CARNAGE - The Movie - repulsive, terrible

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 5:09pm

Okay, just so you know where I'm coming from, I never saw or read the play. The synopsis didn't interest me enough. But I was still intrigued to see four extremely talented actors and an extremely talented director "do their thing."

I'm an hour into it, and I want to gouge my eyes out. These are the four most repulsive characters I've seen in a movie in a long, long time.

They all deserve to die. Tell ya why, Mrs. Lovett, tell ya why ...

And the transparent devices that are used not once, not twice, not even three times ... like every time they start to leave, the cell phone rings ...

Add to it, Jodie Foster's truly psychotic performance that no one seems to notice. She isn't just high strung. With every sentence she speaks, she looks like her head is going to explode (like "Scanners"). Her head shakes, she has spittle in the corner of her mouth, her veins are popping out, her eyes are rolling, and her teeth are gnashing. She's a monster on a rampage ... and that's in the first scene. By the time she starts to unravel, it's Godzilla devouring Tokyo. It's almost embarrassing.

It's a poorly written piece, too. Way too by the numbers. And the material is stretched so thin, almost like a 10-minute sketch drawn out into a 90 minute film. The characters are people I would never, ever want to meet, understand, or sympathize with. I'm hoping the building catches fire and they die.

Can I make it to the end? I'm not sure. I'm really not sure.

What a piece of crap.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 5:18pm

~ no besty, don't hold back. tell us how you really feel.

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 5:19pm

I loved seeing the play, but I agree that the film was bad. In the theatre, none of those criticisms you made of the script were apprent, but in the film, they were all anyone could notice. In.order for the play to work, it has to keep growing in energy and never stop until it explodes yet still continues to escalate. They didn't even get the ball rolling in the film. Also, there is something about the play that is just so theatrical; it works better in one static room. The play isn't perfect, but the potential is certainly there. The film found none of it and brought out all of its flaws.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 5:37pm

The play was a lot of fun, due in larger part to the actors and Matthew Warchus' wonderful direction than the script.

Danny is right: The slow escalation of zaniness was played out very well, and the actors mined that script for every laugh they could because of it.

Marcia Gay Harden and James Gandolfini were such a sight because she looked like a midget next to his hulky frame. When she pounced on his back and rode him around the stage it was very funny.

The sight gags worked much better on stage than on film too. Hope Davis' projectile vomiting felt so shocking on stage; it was like, "how did they do that?!" On film all that is gone.

The movie was a bore with such horrid pacing. The only actor who I thought got it right was Waltz.

The film also makes a major error in that it shows the crime being committed. That happened completely off-stage in the play, and thus we didn't know if the parents were aptly worried about the children's behavior or if they were making much ado about nothing.

[GlindatheGood22]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 5:38pm

I didn't care for it on stage or on film.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 5:38pm

I liked the play...definitely didn't love it. The quartet of pitch-perfect performances from the original cast elevated it. The film on the other hand, was pretty much a total misfire.

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 5:43pm

Well, I made it through to the end.

It actually got worse. More predictable, more over-the-top, more repulsive.

Unbelievable.

AwesomeDanny---I'm glad you enjoyed the play. I'm trying to picture this same (or similar) material being done the way you described, with more of a build, and I still think I would completely hate these characters. And the eggshell-thin plot goes nowhere.

It's just so trivial. They actually start off with the possibility of getting into much deeper themes (violence, good, bad, instigation, gangs, blame), through the "comedy" (which never made me laugh once), and the "drama" which took its page from a Bad Acting textbook.

I can't even call it a "noble failure." There was nothing noble about it.

It's not "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" Lite, as I've heard said. It never makes it past insipid. Porky's II is closer to Virginia Woolf Lite than this movie is.

What an utter waste of talent. What an utter waste of my time.

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 5:56pm

The film also makes a major error in that it shows the crime being committed. That happened completely off-stage in the play, and thus we didn't know if the parents were aptly worried about the children's behavior or if they were making much ado about nothing.

Okay, that's a HUGE mistake in the film. It's so clear that the kid was provoked and bullied by the group, and then he took a swing at the other kid with his stick. By knowing exactly what happened, I couldn't for one minute sympathize with the pious and psychotic Jodie Foster and her schlub of a husband. Not from two lines into the dialogue. They had already lost me. I wanted them to get their comeuppance. No sympathy.

And I wanted to smash Waltz's cell phone five minutes into his first "excuse me" conversation. I hated his character so much.

Winslet was fine, but not funny or interesting or clever.

None of this is clever. No insight, no perspective on anything or anybody. Just babble and banter. Signifying nothing.

How on earth did this (adapted) material win Best Play? I guess it really was all about the stage actors and the direction. They must have made a silk purse out of a sow's ear. There is no "there" there.

Updated On: 9/3/13 at 05:56 PM

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 6:24pm

Yes! Besty, couldn't agree more with you. It was one of my worst movies of the year whenever it came out (2011?). I was so excited to see what Polanski would do with this material. It's just an atrocious movie that has no value. Incredibly uninspired and everyone is doing some of their worst work.

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 6:26pm

Did you see the play, ray?

I had no expectations about the material going into it, because i didn't know the material.

[romantico]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 6:29pm

I saw this in the theater. The film is only about an hour and ten minutes long and even I thought the film dragged. I love Polanski but when he does plays into movies, they don't hold up. I thought 'Death and the Maiden' was boring as hell and I am not very excited to see 'Venus in Fur'. He is at the age where he can direct anything he wants. Personally, I'd love to see him do another horror film or a comedy.

Carnage should have worked with such a talented director and cast. Some plays are better as plays. Some movies are better as movies and not turned into plays.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 6:51pm

Never saw the play. Haaaaaaaaaaated the movie. Hate that German guy, anyway, but this steaming pile made me hate him even more. Jodie? Execrable. The Kate woman I liked just fine, since she seemed most to be lamenting being in such a terrible movie. And, oh my god. Beloved lumpen-scthump John C. Reilly. How on earth does he have a career? Honestly, I think it's adorable the industry thinks it needs a new Ernest Borgnine, but he has none of that thing Borgnine had. Likability.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 7:26pm

Porky's II is closer to Virginia Woolf Lite than this movie is.

Brilliant! Your statement that it shockingly gets worse (how is it possible when you start out so badly and the movie is like 75 minutes?!!! ) is spot on. I remember being actually angry when I finished watching it, it was just so unbearable. I watched it at home, but it wasn't even bad in a fun way (like say CATWOMAN, which I'd watch a million times before watching this asinine piece of SH*T movie), so it was really just a waste of time.
I've seen the play twice, once on Broadway with the original cast and once at a regional theatre where I live. Both times it was clear the play was not that great, it's flimsy and the characters are indeed very unlikable. Both productions I saw milked this for laughs, and the casts had great chemistry. The sight gags in the Broadway production were funny, and God how I loved Marcia Gay Harden, and especially Hope Davis just tear into those roles. I wasn't so keen on Gandolfini and Daniels, not because they were bad, but because I thought they had the very typical straight men roles. Even then though, the play lost steam the more it kept going, and I didn't think it had many places to go.
The movie, as others have said, just highlights all the terrible parts of the play without realizing any of its potential to generate laughs and (sort of) pack an emotional punch at the end. Jodie Foster has probably never been worse, I thought she was miscast from the getgo, but nothing could have prepared me for how unlikable and just plain unfunny she was. Harden got the role, she knew what made Veronica so impossible, and she knew how to make that funny. Foster just goes for the unlikability sans any laughs. John C. Reilly was lazy, lazy, lazy, I've seen him give that performance in 20 other films. Waltz made a jerk into a more unlikable character, and Winslet tried hard, but I imagine the set was so uninspiring that there was little she could do. I never ever bought these couples would be married to each other (this was key to the OBC, they had a lot of chemistry). I despised this movie, it's a huge waste of time.

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 7:29pm

I agree with Whizzer that the original cast and Matthew Warchus were instrumental in the play's success, but I have seen other productions that still hold up. The filmmakers (and seeing the consistent blandness in every area of the movie, I have to believe this is due mostly to Polanski) just didn't seem to understand how the material works. I agree with you, Best12Bars, that the characters are certainly unlikeable, but I don't think you're supposed to like them. The play is a satire on how childish and uncivilized we are at our cores, so the actors have to truly let loose and show their nasty sides openly, in a freeing way. This is where both the humor and truth of the play are found. In the film, nobody ever attempted to go anywhere near that extremely vulnerable place. Part of it was the actors giving more safe, "realistic" performances than making bold risks. Part of it is that the film is so claustrophobic that it doesn't feel like there is anywhere for anyone to go. This film just proves that a good play is only as good as what you do with it.

Edited to add: At the end of any good production of the play, every single prop on the stage has been broken, vomited on, or water damaged, and the tulips are all over the place. At the end of the film, most of the room looked untouched. The film had none of the stakes that were there in the play. What on stage was seemingly normal people going out of their minds and destroying everything was a few angry adults bickering and a little sickness in the film. Polanski seemed to miss every single choice that made the play work. Seeing his vision of the piece, I have to wonder why he ever thought it was worth even a second read. Updated On: 9/3/13 at 07:29 PM

[Roscoe]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 7:56pm

I saw and enjoyed the play and just had zero interest in the film -- no one associated with it sparked anything but inertia in me.

Others have noted the splendid chemistry between Marcia Gay Harden and James Gandolfini -- they were a joy to watch together. Gandolfini in particular got to display the comic chops that I always suspected were lurking in there. The play's no masterpiece, but it was an engaging 90 odd minutes. Call it Albee Lite -- 4 civilized adults get together and the drinks come out and inhibitions fall and we're all just animals and all that...

It seems to me the kind of slim piece that can work onstage with a really fine cast (which it had on Broadway) and a fine director (which it also had on Broadway) but I imagine that the comparative "reality" of the cinema would crush whatever pleasures the play might offer.

Updated On: 9/3/13 at 07:56 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 8:01pm

AwesomeDanny--your explanation of how it worked (at least better) on stage makes sense. And to have the film actors trying to find the "truth" of the piece instead of the absurdity of it sounds like the biggest misstep.

And I love what you said here:

This film just proves that a good play is only as good as what you do with it.

I was reminded of a "first class" production of Virginia Woolf that I saw in L.A. around 1989, directed by Edward Albee himself (who should never be allowed anywhere near his play again), starring Glenda Jackson, John Lithgow, Cynthia Nixon, and Brian Kerwin.

It was completely terrible and played like a Witt-Thomas sitcom episode. I kept waiting for the cheesy music stingers going in and out of each scene, like "The Golden Girls."

It this case, the play was played for laughs. The humor was treated lightly, and it completely defanged the drama. It became such an "ordinary" play. No punch. I couldn't believe I was listening to the same dialogue I'd heard many times before, only to have it brushed aside for a wink and a titter. Albee stated that he had always intended his play to be more of a comedy than a drama. Thank god Alan Schneider and Mike Nichols both thought differently.

But it showed me how, even with the best material, a great cast, and a legendary playwright at the helm, things can go very wrong.

Updated On: 9/3/13 at 08:01 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 9:26pm

Shhhhhhhh! As usual, I agree with Best12, but could everyone please pipe down?

My husband has no idea this film is available through TW "on demand." I speed by it quickly on the list because I just cannot sit through it again.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 9:46pm

Best12- Have you seen a picture of the Broadway set? It was anything but realistic. It definitely did not look like Brooklyn, and it was wide, like a great room, rather than a cramped apartment.

Warchus didn't go for realism and it was the saving grace of the material. It looked like they were in the waiting room to get into purgatory.

Warchus was double nominated that year for director (his BRILLIANT work on The Norman Conquests and this) and at the time I was very upset that he won for God of Carnage. I figured it was because he got caught up in the sweep of the play when really his stronger work was for Norman. Now with time I realize he did when for the correct play because he spun such gold out of straw and turned it into a fun evening.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 9:56pm

I enjoyed the play well enough, but Gandolfini is what sold the tickets. Bottom line-HE was packing that house. His popularity was so extraordinary and he was playing something completely different.

Seeing the kinetic energy of this piece live on stage was part of the thrill-the physicality, the endurance test for the actors. It was a master class on stage.

A film would fall flat without the live energy.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 9/3/13 at 10:44pm

I hated this movie! A so-called friend dragged me to it, and it was pure torture. I was so bored and annoyed, I actually walked out of the movie to wander in the halls for a bit.

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 9/4/13 at 4:26am

I didn't even know there WAS a film, but my LORD I hated the play. In five years of getting to see shows every couple of weeks, it was my worst NYC theatre experience. I couldn't wait for it to be over. My mom was visiting and had wanted to see it. When it was over, I wanted to bounce, but my mom wanted to try to meet James Gandolfini (who waited for the other actors to come out and then left through another door). Jeff Daniels asked a man near me, who was asking for an autograph, if he enjoyed the play. The man said, "No. Not really." Oh MAN, did Jeff get pissed.

Off-topic high point of the evening, though: Marcia Gay Harden heard one of my mom's friends speaking and asked where she was from. She came over to us when she had finished with the crowd and talked with us for the longest time. She said she missed being surrounded by Southern accents.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 9/4/13 at 7:42am

Cheers to AwesomeDanny for his astute rendering of what made the Broadway production work. It was a fun/nasty night at the theater, and not what I had expected after reading the critical raves. It’s not a great play. Its satire is pretty heavy and unoriginal. It was that quartet of actors, especially, as others have noted, Gandolfini, whose performance I still find myself frequently trying to describe to people. It was a masterwork of comedic subtlety. With a slight turn of his head or a sideways smirk, he set the audience roaring with laughter. The perfect chemistry of that original cast, the direction, and the design (Whizzer is spot on with his “waiting room to…purgatory” comment) are what made that dull, slightly boorish script play like gangbusters.

When I saw the movie trailer, I knew immediately the material wasn’t going to work. I wanted to be proven wrong and hoped against hope that the actors, though uniformly miscast, would shine through. But everything about it was off – the design, the direction, the “additions,” the tone, and, yes, every single performance. The less said about the movie, the better. After seeing it, I couldn't believe it got the handful of decent reviews that it did.

Updated On: 9/4/13 at 07:42 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 9/4/13 at 8:56am

I can't believe this movie got anything close to a decent review.

These are people I would never want to meet or see a movie with.

EDIT: Ugh! Just checked out Rotten Tomatoes. One of my old friends from L.A. (a top critic) gave it a good review. Remind me to yell at him the next time I see him. He's off the Christmas card list for steering people down a primrose path! We actually disagree more than agree on movies in general. But he gets paid for his views. Ah, well. He's the guy who told me "Titanic" would be a major bomb and it would be lucky to get one Oscar nod for "the old lady." He sure called that one, didn't he?

Updated On: 9/4/13 at 08:56 AM

[StageManager2]

Posted: 9/4/13 at 10:52am

To be fair, b12b, most everyone was predicting Titanic to fail. I remember there was much talk about the delays (it was originally slated for Summer 1997) and how it was "the most expensive movie ever made" and it probably wouldn't recoup.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/4/13 at 11:06am

I think AwesomeDanny and Whizzer both touched on everything that made the play work for me. I saw the Goodman production in Chicago and absolutely loved it. Polanski managed to make a film that was pretty much the exact opposite of the play using virtually the same text. There are loads of beloved plays and films containing nothing but despicable characters for which people had so much passion and affection that always baffled me (Mamet and Tarantino come to mind as well as some Albee and Sam Shepard). What I enjoyed about God of Carnage was watching the schadenfreude play out. The stark set design, the pacing, the props, and the performances were all masterful and hit all the hilarious notes I believe were Reza's intent with the piece. The film was so literal, realistic, and started at such a high agitated level, there was almost nowhere to go and no real sign of change in character. I'm not sure how it was staged on Broadway, but at the Goodman, the shifting placement of the characters throughout the play reinforced the shift in dynamics of their alliances and relationships as well. And as mentioned before, the devastation of the props and set by the end of the play was all the more apparent (and to me, unexpected at the start of the play) due to the design. I knew from the casting, the opening scene, and the set design that the film would be a massive misfire.

As for the content and writing of the play, I think it's brilliant. It's a product of the conversation on parenting that had been building for a few years and I think Reza's point of view and how she chose to highlight the hypocrisy of the characters was spot on. It's just a shame that Polanski took all the short cuts and decided to go literal. That and no sense of casting.

And, oh my god. Beloved lumpen-scthump John C. Reilly. How on earth does he have a career? Honestly, I think it's adorable the industry thinks it needs a new Ernest Borgnine, but he has none of that thing Borgnine had. Likability.

Magnolia. That's my only guess. After that, I've never enjoyed him in anything else. Even milquetoast calls him dull.