उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

It's depressing to see what a low rating Carnal Knowledge gets. Jules Feiffer, the brilliant cartoonist, wrote an extraordinary script for this film. I loved the dialog so much I found the script on Alibris and read it immediately.

This is a dark movie. Not that it's violent or bloody, but its take on men vs. women relationships is bleak, blunt, and accurate. Jack Nicholson is charismatic and smart in his role, showing the misery at the heart of a cynic.

As others have written, it's not a kids' movie. It's not even a young adults' movie-- I was bored when I first saw it, at 21. It's an "adult movie" in the non-euphemistic sense of that phrase, an adult movie about the mortality of romance

"Carnal Knowledge" (1971) directed by Mike Nichols with Jack Nicholson, Art Garfunkel, Candice Bergen, Ann-Margret in an Oscar nominated performance as a sex kitten who wants to marry Nicholson's Jonathan, and Carol Kane and Rita Moreno in the small roles is one of the movies that made 70s so memorable. It is also the movie that keeps reminding me why I love Jack Nicholson of his early years and how grand he was without his "Jackness" which he has developed during all these years. Sandy (Garfunkel) and Jonathan are two college friends and like every straight young (and not too young) man in the world they are obsessed by girls and move from one relationship to another in the course of almost thirty years. Nichols and Jules Feiffer who wrote the play and later adapted it for the screen let us look inside the minds and souls of two educated upper-middle class white males and to learn their very intimate thoughts and secrets concerning their plentiful dysfunctional and joyless affairs and it is not a pretty picture - "Boys begin life not liking girls, later they don't change, they just get horny." The film is honest, uncomfortable, "very slick, very clever".

Its a wry, often funny, often sombre drama about the sex lives of two college roommates, Jack Nicholson and Art Garfunkel (who's actually fine in this - much better than in Catch-22) - at college, and in middle age.

There are really very few movies where the dialogue seems so true and searching, yet funny, that you hang on every word. I can only think of a few - and this is one of them.

It is episodic, and may be broken into two halves - intentionally, importantly. The heart of the story is in the comparison of the first half and the second: how the two men have or have not changed. If you consider this is the purpose of the film, the two halves are not perfect - but nevertheless a fascinating film.

Bitterness, nostalgia and melancholy run through this character comedy from the 70's. Its a frank, confronting (depending on the viewer) laying bare of sex. Though there is very little actual sex in the film, this one is definitely only for adults. A penetrating character study, and a richly worded film filled with wit, irony and character penetration by cartoonist Jules Feiffer.

9/10. Not perfect, but absolutely must-see.

Telling the sordid, often depressing story of two men and their sexual hangups over several decades, director Mike Nichols and writer Jules Fieffer concoct a thinking man's dirty movie. At times it's not easy to watch, but it's mostly entertaining and beautifully made. Jack Nicholson and Art Garfunkel are the men ---Nicholson is the callous, emotionally detached one, Garfunkel is the romantic. He marries college sweetheart Candice Bergen, while Nicholson shacks up with sexy Ann-Margret. The scenes with Nicholson and Ann-Margret are cringe-inducing. Nicholson, Garfunkel and Bergen are terrific and Nichol's clever casting of Ann-Margret, putting her sex kitten image through the blender, pays off in spades...she's the best thing in the movie. The supporting cast includes Carol Kane and Rita Moreno.

The plot begins with Jonathan (Jack Nicholson) and Sandy (Art Garfunkel) roommates in the university. Each one of them has a different behavior and experience with women: Jonathan is cynical, malicious, and selfish. He does not respect anybody (even his best friend is not respected) and just want to have sex. Women are objects for him. Sandy is almost the opposite of Jonathan and has a different approach with women: he is shy and respectful, he does not have much experience with women. These characteristics are presented in the film having Susan (the gorgeous Candice Bergen, the most beautiful actress of the 70's) as pivot. Then the story advances a few years and shows both of them successful in their professions and boring with their mates. The character of Susan (who married Sandy) is just occasionally mentioned and does not appear on the screen any more. Now, we see basically the relationship of Jonathan with Bobbie (the sexy Ann-Margret). Then, there is another jump in time and other relationship of Jonathan and Sandy are presented in this movie, since its essence is about relationship of men and woman having the focus mainly in Jonathan.

In 1971, I was too young to watch this movie and certainly I would not understand most of the story. Only a couple of days ago I had the chance of seeing it. It is amazing how this movie for adults has not aged. Further, it does not look like an American movie. The camera, the screenplay, it does look like European movie (maybe a little of 'Jules and Jim'). All the actors and actresses have outstanding performance, but certainly Jack Nicholson and Ann-Margret are superb. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Ânsia de Amar" ("Eagerness for Love")

Note: On 18 January 2014, I saw this movie again.

Mike Nichols directed Jules Feiffer's script of two men in their times with the opposite sexes, beginning with college years, then years later when they have occupations, and settling on middle age. Jack Nicholson creates one of his more complex characters here, which like About Schmidt or The King of Marvin Gardens, doesn't end up the happiest guy in town. His Jonathan is lusting, condescending, scared (deep inside), angry, and intelligent all at once, though never knowing himself well enough to know the one he's getting his rocks off with. On the flip-side his best friend Sandy (Art Garfunkel) is sensitive, unsure, though without a feeling of overt confidence and control like Jonathan has, and that feeling of confidence over the other sex is what keeps them together in discussion, and serves as a tinge in their friendship in their older age.

In college, Sandy meets Susan (Candice Bergen), and is more of a friend at first, while Susan begins an affair she didn't intend on with Jonathan. This unfolds, and when they graduate and are out in the world Jonathan meets Bobbie (Ann Margaret) who is a pure vixen with, at the behest of Jonathan, is a louse and wanting a commitment Jonathan can't take. The last scene with Rita Moreno, and especially the last shot featuring an ice skater Jonathan saw once, say it all about his character- essentially, as it is with nearly all men, he wants what he can't have.

Many of the angles and many of the one shots of faces for long stretches, the camera compositions and time length, etc, reminded me of techniques that director Ingmar Bergman used in his movies that dealt with relationships, men with women, and how the desperation in their personalities either become their downfall, or a life lesson later on. In a sense, Carnal Knowledge is Nichols' throwback to Bergman as was Interiors for Woody Allen, though his dealt with the strife in a family and Nichols is a character study dealing in love and sex. Never-the-less, non-art film goers shouldn't be scared off by the notion that Carnal Knowledge is bleak or sterile. It may not be the most cheerful, or an entirely fair to both sexes, but it is important in that it views Jonathan, Sandy, Susan, and Bonnie, as people, and Nichols doesn't force the viewer to judge these people if they don't want to. For its time it was groundbreaking, and today it's almost mature compared to the barrage of "relationship" movies of late. And, if anything, it should have mass appeal to devourers of film acting. Grade: A

For the first half hour the characters are so disgusting and terrible, the feeling of bile rising in my throat doesn't subside. These are the people who I have known. And while I cannot bring myself to turn it off, I also can't help but fondly remember watching all of his movies that he made before this one, the spark that say The Graduate or Catch-22 had, and this just feels a little flat. But at the same time, it seems to completely succeed in doing what it sets out to do, creating something suffocatingly real, like watching the most depressing moments in my life played back for me with dim lighting and blonder actresses. The fact that Candice Bergen goes away after that also helps. Upper middle class ennui is something that's almost always tedious to watch, but this is actually affecting. Nonetheless, this feels like the beginning of the end for Mike Nichols. He would never again make anything on a level with Catch-22, and he followed this one up with Day of the Dolphins. Seriously. wtf. Also for the curious, pop star Arthur Garfunkle (as the back of the DVD box puts it) gives a surprisingly strong performance in this.

The sexual adventures of Jonathan and Sandy. From college to mid-life crises, we see their attitude to the opposite sex and how their male organ leads them to lower depths. A fascinating script from Jules who isn't afraid to show how some men really are. Nichols' direction has the European flavor, allowing the stunning performances to take over with the help of Giuseppe Rotunno's unobtrusive photography. The amazing thing is that this film is still relevant to some of today's modern male species. The writer and director teamed up recently and made CLOSER, for today's generation. Watch the two movies back to back and you'd see the similarities in style and substance after thirty years.

This was better than i expected. Jack Nicholson was BREATHTAKING, seriously, i wish this movie was 3 hours just to watch him playing this character. His charisma is unmatchable, it literally doesn't matter what he is saying. He could say gibberish in the whole movie and still this would be a passable movie due to him.

Regardless of JN, this is a very good 70's drama/romance movie. At times, script was brilliant. Sure, if you watch it today, this won't have the same impact but back then, i bet it was revolutionary. Imagine a Woody Allen movie without the neuroses and the constant self-deprecating humor, something like a more "masculine" WA drama romance movie. It's somewhat darker and more cynical than it seems at first but still, it's fun to watch. Not a comedy though, on the contrary, as it progresses, the offbeat comedy diminishes.

A very good "adult" movie.

Mike Nichols' dramatic film about the separate sexual journeys of two male friends from college to middle-age got critical raves upon its release, but it doesn't quite live up to the kudos; it's not so much overrated as it is overwrought. Though a well-acted piece, it condescends towards the audience with a self-satisfied conception. There's hardly an actual plot, and the screenplay is fake-literate: it's made up of heated dialogue exchanges which purport to show how men treat women, yet it may very well be just these men. The film is smug, with too much of the rabble-rousing disintegrating into melodramatic soap. It does feature fine acting, from Arthur Garfunkel and Ann-Margret in particular, but Jack Nicholson is uneven (and he always seems to be in the shower!). The arty shots (close-ups held a long time on each character's face) aren't there to reveal anything special--they're just there to show-off the director's prowess. I eventually tired of the back-and-forth arguing and female crying, though I do see the merit in the acting and in some of what Nichols was trying to accomplish. **1/2 from ****

The sixties were a time when nearly every boundary was tested. In the seventies we began to learn that boundaries don't necessarily restrict freedom but exist to provide elasticity which stretched too thin too fast can break. Carnal Knowledge follows two buddies through their college years and into middle age a period during which the sexual revolution swept many not into a new land of liberation but to a world of sexual dysfunction, misogyny, and oppression. Jack Nicholson is terrific as man who became a callous, self-centered product of the revolution. Art Garfunkel, in a stiff and uninteresting performance, is Nicholson's erudite buddy. Directed by Mike Nichols, the movie lacks the wit of "The Graduate" and Jules Feiffer's script is leaden without a hint of irony that could elevate the film from tolerable to entertaining. Carnal Knowledge is a curio of late sixties/early seventies film-making that captures, depressingly, the underside of the '60s sexual revolution. Perhaps a wittier, lighter touch would have made this a classic.

Just like Nichols' later masterpiece Closer, Carnal Knowledge expertly deals with romances falling apart, coming back together and the study of lust and it's many complications. And just like Closer the dialogue and relationships in the film feel more authentic than virtually anything else I've ever seen. All of the arguments and especially the conversations between Jonathan and Sandy felt so natural, humorous and somewhat depressing. It evoked all of the emotions that lust in life does and perfectly demonstrates how rare true love and happiness is. The performances were all incredible and Ann-Margret more than deserved her nomination (the win in my opinion) but Jack Nicholson really shines above the rest of the cast. His realism, intensity and humor was top-notch to say the least. He also displays this internal pain that I can't even describe, but stunned me to my core. I felt like I could really relate to the character and that made his actions even more devastating to me.

Not up to the quality of VIRGINIA WOOLF, THE GRADUATE, or CATCH-22, this film nevertheless scores some points (great casting), but it's ultimately somewhat depressing and it shouldn't be. Ann-Margret is splendid and deserved her Oscar nod. A beautiful and talented actress who was always under-valued in Hollywood. Candice Bergen gives her first believable performance. Art Garfunkel seems perfect for his character, Sandy, but still needs more acting experience. Jack Nicholson seems ideal for Jonathan, but it's not one of his better performances.

A 6 out of 10. Best performance = Ann-Margret. It's too bad Nichols' choices of projects went South after THE FORTUNE. He was one of the great ones, but WORKING GIRL, DAY OF THE DOLPHIN, and the rest of the junk he's done since '75 has shown he needs some career advice.

This is not a movie that young adults would easily appreciate. You need more life experience to understand the complex psychology on display. And based on the title, anyone looking for cheap thrills will be sorely disappointed, despite a number of extended nude shots of Ann-Margret. Mike Nichols, more than once, proved himself to be eerily precocious, creating this incisive look at sexual dynamics at the age of 39. (No surprise; He'd done an equally impressive job at 35 with "The Graduate.") This film decidedly pushed some boundaries in 1971, and remains relevant not only for its subject matter, but the intelligence and fine craftsmanship with which it's put together. Jules Feiffer's dialog is spot on, as are the performances. Jack Nicholson, at 34, looks a bit too old as a college student, but his acting is so good that's easily overlooked, and he more than fits the part as his character ages. Ann-Margret is a standout, a perfect choice for the part. The final scene with Rita Moreno is shocking in its offhanded, pedestrian approach to prostitution. "Carnal Knowledge" offers thinking adults a lot to savor and contemplate. Action fans, look elsewhere.

I just recently watched Carnal Knowledge. I didn't really care for it. My main reason for watching it was because I have adored Ann-Margret all these years since the 60's when she first came on the scene.I didn't want to watch carnal Knowledge when it first came out because I heard that Ann-Margret did nude scenes in them. I know that sounds silly but back then that was a big deal for me. More and more stars were starting to do nude scenes I am mostly writing this review to respond to fedor8's review titled "Good Comedy/Drama" She stated that Ann-Margret had silicone breast Implants done. She is wrong. Ann-Margret states in her biography that she wrote in the early 90's that she deliberately gained thirty lbs to look more like the way Bobbie would look. Ann-Margret did a fanatic job. Jack Nicholson also was great.

This isn't an easy movie. The characters are pretty unlikeable and it pushes things into off putting places with reprehensible behaviour. Nicholson manages to truly inhabit a real SOB while Garfunkel just sort of floats around as a meek jerk. This isn't a movie to paint men in a good light, but has something to say and isn't afraid to say it.