Review of Carnage (2011) by Rabih H — 22 Jul 2013

Really, this film was enjoyed by most? Clearly I am the odd man out on this one. I missed the first 20 minutes of this movie, but the fact that the plot was so derivative I could figure it out in sixty seconds was a little disappointing.

This wreaks of art-house play adaptation, that will appeal to the artsy-fartsy out there. Personally, it is more enjoyable to watch a play as a play, in a theatre setting and with an audience and live actors in front of you. This was not enjoyable, at most it was mildly entertaining, and even then, just. It was like watching a movie that was limited (hobbled) by it's theatre background.

I am a firm believer that if a play is to be made into a movie, it needs to be, well literally "adapted", which means changed. There was no change of any kind here. It was a filmed play, and many parts don't translate well onto the silver screen. There is basically one set (scene), and characters are acting like they are on stage. Over the top and, excuse the litteralism, "theatrical". It's for some maybe, but not for me.

There was clearly no shortage of actors, acting talent and outstanding performances in Carnage, but there was no carnage if you will. Nothing "happened". Nothing transpired. It was too character driven to the point of there being little to no plot. I know that was by design, but that is simply no excuse for the weak experience I and the rest of the audience went through.

This in my humble opinion is another case of critics enjoying movies that might not appeal to the general public. After watching a few hundred movies, some of those inclined to become critics start watching more "deep" movies. Well those movies tend to be boring, and Carnage unfortunately was no different.

I think critics should start evaluating a movie in how it appeals to its target audience, in which case if this was for artsy-fartsy film critics it's an A+. For me however, it will be a D.