#1
Posted: 12/17/11 at 9:13pm
It was released yesterday in New York and LA. I'm curious to hear what you guys have been thinking about it.
Has anyone seen Carnage?
#2
Posted: 12/17/11 at 10:40pm
The film is fine. Nothing remarkable, or worthy of much hullabaloo. Similar to the film adaptation of "Doubt," the stakes never seemed high enough on screen or as engaging as they did on stage. Foster shines here and there, and is quite comical when she goes over the top. Christoph Waltz has a few small moments with his Blackberry, but again, nothing to get too jazzed over. John C. Reilly is his usual, dopey self. And Winslet doesn't do much until the last ninety seconds of the film. Literally.
Love Polanski and Foster. Appreciate Winslet. But I'd have to say it was a bit of a snooze fest.
Love Polanski and Foster. Appreciate Winslet. But I'd have to say it was a bit of a snooze fest.
#3
Posted: 12/17/11 at 10:44pm
I didn't love it as much as the critics do. For a film that's barely 80 minutes long it seems to take forever to get started and by the time it does it's almost over. This really works so much better as a play and should have been fleshed out more for a screen adaptation. As it stands now, I'm glad I saw it and enjoyed parts of it, but I'm content just watching my video of the OBC.
#4
Posted: 12/18/11 at 10:47am
I thought it was quite, quite funny (liked Winslet, really liked Waltz), but I have a good hunch it's only this funny with an audience.
My avatar = A screencap from Avatar, arguably the greatest animated show of all
#5
Posted: 12/18/11 at 11:40am
I enjoyed it but its not as good as the play, some of it gets lost in translation. Winslet and Foster are superb however. Its fun and builds well but as i say gets a little lost in translation.
Namo i love u but we get it already....you don't like Madonna
#6
Posted: 12/18/11 at 7:59pm
The reviews have been luke warm and its gotten a pretty tepid reception from those handing out awards this season. Im pretty sure it will tank. Plus, there has been little to no marketing. I enjoyed the play, but knew it would difficult to translate the kinetic energy of stage to a film.
"The sexual energy between the mother and son really concerns me!"-random woman behind me at Next to Normal
"I want to meet him after and bang him!"-random woman who exposed her breasts at Rock of Ages, referring to James Carpinello
#7
Posted: 12/18/11 at 9:08pm
I saw the play with the OBC and have no desire to see the film now. Maybe later on but not now.
'Take me out tonight where's there's music and there's people and they're young and alive.'
Updated On: 12/18/11 at 09:08 PM
#8
Posted: 12/18/11 at 9:59pm
To be honest, I dont think they could have ever captured the play properly on film. So much of it depends on an almost visceral connection between the actors and the audience that you just dont get in a movie — VIRGINIA WOOLF being pretty much the sole exception. The play itself, as much fun as it is, is just a bit too thin to work on screen.
http://docandraider.com
#9
Posted: 12/19/11 at 2:25am
I thought it was fine. There were plenty of fun moments, but I agree that it should have been fleshed out in some way. There just isn't enough somehow.
#10
Posted: 12/19/11 at 6:20am
It's not a great film, but God of Carnage is not a great play. But they're both entertaining. The cast is very strong.
#11
Posted: 12/19/11 at 11:17am
Wait there is a OBC recording? Where can I see it? Thanks
#12
Posted: 12/19/11 at 1:09pm
It got a pretty bad critical reception, actually, ever since it premiered at the Venice Film Festival with Waltz and Winslet getting the better mentions. I haven't seen the movie but I'm interested in seeing it just because I think Polanski is brilliant and I like some of the cast, but I agree that the play itself is sort of thin and it only works if you have a killer approach that finds ways to connect to the audience *visually* as well as narratively. This was the problem with the DOUBT film, its idea of creating a cinematic vision was to use tilted shots, it didn't work out. It doesn't look like CARNAGE works out either.
I also think Foster and Reilly are utterly miscast, but again I haven't seen it.
I also think Foster and Reilly are utterly miscast, but again I haven't seen it.
"Some people can thrive and bloom living life in a living room, that's perfect for some people of one hundred and five. But I at least gotta try, when I think of all the sights that I gotta see, all the places I gotta play, all the things that I gotta be at"
#13
Posted: 12/19/11 at 2:20pm
To me Foster was the best thing in it
Namo i love u but we get it already....you don't like Madonna
#14
Posted: 12/19/11 at 2:23pm
But that's true if anything she's in, no matter how brilliant the movie is.
#15
Posted: 12/19/11 at 2:36pm
I choose not to see films by Polanski.
"It does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."
-- Thomas Jefferson
#16
Posted: 12/19/11 at 5:33pm
They all have their moments but Foster was the standout. It is not nearly as much fun as it was on stage. I'm really not sure if it could have been or not. But it isn't. None of the performances come close to the original NY cast's for understanding Reza's humor or pacing. But again, that may well be a function of the material not lending itself to film, as SeanMartin has said.
But the ending of the film is handled beautifully. It isn't markedly different in terms of what happens and it couldn't have been done the same way on stage. But it is much more effective in the movie and brings the piece together in a very strong way.
But the ending of the film is handled beautifully. It isn't markedly different in terms of what happens and it couldn't have been done the same way on stage. But it is much more effective in the movie and brings the piece together in a very strong way.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95