thats the girl who played Carrie. and well i saw this a few times when i was little and it scared me cause id never seen violence before, but that doesnt mean its that good... one good scene tho: she telepathically squeezes this chicks eyes til they bleed out of her head and then that girl accidentally blows off the balls of that kid from Home Improvement (not J.T.T.) with like a harpoon or something. yea that kicked some ass
Super Reviewer
½ July 15, 2007
A 90's sequel to "Carrie" with a new girl Rachel (Emily Bergl), another girl with telekinetic powers, sruggling to fit in with her peers. It's a sad story. The final massacre of the classmates is spectacular. Amy Irving makes a great appearance, as the only survivor from the first movie. I found this movie too sad.
deano
Super Reviewer
½ April 14, 2007
Really shocking than the original 1976 movie in the scene of when Rachel's (Emily Bergl) temper's crossed it triggers a powder-keg of anger and unleashes special powers that can turn a fun, house party into a mad-house inferno.
Super Reviewer
February 26, 2007
This wasn't all that good and just barley qualifies as a sequel.
nuheart
Super Reviewer
December 26, 2006
Shame on Amy Irving, coming back for this one.
Super Reviewer
October 12, 2013
Intense and thrilling, The Rage: Carrie 2 delivers a frightening tale of horror. In this long awaited sequel, a social misfit named Rachel starts to develop psychic powers in the wake of her best friend's suicide. The plot largely following the structure of the original Carrie, but modernizes it and continues some story threads from the first film. The characters are developed fairly well, and the climatic action scene is dramatic and exciting. Still, the film is formulaic and has some plot holes. While it has some problems, The Rage: Carrie 2 is a solid thriller that stays true to Stephen King's original work.
Cameron W. Johnson
Super Reviewer
November 1, 2012
Oh, the rage, the horrible rage! No, this film isn't horrible, but wow, it is most certainly not good. By the ways, it's been 25 years, is Carrie still angry? We may never know, because this film isn't even about Carrie White, which is why they put the would-be subtitle, "The Rage", before "Carrie 2". Clearly, they're tacking on the "Carrie" title for the sake of success, but that evidently didn't turn out all that well, because where "Carrie" was "all the rage" (Get it?), this film just pumped people full of rage, or at least pumped rage into most of the handful of people who actually saw it. Wow, Katt Shea just can't catch a break, because "Poison Ivy" couldn't even make back $3 million, though it's not like anyone cares, because I can think of plenty of people who would say that "Poison Ivy" didn't deserve $3 million, just like I can think of plenty of people who would say that this film didn't deserve the $1.8 million that "Poison Ivy" actually ended up with. I, however, won't go that far, as I didn't hate the film, though I'm still a little glad that this film underperformed at the box office, because even with this film not being bad, the biggest reason why it goes saved is simply because it's just too bland too bad, which isn't to say that blandness stands alone as this film's savior, because although there's very little to compliment with this mess of a film, what strengths there are still stand.

In final execution, there's really not too much to the story, yet the overall premise concept really isn't too shabby, being definately not too commendable, yet decent enough to create a moderate degree of immediate intrigue. True, what immediate intrigue there is remains rather lacking, yet it is there, and pronounced just enough to nearly save the film as decent, and when the immediate intrigue goes intensifed by what director Katt Shea does, in fact, do moderately right, the film picks up, with the final act particularly biting as, well, actually pretty tense. True, no part in the film gets to be as effective as "Carrie" got to be, with this film being primarily much more bland than its predecessor, yet, if nothing else, the final act does actually thrill a bit, thanks largely to its brutality, because when things go down and heads begin to roll, the film delivers on unexpectedly hardcore gore, complimented by some pretty sharp effects, thus supplementing the sense of consequence that would be nothing without what Shea does do right, or, for that matter, leading lady Emily Bergl. Surprisingly, no performance is bad, yet nearly everyone is simply mediocre, with Bergl herself being given only so much to do, but Bergl is consistently decent in her portrayal of the Rachel Lang character's awkwardness and anguish, and as material begins to rise for her, she delivers on emotional range that may not be too impressive, but is still better than this film probably deserves, as it would have defined the lead as an engaging one, were it not for the undercutting mediocrity. Of course, that being said, it is, in fact, the mediocrity that helps the most in saving this film, for although the final product is too bland for its own good, ambition is felt enough for the film to actually be a little bit charming. If this film does nothing else better than "Carrie", than it is the dismissal of slowness, for although this film does deserve to be more engaging, its charm makes it all but pretty entertaining, and with there being only so much to really criticise and a reasonable bit to compliment, the final product goes nearly saved as actually decent. However, in the long run, what is wrong with the film is consistent just enough for this promising project to fall flat as, albeit barely mediocre, but mediocre nevertheless, undercutting what it does do right with what it slips up on, while the script finds itself with nothing to undercut, as it really doesn't have much to compliment.

True, Lawrence D. Cohen's script for "Carrie" wasn't exactly top-notch, and Rafael Moreu's screenplay for this film really isn't all that much of a tremendous disaster, yet at the same time, there's little to compliment about Moreu's script, but quite a bit to criticise, for although faults in dialogue and set pieces are very few and far between, they still stand, with the cheesiness that the dialogue and set piece faults only supplement keeping consistent. The film isn't cornier than a well-bred chicken's diet, as I was expecting it to be, yet it is consistently, well, to be frank, kind of lame, pulling atmospheric tricks and plaguing the dialogue and set pieces with mostly immense blandness that leaves the film feeling helpless, if not a touch desperately manipulative. What further supplements the film's manipulativeness is Moreu's really going overboard in his playing to audience expectations, in that he plagues this film, from begining to end, with cliche, upon cliche, upon cliche, driving the film into one trope after another, until the final product collapses into an eye-roll worthy level of predictability that slows down momentum tremendously, or at least it would, were it not for the fact that this film really has no momentum to begin with. When I said that the film doesn't pick up until the final act, woah boy, I wasn't kidding, because where "Carrie" moves a bit too steadily for its own good, for almost the entirety of this film, absolutely nothing happens, and this film is actually longer than the already pretty do-little "Carrie". There is just so much excessive filler and very little exposition, thus rendering the film hopelessly unfocused, dragging its feet from one point to another aimlessly, and sometimes even in circles, because even with there being nearly nothing going on, this film still finds time to get pretty repetitious, if not just plain borderline monotonous. Again, the film isn't boring, or even all that dull, being no unwatchable experience, yet still one that is just so very bland and draggy, with not much else to keep it going other than a mild degree of intrigue and an actually pretty fair bit of ambition. Of course, with that said, while the ambition saves this film from mediocrity by gracing the final product with pretty pronounced charm, the ambition actually assists in the film's ultimate downfall as a mediocre misfire, as it shows you all of the areas in which this film could have succeeded and all of the areas in which this film slips up, and while the film slips up in only so many areas, it steps up even less frequently, blandly dragging along until it falls as nearly likable, but not likable enough, just mediocre.

Bottom line, the high points that are within the premise create a degree of immediate intrigue, intensified by a decent lead performance by Emily Bergl, as well as by what is, in fact, done reasonably well by director Katt Shea, whether it be the admittedly pretty thrillingly gory final act or enough amibtion to grace this film with consistent charm and, by extension, a moderate degree of entertainment value, yet not enough to drown out the cheesy spots and immeasurable slew of cliches that slow down the film's momentum, which is already made nearly nonexistant by the repetitious, when not do-nothing plot that tremendously supplements the immense blandness, further pronounced by Shea's undercut overambition, that leaves "The Rage: Carrie 2" to fall flat as, albeit borderline likable, but still too mediocre to be all that worth watching.

2/5 - Mediocre
Super Reviewer
½ January 2, 2012
To be honest, this young adult horror film aint half bad, I enjoyed the special effect quite a lot. Acting isn't fantastic but it's not too bad. It payed homage to the first film which is really good. It's more about sexual manipulation and humiliation in this not entirely related sequel, Emily Bergl was great.
iLeo
Super Reviewer
½ December 24, 2007
Good!
nickymo89
Super Reviewer
½ August 8, 2007
The final massacre scene was great. The rest was ok but lots of loopholes to connect this to the original.
PC79
Super Reviewer
½ February 21, 2007
For a sequel - not that bad. Though when your first watching it - your thinking it has nothing to do with Carrie. But it all comes out.
½ April 28, 2013
While it i in no way compares to DePalma's film, The Rage: Carrie 2 still manages to be a relatively entertaining supernatural slasher film that demonstrates, once again, why football sucks. Featuring one of the London brothers (who cares which) and loads of adolescent angst, bullying, and hormonal agitation, Carrie 2 is by no means great but will possibly delight slasher fans nonetheless....
November 15, 2012
Didn't really like this movie. Nowhere near as great as the original either. There are some good parts, don't get me wrong. The end sequence of violence when everyone gets what's coming to them is pretty awesome, but it took way too long to get there. Also, the actress who played Rachel just didn't feel right for the part. It seemed more of a remake in a way than a sequel. Almost everything happens and turns out the same way as the original, just a few different settings (a party instead of a dance for instance). It would have been nice to see this movie as a true sequel, but it certainly wasnt.
½ July 16, 2012
The scene where Mena Suvari commits suicide is very intense. I remember watching this in the theatres back in the day when it came out and everyone was in complete shock. The movie overall is just not that strong. Ok to see once maybe but that's about it. The girl who played Rachel Lang was just not that cute IMO. It was cool to see Amy Irving again in this sequel but still it wasn't enough to save the movie.
October 25, 2011
A pretty unnecessary and underwhelming quasi-sequel to one of the greatest horror films ever made. Manages to do a few things well, but the emotional gravity of the original as well as its memorable performances and characters go by the wayside. It just doesn't seem like this story is worthy of fitting into the same universe as its terrific predecessor.

At its simplest, the plot is similar to that of the original. Introverted high school girl discovers her telekinetic powers and avenges her years of torment on her conniving classmates. It is strange though, because the film manages to come across as both too similar plot-wise to the first, and too different. It is tied to the first film in a fairly obtrusive way which sort of makes you wish they would have just began a new story. There are no religious overtones, which were a major component of Stephan Kings story as well as minimal tying in of an abusive home environment. The character of Rachel comes across as far too emotionally tough. The character of Carrie works so well because of the dichotomy between her naive, sheltered innocence and her unbridled power and rage. This new character is far too adult and self-reliant, and just lacks an entire side to her emotions that made Carrie so compelling.

In addition to the main character not being up to snuff, the story in general takes a major downgrade. The womanizing football player angle is overly dramatic, forced and unimaginative. Their reasons for targeting Rachel are paper thin at best, and it all seems spontaneous and superficial. In the original, it was quite clear that Carrie White had suffered through years of abuse at the hands of her tormentors, making it far more emotional when she unleashes years of pent up anger upon them. In this, it never feels like Rachel is an abused outcast. More like she is a counterculture girl who just doesn't fit in with the in-crowd. When she looses it in the end, it just doesn't pack the same punch.

The acting is pretty standard throughout. A couple familiar faces like Amy Irving reprising her role of Sue Snell and Mena Suvari, but its mostly an unknown crew. As I said, pretty mediocre performances all around. No one shines, but no one really drops the ball. I would swear in a court of law that Jason London is actually Ethan Hawke.

The movie from a technical standpoint is also a downgrade. The creepy and brooding score of the original is replaced with gothy rock music which makes it feel more like a scene piece rather than a horror film. The cinematography is bland, and the lighting is too dark. Also, while minimal, the computer effects are pretty sub par.

In all seriousness, the studio should have known better than to try a sequel to such a classic. None the less a classic with such a definitive ending, and to try it 25 years after the fact. It was entertaining enough for me to pay attention and remain involved, but when compared to the original, there is no comparison.
October 14, 2011
It's no wonder fans of the 1976 Stephen King movie CARRIE are scratching there heads about this film. Besides the fact that Rachel Lang is supposedly Carrie White's half-sister; and Sue Snell, one of the main bullies in the original film, has now ironically become the school's guidance counselor (still portrayed by Amy Irving); THE RAGE virtually has nothing in common with CARRIE. In fact, the title is very misleading. If this were to be even remotely better, somebody could have simply suggested changing the title to something like, "Rachel: The Rage", and billing it as "the follow-up to CARRIE."

As a whole, CARRIE was a prom film, with a horrific twist. Does THE RAGE: CARRIE 2 even hint at the possibility of a prom being held? Of course not! That's what bad sequels are for, anyway. And this is supposed to be a supernatural horror film, like the original, because Rachel also has telekinetic powers (what next, a film in which we discover that their common father has telekinesis, and that it was genetic to begin with?). There's the scenes that show the supernatural side (i.e. a scene early on after Lisa commits suicide, and because of this, Rachel becomes mentally frustrated, causing every locker in the school to fly open), but the "horror" of it all is never revealed. So really, this is just like a science fiction film.

The music was part of what gave nightmares to many people who watched CARRIE. Why does it come across as surprising that there is one solid theme in the beginning, and the rest is just a bunch of rock tunes composed by Danny B. Harvey (whoever he is)? Who finds rock music scary, anyway?

Overall, THE RAGE: CARRIE 2 is dreadfully underwhelming. There is nothing horrific about it, and it is just an unsuccessful homage to the 1976 classic. Do not waste your time with it.
March 10, 2011
This movie was very entertaining! And they tied together the first and this one nicely to be honest. i feel this film was underappreciated. Emily Bergl was a great Rachel aka "Carrie 2".
February 28, 2011
wish i was like her somtimes

people picked on her so bad that she became angery and in 2 rage and got her revenge on people that under esstimated her

"In 1976, Sue Snell watched her life crumble as her boyfriend and most of her friends were killed by telekinetic Carrie White after she was humiliated by sadistic classmate Chris Hargenson at the school prom after being pronounced "Prom Queen." Now, 23 years later, Sue is a counselor at the new high school where she seems to develop most of her time on Rachel Lang, a troubled young girl whose best friend has just committed suicide. Rachel is a normal girl, except for the fact that she can move things with her mind from time to time. Some of the football jocks are planning to humiliate Rachel at the "biggest party of the year," using the unknowing Jesse as bait, because she told on them being involved in her friend's death. If only everyone knew that Rachel is Carrie's half-sister"
December 30, 2010
Wow. This is how you take everything an original had going for it and strip it away and add the wrong kind of elements. It's really strange how they strayed from the overall style of the first. But I guess the time gap and fact that they were aiming for a young audience is probably why. But it really should have gone for something classier.

I don't really feel that anything was wrong with the actors, they don't seem to be given anything deep or real direction. The overall look seems very B-movie. I don't know what they were aspiring for. It's just a mess.
Page 1 of 45