Carnage

Good dialogues are a good foundation of a high-quality dialogue-based movie. The premise itself takes the lead role here – it’s incredibly original – and the actors are doing such a great job it seems they loved the premise as well. My personal favorite was Christopher Waltz and his incredibly arrogant lawyer. Nevertheless, I believe that different viewers will fall for different characters. This movie literally lives and dies with the actors and I believe that a stage play with good actors could yield the same result. (24/11/2015)

Closer was a theater play adapted to the screen, i.e. translated into film language. Carnage is not an adapted theatre play, but rather a theater play shot and edited for the screen. Theatre actors cannot rely on their facial expressions (which the audience cannot see from afar), and that’s why they are forced to overact – they must resort to exaggerated body language and loud voices. Carnage doesn’t translate the original play into film language and statically captures theatrical acting on the screen (while showing the actors’ faces from up close). That’s why some viewers say it’s an unnecessary film. For me, however, it is not unnecessary for two reasons: 1. Even if someone made me see the play in the theater, I’d hardly get the chance to see it with these four actors. 2. To watch these four actors while knowing they’d be happy to perform for Roman Polanski even without a paycheck is nothing short of an honor. (27/01/2012)

In life, we put on various masks and suppress our emotions and instincts in order to avoid confrontation with our surroundings and not jeopardize our interests and social status. Only in exceptional cases do we take off the masks and reveal our inner selves. In Carnage, this happened to four participants of a meeting that was supposed to serve as a reconciliation. However, vanity, anger, and alcohol led to the abandonment of the civilizational shell and exposed what we usually hide from our surroundings. Carnage is a black comedy about what happens to people when they lose control and become dangerously honest. It would probably be more suitable for theater stages, where it ultimately belongs, but Roman Polanski managed to gather four top actors in a small space, and thus the theater layout doesn't really matter. I had a great time, and as I think about it, it's actually a pity to originally give it 4 stars, so I'm adding a fifth one. Especially considering the two ladies who thoroughly enjoyed playing their hysterical and poser characters. Overall impression: 90%. (31/10/2016)

Everything Roman Polanski gains from Christoph Waltz's grimace or Kate Winslet's untenable mimicry is destroyed by the overblown premise that could never work fully outside the theater. All the coming out of doors and calling the elevator is too stupidly unnecessary in the first half, when it is absolutely clear that it will lead to nothing and everything has to return to the two rooms with incomprehensibly violent crutches. The sad irony with directly corrosive satire at its heart would work much better without convulsively snaring the plot in a single place; as it is, this massacre only manages it through hints. (15/02/2012)

It’s straightforward, simple conversational theater translated to the screen. And yet excellent. A good text and four confident actors are all you need. The movie theater roared with laughter throughout the screening, because where else will we all see ourselves other than in stereotypes of arguments and gender wars? Nothing about it is perfect, nothing is convincing and it’s full of acting mannerisms, but it is really nice. Where else can one you Kate Winslet puking all over the screen? That’s definitely included. It's just too bad that Julie Adams from Creature from the Black Lagoon has only a tiny cameo here. (21/03/2012)