Some are good, and some are just terrible.
And this is the latter.
A 2013 remake of Brian De Palma's far superior 1976 Carrie, this film cannot compete with the original.
Why? Because there's so many things about the original that were so good, it was memorable. This remake doesn't even add up to it's plot, effects, or characters.
Sissy Spacek was Carrie White. She had just the character for her performance. It made me believe her troubled character, and that I praise.
Chloe Grace Moretz was nothing more but an annoying bitch. She looks more like a popular girl than a social outcast. Her bloody look didn't make me believe anything about her. I've even grown to hate her for her other stupid performances.
And everyone else looked like Hollywood extras than an independent unknown cast. One of the worst horror movie remakes I have watched. I suggest people stay away from this one and keep to the original.
Another thing - this adaptation shouldn't have been modernized. The 70s film brings on a sort of rawness; posting Carrie on YouTube almost belittles the story.
Chloe's interpretation of Carrie was more human than Sissy Spaceks version. Chloe's had more empathy to the people who were trying to be friendly towards her, while Sissy's one was more cold-hearted and "zombie like". I especially liked how the modern one dispatched of the bully, it seemed more cathartic than simply having the car explode and tumble away from her as it was in the original.
The remorse of the character Sue Snell seemed more authentic as well, and even after all of the horrors of the Prom night, I'd think that she would still have a soft spot for Carrie. She seemed not as horrified as the original movie portrayed.
Also I liked the fact that there were some other survivors from the prom, it wasn't as bloodthirsty as the original.
I give the movie 4 out of 5, as it was more enjoyable than the original.
The original Carrie worked because - among other things - Brian DePalma, knew how to create the proper atmosphere. 'Sides being wonderfully acted, this film is expertly crafted, as well. And this is what lacks from Kimberly Pierce's take on the same material: she just doesn't shine as far as craftsmanship is concerned. I'm not saying she is a bad director. "Boys don't cry" was a very good film, for example and it was good because it focused on it's characters, it made the audience care for them. From a tech. standpoint, "Boys don't cry" is unremarkable, but it doesn't matter.
But when Carrie's craftsmanship revolves around cheap cliches, it matters, because: 1. there is a predecessor, which is far superior 2. the actors are miscast and the overall approach is as cliched as the film's special effects.
There is a good thing to come to this, however: everything about this film is so stunningly bad that you only need 15 random minutes, at most, to realize that watching the entire flick would be a waste of time.