User Score
7.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 114 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 90 out of 114
  2. Negative: 6 out of 114

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Aug 10, 2013
    4
    i didn't get what was supposed to be funny about this movie. they just looked like a bunch of broken human beings. every time a character lashed out I took it more seriously then in humor. though the characters were well acted.
  2. Oct 9, 2012
    3
    Hoooooooly **** this movie was crazy. the characters are **** INSANE, its all just by a minor problem, you start to think that the director was drunk when he had this idea,and the ending **** IT ALL!!
  3. Apr 5, 2012
    4
    Carnage suffers from a bad script that is simply unfunny. The actors are quite good and know how to play there role, but they cannot save this 71 minute long film from feeling like a total drag. This is also the first polanski film that I have not enjoyed.
  4. Apr 4, 2012
    4
    Who's Afraid of the God of Carnage? would be an apt title for this film since it is reminiscent of the Virginia Woolf play/film. Any film that takes place almost entirely in one room has to be be based on a play, and Carnage is no exception. The four characters occasionally tread into the hallway and there's a trip to the bathroom, and that's it. The stage lends itself well to prolonged dialogues and dramatic monologues, but film demands some action. The opening credits show the incident between the boys in the park; otherwise, the most action you'll see here is when Kate Winslet's character throws up all over uptight Jodie Foster's art books. Both actresses got nominated for a Golden Globe for best actress in a comedy, but there is not one line in this film that is even remotely humorous. The ancient Greek definition of comedy is any play that has a happy ending--Carnage still does not qualify. It has no ending at all. It seems to stop in the middle. We'll need a sequel to find out if the two boys ever reconciled like grown-ups or even to find out if the two marriages survived that disastrous encounter. At least Polanski remembered to tie up the loose end about the hamster--that was an enormous relief. In between the opening credits and the hamster, two civilized couples get together to talk about the fact that the son of Nancy and Alan Cowen (Kate Winslet and Christoph Waltz) bashed in the teeth of the son of Penelope and Michael Longstreet (John Reilly and Jodie Foster). The injuries are serious but will heal and perhaps will need some cosmetic surgery, but the boy will not be marked for life. The parents have the best of intentions--to reconcile with each other and set an example so that the boys will reconcile. The visiting parents of the offending boy are about to leave, twice, and the second time they make it to the elevator. By the end of the movie, you wish they had left, and there was no reason for them to be enticed back for a cup of coffee. It was an uncomfortable, unpleasant visit, and everyone wanted it to end, including the viewers. Instead it dragged on for eighty minutes, short for most films but interminable in this film. The conversation starts out being politically correct but quickly deteriorates as both couples lose it, lash out at the other couple, and then spouses lash out at each other, and all the chinks in the armor of the holy institution of marriage get blown away so that there is no armor left, just the carnage. The play was called â Expand
  5. Dec 21, 2011
    3
    Its embarrassing. It fails dismally. I can see how it could have worked as a play but unlike say , the importance of being earnest, its fails horribly in the movie version. The jovial twists and turns of the play do not work on the screen version.
Metascore
61

Generally favorable reviews - based on 40 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 25 out of 40
  2. Negative: 0 out of 40
  1. Reviewed by: Adam Smith
    Jan 30, 2012
    80
    A quartet of pitch-perfect performances from a cast uniformly at its career best, together with a director on shockingly mischievous top form, this is a shot of pure, exhilarating cinematic malice. And if nothing else, it contains the most surprising puking sequence since Monsieur Creosote.
  2. Reviewed by: Joe Williams
    Jan 14, 2012
    75
    When a man whose wife was killed by cultists invites us to laugh at life's absurdities, the particulars are almost incidental.
  3. Reviewed by: Mike Scott
    Jan 14, 2012
    75
    Among them, Polanski's four-person cast boasts four Oscars and eight more nominations, so these are big-league actors who are capable of carrying a film such as this through its occasional miscalculations.