It was never going to be easy. Following in the footsteps of Sissy Spacek and Brian De Palma is basically a cinematic suicide mission. When Kimberly Peirce announced she was helming a new vision of Stephen King’s debut novel, the internet did what it does best: it groaned. Hard. People asked why we needed another one. They pointed to the 1976 masterpiece as the definitive word on telekinetic prom queens. But honestly? Looking back at Carrie 2013 Chloe Grace Moretz gave us a version of the story that actually bothered to look at the source material through a modern, digital-age lens. It wasn't just a copy-paste job. It was a gritty, high-definition exploration of isolation that feels even more relevant in 2026 than it did over a decade ago.
Moretz was only 15 when she filmed it. That matters. In the original, Spacek was in her mid-twenties, playing a girl whose body was betraying her. Moretz was actually living through that transition. She brought a specific, shaky-handed vulnerability to Carrie White that felt less like a "creature" and more like a kid who just desperately wanted to be okay. She was small. She looked genuinely terrified of Julianne Moore’s Margaret White. And can we talk about Moore for a second? Her performance as the self-mutilating, religiously obsessed mother is easily one of the most unsettling things in modern horror. She didn't just play a villain; she played a woman drowning in her own trauma.
Breaking Down the Carrie 2013 Chloe Grace Moretz Dynamic
The biggest hurdle for the 2013 film was the "pretty girl" problem. Critics at the time, including some big names at The New York Times and Variety, argued that Chloe Grace Moretz was simply too conventionally attractive to be believable as a social pariah. It’s a shallow argument. If you’ve been to a high school in the last twenty years, you know that bullying isn't just about how someone looks. It’s about energy. It’s about being "off." Moretz played Carrie with a permanent flinch, a hunched posture that screamed "don't look at me."
🔗 Read more: Tell Me The Lyrics: Why We Still Can’t Get Songs Right
Peirce, who directed Boys Don't Cry, knew exactly how to frame social isolation. She updated the cruelty. In the '70s version, the locker room scene is a fever dream of soft-focus lenses and slow-motion confusion. In the Carrie 2013 Chloe Grace Moretz version, it’s a visceral, sharp-edged nightmare. The inclusion of smartphones changed everything. Chris Hargensen, played with a chilling, sociopathic edge by Portia Doubleday, doesn't just humiliate Carrie in person. She records it. She uploads it. The horror isn't just the blood; it's the permanence of the digital record. That’s a layer King couldn't have written in 1974, but it’s the reality every teenager lives now.
The relationship between Carrie and Margaret is the heartbeat of this movie. It’s suffocating. Julianne Moore opted for a version of Margaret that was less of a "shouting preacher" and more of a "quietly bleeding martyr." The scenes in the "prayer closet" aren't just scary; they’re heartbreaking. You see the cycle of abuse in real-time. Moretz reacts to Moore not with hatred, but with a desperate, warped kind of love. It’s messy. It’s uncomfortable to watch.
The Power Shift: Telekinesis as a Muscle
One thing the 2013 remake got objectively right was the progression of Carrie’s powers. In the original film, it felt like a magical switch flipped. In this version, we see Carrie practicing. She treats her telekinesis like a muscle. There’s a specific scene where she’s in her room, making books float and cracking her mirrors, and you see her face go from fear to wonder to a sort of dangerous confidence. She’s finally good at something.
This change makes the prom scene feel more like a calculated release than a blind tantrum. When the bucket drops and the pig blood hits—which, by the way, was a mix of corn syrup and food coloring that Moretz had to wear for weeks of filming—she doesn't just scream. She stays. She stares. Moretz used a specific hand choreography that made the telekinesis feel grounded in her physical body. It wasn't just "the eyes." It was her whole being.
📖 Related: Who is at the Table? The Cast of The Chosen Last Supper Scene and Why it Feels Different
Why the Critics Were Wrong About the Ending
People love to hate on the CGI in the third act. Sure, some of the debris flying around during the town's destruction looks a bit "2013," but the emotional payoff is there. The remake leaned harder into the idea of Carrie as a tragic figure rather than a monster. When she returns home to her mother, the film shifts back into a domestic drama before the final collapse.
The 2013 version also stayed closer to the book in some weird, specific ways. The way the house goes down, the way Carrie’s body reacts to the stress—it felt like a nod to King’s more visceral descriptions. It’s easy to dismiss a remake as a cash grab. However, Peirce and Moretz clearly cared about the internal life of these characters. They explored the "why" behind Sue Snell’s (Gabriella Wilde) guilt and Tommy Ross’s (Ansel Elgort) genuine kindness. Tommy wasn't just a jock doing a favor; he was a guy who actually saw Carrie as a person. That makes his death—and Carrie’s subsequent break—hit much harder.
Honestly, the Carrie 2013 Chloe Grace Moretz experience is a time capsule of early 2010s horror. It was caught between the era of "torture porn" and the rise of "elevated horror" like Hereditary. It tried to be both a character study and a blockbuster slasher. It mostly succeeded. If you watch it today, without the baggage of comparing it to the '76 version every five seconds, you'll find a movie that understands the crushing weight of being "different" in a world that demands conformity.
Facts You Probably Missed
- Moretz actually researched real-life cases of social isolation and spent time talking to people who had been severely bullied to find Carrie's "voice."
- The "blood" used in the prom scene had to be heated because Moretz would start shivering uncontrollably on the cold set, which ruined the takes.
- Kimberly Peirce originally had a much darker, more experimental cut of the film that focused more on the "found footage" aspect of the bullying, but the studio pushed for a more traditional narrative.
- The stones falling from the sky—a famous scene from the book—was filmed but largely trimmed down, which is a bummer for King purists.
Taking Action: How to Re-evaluate the Film
If you're a horror fan or a Stephen King nerd, don't just take the word of Rotten Tomatoes. The 48% score is a product of its time. To really "get" what Moretz was doing, you need to look at her performance in the context of her career. She was coming off Kick-Ass and Let Me In. She was the queen of "dangerous children" in cinema.
- Watch the Deleted Scenes: Specifically, the alternate ending. It changes the entire tone of the film’s legacy.
- Compare the "Closet" Scenes: Watch the 1976 version and the 2013 version back-to-back. Look at the lighting. The 2013 version uses shadows to make Margaret look like a part of the house itself.
- Read the Novel First: If you haven't read King's book in a while, do it. You'll realize that Moretz's Carrie is actually closer to the "chubby, pimply, desperate" girl in the prose than Sissy Spacek's ethereal, otherworldly version ever was.
Stop viewing it as a remake and start viewing it as a different "translation" of the same poem. The 1976 movie is about the horror of the female body. The 2013 movie is about the horror of the female experience in a connected, cruel society. Both are valid. Both are scary. But only one features Julianne Moore scaring the absolute life out of you with nothing but a pair of sewing scissors and a prayer.
Actionable Insight for Fans
The next time you’re scrolling through a streaming service and see Carrie 2013 Chloe Grace Moretz staring back at you, give it a real chance. Pay attention to the sound design. Notice how the ambient noise drops out whenever Carrie gets angry. It’s a masterclass in building tension through silence. Then, go read the original 1974 "Black Prom" newspaper clippings in King's book to see just how much DNA this movie actually shares with the source material. It's a lot more than people give it credit for.