Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

Carnage (2011)

Director: Roman Polanski

Time Out rating

Average user rating

13 reviews

Movie review

From Time Out London

Where the suburban sitcom flirts with Michael Haneke: this comic miniature sees Roman Polanski bring his knack for claustrophobic dramas played out in enclosed spaces (a recurring interest from ‘Knife in the Water’ to ‘The Ghost’, via ‘Repulsion’ and ‘The Tenant’) to French writer Yasmina Reza’s play ‘The God of Carnage’, moving the action from bourgeois Paris to middle-class Brooklyn.

It’s a captive, caustic exercise in confinement and hysteria as a couple, Nancy (Kate Winslet), a personality-free, high-flying financial type, and Alan (Christoph Waltz), a harried executive, come knocking at the home of Penelope (Jodie Foster), a self-consciously liberal writer, and Michael (John C Reilly), an amiable peddler of ‘flush mechanisms’, to discuss a fight between their kids. Each couple attempts diplomacy, but words become weapons, prejudices rise to the surface and the evening collapses into a storm of anger, vomit, drunkenness and violence.

It’s an acting face-off, yet Polanski harnesses any thespian one-upmanship to make it integral to each character’s need to dominate a deteriorating scenario. Each of our four victims – and Reza and Polanski are unforgiving – enacts a primal power dance around the apartment. The film threatens to run away with itself: the third act feels accelerated and mannered compared to more sly gear changes earlier on. Yet Waltz steals the show with a crowd-pleasing embrace of his character’s weasel wit and amoral attitudes. He has one of the best lines, too, when he half-smiles at Foster, who is forever beating a progressive drum, and quips: ‘I saw your friend Jane Fonda on TV the other day.’ Brief, brutal and barmy.

Author: Dave Calhoun

Time Out London Issue 2163: Feb 2-8, 2012

Email Tweet Share

User reviews of this film

Justin Berkovi said...

Posted on Mar 22 2012 22:52 Usually I'm fairly eloquent in my film reviews. This however was a complete load of fucking shit!

Report as inappropriate
Joe quinlivan said...

Posted on Feb 17 2012 23:26 This may well have worked as a play but is a disaster as a film.Contrived conversation about nothing.do not waste your time or money

Report as inappropriate
Peter Ludbrook said...

Posted on Feb 16 2012 10:20 I was intrigued to see how Polanski would film four characters on a single set and retain my interest. I was even more intrigued when I discovered it was shot in widescreen. In the event it worked very well and It's a tribute to how well Polanski was taught at the Lodz Film School all those years ago. It helped to have four splendid actors bouncing off one another. The film was very funny but often quite painful to watch as alliances shifted and the hitherto unspoken tensions between the characters were revealed. The only scene I felt ambivalent about was the last one where the two boys were seen to make up. I'm sure that's how it would have happened but not convinv=ced we needed to see it. Others may well feel very diferently about it.

Report as inappropriate
Blaize67 said...

Posted on Feb 15 2012 08:07 A masterpiece from Polanski. Absolutely brilliant performances from all concerned. It may be when the Cobbler comes out, or the hamster story, or when the Blackberry gets drowned, or when the whisky is flowing or when Foster "doesn't need to be appreciated" but you will laugh. The audience in the showing I went to were cackling away. One of the top 5 movies this year. Superb. Highly recommended.

Report as inappropriate
DEWI said...

Posted on Feb 10 2012 14:05 Four characters within four walls for eighty minutes, their conversation stemming from their children's fight?! Can't possibly be a good 'film', right?Wrong.Wide screen doesn't always demand and depend on the roaming plains of Wyoming as a background. All that is needed is a great script and a helping hand from top drawer performances and crafted direction.Don't believe me? Go see this film. You won't regret it.

Report as inappropriate
good enough said...

Posted on Feb 09 2012 18:13 Saw the play a few years ago with Ralph Feinnes and Ken Stott. It was better on stage, although I thought it actually worked here to an extent. The audience in the cinema I was in were hooting with laughter! It wasn't exactly a hoot, but there were some funny moments, though the contrived circumstances seem more contrived on screen than on stage.

Report as inappropriate
Tony said...

Posted on Feb 09 2012 16:41 This is the only film my wife a I ever walked out half-way though, we hated it.

Report as inappropriate
Paul said...

Posted on Feb 09 2012 00:30 I was reminded of Patrick Bateman without a nail gun and didn't go for the addict idea as Brandon seemed more like a (Wolfean) 'Master of the Universe' with their normal sex-drive.
The ending does spoil a good film and suggest Jidro see Ai no korrida before deciding if see is old enough to see 18 films, otherwise best stick to PG.
Forgetting Polanski's unpunished 1977 brutal rape of a 13-year old girl he had drugged that has been reported elsewhere, let's focus on his film instead. Polanski brings Abigail's Party up to date by setting it in modern America, a country he has never visited since going on the run.

Report as inappropriate
ARCHGATE said...

Posted on Feb 07 2012 09:44 I think Emily represents my own thoughts about this film. This is a twee film about manners, lack of manners, false manners, genuine manners and somewhere in between lies the truth of each character. I would add that Jodie Foster delivers a powerful performance despite the lukewarm environment she is placed in. However, it is always good to see how Polanski works. If he aint working it's proof that he aint banged up in the USA.

Report as inappropriate
mister_x said...

Posted on Feb 06 2012 17:51 im not a big winslett fan - shes such a 'big' actress most of the time, but this is a great film, even if it doesnt end up quite as satisfactorily as you hope. the realisations they make arent as great or huge as you might hope for. it actually ends on a lighter note than it could have. but the writing is great.

Report as inappropriate
KP said...

Posted on Feb 04 2012 00:06 What's going on ? Time Out says the film's 79 mins, John O Sullivan says 82 mins and Alex Barclay 84 mins ...... seems to be getting longer with each review !!

Report as inappropriate
Emily said...

Posted on Jan 02 2012 03:59 A very disappointing, dated film, despite very good actors. A waste of time.

Report as inappropriate
Alex Barclay said...

Posted on Dec 29 2011 15:57 John O Sullivan needs his head, ears and eyes examined. He also needs to learn more about film. His complaint about the film's length is nonsense: the average Hollywood blockbuster is c. 1 hour 10- 20 mins or 70-80 mins, so at 84 mins this is spot on and we get out money's worth of celluloid. The comment about 'unrealistic' dialogue is also dumber than dumb: since when did film talk ever have to be be realistic?? So a proper review: if you like film dramatisations of droll and lively plays this is as grown up and funny a one as you're likely to see for a while. Polanski gives his actors real freedom too and clearly they love it. We do too. Go see.

Report as inappropriate