Report a comment as inappropriate

You are reporting the following comment by Lara on this page.

"This film made me very angry. Great actors and a great director but between them all nobody seemed to give a shit that the whole film was based on a shockingly bad premiss. Are we really to believe that Winslet and Waltz's characters were going to be tempted back into the house of these neurotically dull maniacs on the promise of a 'coffee', a 'real coffee' or piece of fucking cobblers? The characters hated each other and rightly so, and if Waltz's character was so amoral and socially uncompromising (interrupting the flow of conversation continually to hold business calls) as a guest in somebody else's house, surely there would have been no social obligation on his part to negotiate some kind of understanding with the Longstreets in the first place? Twelve Angry men is one of my favourite dramas. The fact that the film is played out successfully in a single setting is a testimony the strength of the script, the story and the performances. Jody Foster has also proved she can sustain a film like Panic Room which is largely set in one scene through an amazing performance. Carnage , however is an absolute insulting pile. Yes, the idiosyncratic speech is well observed, the social commentary is interesting but how can such an obvious lack of truth to the core of the story not bother everybody the way it bothered me? How can a film where all the time you're know you could just leave and never see these arse holes again...not undermine the absolute enjoyment of the film? I can't understand how a film with an unbelievable premiss gets a four or five star review. I can see how this may work as a play - one frequently excuses a poor or compromised story at the theatre for the enjoyment of an in depth character portrait but if it's great theatre on Film you want watch Mike Leigh not this crap. This made me angrier than any film i've seen."

Please state your reason

Reason *
* mandatory fields