Carnage

it is not a surprise. the cast is great and the script/play gives many opportunities for demonstrate this fact. image of a crisis, simple and powerful, impressive for the precision of scenes,a play who has chance to has extraordinary actors, it is a splendid exploration of characters and society human types. a special film who seems be almost extravagant.because all is different by common recipes. the transformation of masks in aggressive tools, the fragility of existences and marriages, the force of accusations, the frustrations as axis of a form of survive. a bitter comedy, a deep drama. and one of guide movies who reminds the purpose of real cinema - art as subtle reflection of life.

Despite it's name, which should imply a very violent movie, this one is a wonderful little movie about social structures and the way its built within us to the point of forcing us to behave in certain ways.

The concept for this movie is simplistic to the maximum level. Just 2 couples discussing terms for their kid's fight. What seems to be a nice meeting to solve the problem soon became a carnage fight (of words only, gladly).

The movie allow us to explore the aspects of each of the 4 personalities, that's it, that's the movie, and it's great, superb, no music, no special effects, no induced drama, no additional details to color the movie. Simple, powerful, nicely done.

From all the movies coming from Hollywood these days, this one is a nice gift, top notch actors, great comedy, nicely put together, what more could you ask.

So, go on, see the movie, what are you waiting for!

Working on a "sense of community," the two couples in Carnage engage in slowly evolving urban warfare, precipitated by violence in the playground between their two sons. This adaptation from the Broadway play, God of Carnage, is a soberer (by a little) version of Edward Albee's Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Penelope (Jody Foster) and Michael (John C. Reilly) host Nancy (Kate Winslet) and Alan (Christof Waltz) in their Brooklyn apartment to iron out difficulties coming from their sons' fight, which resulted in Penelope and Michael's son's mangled mouth. What begins civilly escalates to a raw verbal mêlée with all players laying bare their prejudices and weaknesses while the issue of the repentance of Nancy and Alan's child becomes a vehicle for class and culture clash. As in director Roman Polanski's Rosemary's Baby, the action is almost exclusively in the small, one bedroom apartment, resulting in an uncomfortable crowding of bodies and egos. And it doesn't take long for the individual differences to surface as one is conciliatory, another confrontational, another detached, and another bewildered.

Nor does it take long (only an 80 minute production anyway) for alliances to build (and not necessarily in the same couple) with the refrain "Why are we still here?" becoming the battle cry. Yes, it doesn't turn out well, nor would most confrontations except that the civil veneer usually stays intact for most of us.

But when writers Yasmina Reza and Polanski allow the characters to speak their minds, albeit helped by Scotch, the drama gets good and the words become socially lethal. What I like best is the language, not elevated but sassy, smart, and colloquial: "Should we wrap this up?" Yes, it is a film to be wrapped, but there is no real end to the social jousting that goes on in our minds if not our mouths, which are sometimes beaten badly as careless children might do in their play.

In the face of such classics as Chinatown and Rosemary's Baby it would be a hollow statement to label Carnage one of Roman Polanski's best films; it's shockingly minimalistic compared to the rest of his catalog, and almost anachronistic in its old fashioned filmmaking style and stripped-down production. Many were probably disappointed by the film purely because of Polanski's name; it might have been better received if it was directed by a young newcomer. Case in point: 12 Angry Men and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, directed by young newcomers Sidney Lumet and Mike Nichols, respectively. Both are still considered among the best each director achieved, but also as experimental debuts that would lead to bigger and more ambitious things. Obviously this is not the case with Carnage, which is a veteran director returning to his roots, to a minimalism not seen in his work since the 50's. And yet, it's so much better than any of the more ambitious films he made in recent years - The Ghost Writer, Oliver Twist, The Pianist and The Ninth Gate all having their merits, but none a real classic or any kind of a surprise.

Not to say that Carnage is as good as 12 Angry Men or Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, masterpieces of minimalism and cinematic landmarks. Carnage isn't any real news, cinematically speaking, but it's a wonderful exercise in acting and interaction, and if you're a fan of minimalistic cinema like I am you're bound to find interest in it. I never found it boring for a second - uncomfortable, yes, grating even, but never dull, I was completely drawn in by the wonderful performances of the leads - Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, Christoph Waltz and John C. Reilly - who manage to covey four complex, fascinating, repulsive and very realistic characters, and by the ever-shifting relationships and alliances between them. While it's clearly a filmed play - and Polanski let the original text shine - he makes excellent use of the possibilities the film format allows, from the bombastic and melodramatic to the quiet and subtle, neither of which is possible on stage, at least not in the same way.

Carnage isn't necessarily a masterpiece but it's a wonderful intellectual exercise and one of my favorite films of 2011. For fans of Roman Polanski or for anyone who loved minimalistic films with compact casts, from Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf to Tape and Cube, it's highly recommended.

This is not only a movie for the thinking man. One is allowed to sit back 80 minutes, laugh a lot and leave the cinema satisfied. There is no need to discuss and interpret, the message is delivered in nicely-served bits of satirist speeches which are easy to follow. Our civilization is based upon lies. So how does Roman Polanski achieve it to present us this cheerless idea in such an incredibly cheerful way?

It's the actors and the characters they play. They are rich, they are cultivated, but not too aloof. One still is able to identify with the characters. The woman with the big heart for Africa played by Jodie Foster and married to the slightly corpulent shop-owner played by John C. Reilly. The other couple consists of the most charming investment consultant played by Kate Winslet and the busy yet stylish lawyer, wonderfully acted by Christoph Waltz. The reason for their little meeting is a fight between two boys. Two civilized married couples having a civilized meeting. If there's something negative, it's sad behind the other's back. But slowly the good attributes become ironically stretched, blurred, we know the roles of the single characters so well that consequently only hate remains. We hate the super-human Jodie Foster. We hate the darling Kate Winslet for her being blatantly drunk and not being able to control herself. We hate John C. Reilly for his diplomacy and simple-mindedness. Only Christoph Waltz remains jet-set. The scene in which he talks to John C. Reilly's mother on the phone is so great you can't draw a border between noble showmanship and sheer arrogance.

Great actors, great story (it reminded me a bit of Clybourne Park, but it was better), not too thoughtful, not too thoughtless - but all chewed. I love the moment of cracking the nutshell of a movie, the moment of realization. Sadly, Roman Polanski left that nutshell out. What remains still is very delightful, though.