‘Carnage’ Review: Polanski’s Latest a Bloody Good Time
by John P. HanlonThe use of the word “armed” isn’t often a point of argument in movies today. In fact, jousting over rhetorical choices typically isn’t a point of contention in entertainment at all. It is, however, a major focal point in the new Roman Polanski film, “Carnage,” which takes pleasure in the particulars of language and shows what can be done with an engaging script and four strong actors.
The film stars Oscar winners Kate Winslet, Christoph Waltz, and Jodie Foster and co-stars Oscar nominee John C. Reilly. Aside from a brief scene at its beginning and end, a cameo from the director and a few voices heard over the phone, those four constitute the film’s entire cast.
Its story focuses on two sets of parents who come together to discuss a fight between their sons. Reilly and Foster play Michael and Penelope Longstreet, the parents of the victim in the fight, while Waltz and Winslet play Alan and Nancy Cowan, the assailant’s parents. The concept is simple: these four parents spend the film discussing the incident that left the Longstreet’s son with two teeth knocked out of his mouth and several facial abrasions.
What’s interesting about “Carnage” is how that confrontation becomes so meaningless during the course of this film’s short running time - eighty-nine minutes. The fight between the boys was simply that: a fight between two boys. It was simple and easy to analyze.
The battle between the four adults about the incident and its aftermath is not so easily understood.
While children fight with sticks, these parents use more impressive weapons. Penelope engages in battle with her rhetorically-elitist mindset. She uses loaded language like “deliberately,” “armed” and “disfigured” to stupefy the opposing parents. Nothing is simple with her. A short remark from her can carry the rhetorical ammunition of a dozen men.
On the other hand, Michael is a laid-back fellow who sells hardware for a living. He’s easy to get along with and very accommodating to the two guests. But he does have an angry side to him, a deviousness in him. When he became annoyed with the family hamster, he left it on the street to die without telling his wife or children.
The Cowans are more agreeable than the Longstreet’s but no less restrained as the story proceeds. Nancy is refined and kind, except when pushed. Alan, on the other hand, is a previously-divorced businessman who has no qualms about calling his own son a “maniac.”
If watching a character study of four people arguing doesn’t appeal to it, I would suggest you avoid this movie. It is, however, an intriguingly verbose film about the battles that we engage in as adults that aren’t so different from the playground fights that children participate in.
“Carnage,” as an experiment in filmmaking, might not have worked in the hands of a lesser filmmaker. Polanski, though, does a fine job with it taking a simple story about the relationship between these four adults and adding complex levels to it. There are times when the plot meanders and several silly occasions when the Cowans almost leave but never actually do. Overall, though, “Carnage” is a thoughtful and intelligent film abut the battles we engage in.
Battles that can do more damage than a simple jab from an “armed” teenage assailant.






Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
107 Comments
Roman Polanski? The child rapist? Convicted of giving a 13 year old girl a quaalude and alcohol before raping her and sodomizing her and then jumped bail and fled the country Roman Polanski? Film set in Brooklyn but shot in Paris by the child rapist coward. Not interested.
That's a shame, because I've been waiting for a good movie to come along, but I won't spend one dime of my money on any Polanski film.
When the headline says that Roman Polanski directed it, the review itself is irrelevant.
Not a penny to support a person of this low of a moral character. His films should be illegal in this country. The only way to ruin him is by the pocketbook.
To the comments above: Ditto. Double ditto because I have two girls and if it had been one of them, I would have pulled "A Time to Kill" on his @$$.
I would call him scum but that would put down scum.
I didn't even finish the article cuz I don't care.
Not one penny for Polanski or the actors that slurped his sack to get a part.
For real. why would someone at BH actually review this garbage except to say: "It's out. Just sayin. Something to avoid with the name Polanski attached to it."
I won't even pay to see any of these actor's movies anymore. Thanks for the fond memories, Foster, but you're garbage to me now.
It does sound intriguing, but I guess I can just read "God of Carnage," the play its based on or go see a theatrical production. No money for Roman Polanski! Not a dime! And shame on the actors who worked with him!
Meaningless, now when Foster tries to explain her childhood angst cause which shaped her.
This movie could be Gone With the Wind, Citizen Kane and Casablanca rolled into one: Polanski still won't get a nickel from me.
There are some celebrities I don't agree with, but they don't attack my intelligence, my faith, my personal nature, etc. I have no problem seeing their movies.
There are celebrities who call me names, say I'm stupid, uncaring, seflish, etc.. Those I don't like to support. If the family is going to see one of their films and I want to be with the fam then I very occasionally make an exception. Beyond informing someone of the facts surrounding these celebrities, which is often enough to convince them, I wouldn't think of telling someone which of these celebrities they personally should support with their dollars..
Then there are those celebrities like Polanski. I can say without a doubt that someone who would support and promote this man is doing a disservice to our society. They are supporting a man who without compunction anally and vaginally raped a young woman, and choose not to repent and pay the price he owed society, as would any legitimate member of society. Not only promoting him, but celebrating him and his talent. Yes, he may have talent, but that is so far overshadowed by his crimes that there's no room for any light, any gray, any other real choice than to disown and disavow him as a member of our society. He's been banished from the US. He should be banished in all ways, but apparently there are those who still accept him in their "society."
been looking forward to it, and unlike the others in this thread, I'll happily pay to see it. I divorce my personal feelings towards actors/filmmakers from my viewing habits. Be kind of hard to watch anything if I didn't. To those that don't, that's fine… that's the beauty of a free market
I am beyond disappointed that Jodie Foster is starring in this film.
Roman Polanski drugged and then sodomized a young girl…he has even admitted it. Do not understand why anyone would praise or support his work.
A wise man once said "Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character". HIs name was Albert Einstein.
This movie is painful to watch.
So you have no compunction supporting someone who is, not just accused but, CONVICTED of drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13 YEAR OLD?!
Separating your feelings towards actors and filmmakers and their political statements is one thing but this is something completely different. By paying to see this movie you are giving at least tacit, if not outright wholehearted, approval of what the man did to that girl and are supporting his continued status as a fugitive from justice.
The fact that you don't let what he did bother you says a great deal about you and none of it is good. It also tells me you are most likely not a parent and if you are one, you don't have girls.
Excellent film that peels back the illusion of political correctness in modern america to reveal a classist, sexist, and narcissistic society.
I'm boycotting Polanski's movies, namely I refuse to pay for them.
Roman Polanski: A better film would be a remake of the film "Small Eyes" with Roman in the starring role. The heartwarming story of a pedophile forced to come to Prison terms with his new cellmates who make sure his life is a living hell before eventually dispatching him in a timely but brutal jailhouse manor.
Said a man who indulged the groupies of his day. Again and again. On two different wives. Albert Einstein was no saint. I know that is not the same as being a pedophile, so I cut some slack. When it comes to political statements, or positions, no matter how foolish, I also cut some slack. I know all about the desire not to patronize imbeciles who affront American values. But that is easier said than done. At least for me, because I love movies, and want to enjoy. However, Roman Polanski is a liberal of a different color. I think it is right to stay firm here, and not pay for, or ever watch, this movie.
But I did watch the attached trailer, Mr. Hanlon. If this were not by Polanski, I would have doubts about seeing it. This trailer does not indicate the movie described in your review. This is not a serious movie, it's cut like a comedy. No doubt then it is a "black" comedy. And it does not look funny. Crude and broad. Don't get me wrong, I love broad, crude, black comedy. As long as it's funny. This does not look funny. Maybe it's because I know it's by Polanski. And that is just it. It is by Roman Polanski.
And after giving all of this thought, I also think it is fair to hold the performers to task, for even appearing in this movie. As far as enjoying past Polanski movies, the ones he filmed before the rape of a minor, well, I don't want to task myself any time soon.
The fact that you don't let what he did bother you says a great deal about you and none of it is good
…unless it's a Mel Gibson movie.
From the allegations of child abuse in Hollywood, I wouldn't be surprised if Jodie Foster wasn't also a victim and it is very hard for a repeated victim to say "no" to their abuser.
Unless the movie is 10 times better than the preview, it must stink pretty bad. Nothing in the review would motivate me to see it either. I can't stand Winslet and I hate Polanski so that rules out paying to see it at the theater. Maybe I will check it out online somehow just so I can ridicule it on IMDB for sport.
No I do not feel any guilt, as I am viewing a work of entertainment that I think I will enjoy, and have deemed the ticket or rental price to be worth the level of effort spent to afford said price.
I do not view my actions as supporting or approving of his actions for which he was convicted. In my personal opinion, he should be extradited back to the US and should serve the required punishment for his conviction (plus whatever else could be tacked on for fleeing and avoiding his sentence). Until then, if he happens to produce a piece of entertainment that I find intriguing, then I may just seek it out.
It's interesting how you feel the need to pass judgment on my character because of my movie-viewing habits. If it makes you feel better, then I guess that's fine. Glad I could help your self-esteem today, but your judgments of me are not an effective way to engage in debate over the subject at hand, which I would think would be the ultimate goal of such a post lest the post just seem like a petty attempt at marginalizing a divergent opinion (sounds very Alinsky-esque if that is the goal of your post). For future reference, a reasoned argument would be a better approach.
And to respond to your final point, I am married, but am not a parent, yet. Perhaps my viewpoint will change when I am one, but until then, I am who I am… If it bothers you, then either ignore me or attempt to engage in a reasoned debate where you may stand a chance at influencing my opinion.
Mr. Hanlon, you might have mentioned that this film is based on an award-winning play. That is a salient fact which explains its staginess, few characters, lack of other locations, etc. It also would have been helpful to mention the theme of the play/movie, which is political correctness. This is another fact that the readers on this site in particular would have found useful.
If you're not going to do the most fundamental background research (something every other review and article on this movie mentions), why bother writing reviews? Also, your constant slobbering over "good acting" is getting tiresome. It's a "prestige" movie based on a critically acclaimed play — of course it's going to have good actors.
And, as others have mentioned here, why ignore the elephant in the room, namely, Roman Polanski's criminal history? This site has published probably dozens of articles on Polanski's checkered past which was recently very much in the news. It deserves at least a passing mention by you, don't you think?
Oh man….completely rock bottom and dumb comment.
It's a movie review, not a review of Polanski's sins, which is something this site already provides plenty of. (See above comments.)
Adolph Hitler made movies too, if they are deemed worth your while how much will you pay to see them if you knew he was profiting from it?
As a dues paying member, you would be the subject matter expert.
Aren't you fortunate not to have been that 13 year old girl, she didn't have a chance to choose.
Nope. Not interested in anything this scumbag produces. I don't care how 'great ' it is. It's garbage from the sewer as far as i am concerned. Shame on Jodie Foster for being in the flick and lending her fine acting skills to this piece of rapist trash.
The OP made other points, were you just looking for low hanging fruit?
Are you saying im PC? LOL! You dont know me too well.
Snore….perhaps I should toss my copy of Let it Be or End of the Century since Phil Spector produced them?
Maybe I should never go to a museum again and look at a Jackson Pollock since he killed someone in a drunk driving accident? Maybe I should never look at a painting by Francis Bacon either because he drove a lover to suicide? Shall I go on with artists moral infractions? They are separate from the work. if you dont possess enough common sense and reason to figure that out then best of luck to you.
John, no offense, but you do know Roman Polanski's name is anathema on the Bigs, right? Also, lots of moviegoers these days are parents looking for a night out away from their children; a movie that focuses on two sets of parents arguing may not be their idea of a good night at the movies.
Mel Gibson has nothing to do with drugging and raping a 13 year old.
Technicality… Adolf Hitler did not make movies… Leni Riefenstahl made movies (for Adolf Hitler). But I get the point you're making and will respond to that point. The problem with the point is that the comparison is apples and oranges… In this hypothetical, my money would be going toward someone that I know to be actively engaged in harming/murdering other people and I know that my money could be used towards furthering that activity. In the case of Polanski, I'm not supporting someone/something that is actively harming another person or is likely to engage in future harm. He harmed someone in the past, but there is no imminent psychological or physical harm that I am potentially supporting. It's akin to a sunk cost at this point (sort of…). As I said before, I believe he still deserves his just punishment for his past actions.
I'm geniunely curious about something though. If Polanski had served his sentence, was subsequently released, and produced this film following the serving of a just sentence, would those that detract from my sentiments be more inclined to pay to see it, or would you still not support it? Not attempting to annoy, just curious.
For the record, I have "Triumph of the Will" (a Riefenstahl Nazi propaganda film) on my watch-list, because I'm interested in seeing it. I also have "Pulgasari" on my watch-list (a North Korean propaganda film), which was made by a South Korean director kidnapped by Kim-Jong-Il. Any money spent to obtain and view these two films I know is not going to end up supporting any potential future harm.
Say what you want about Polanski, he makes a damn good movie. If this movie attacks political correctness, then I support it. That is a far greater threat to America than Polanski is.
As the cliche goes "Actions speak louder than words." Your actions contradict your statement of disapproval of Polanski's actions.
If you cannot see the difference is supporting people who exercise their constitutional right to free speech and people who perform criminal acts of the most disgusting kind, then to debate you would be an exercise in futility.
If Polanski had served his time, then I would still not support him but would not have a problem with those who did since he would have paid his debt to society. However, since he has not served his time, any support for him now continues to support his fugitive lifestyle.
"I'm geniunely curious about something though. If Polanski had served his sentence, was subsequently released, and produced this film following the serving of a just sentence, would those that detract from my sentiments be more inclined to pay to see it, or would you still not support it? Not attempting to annoy, just curious. "
A legitimate inquiry.
I would still not support any of his work. I think some crimes put one beyond the pale…like taking nude photographs of a 13 year old girl…drugging her…raping her vaginally…and sodomizing her.
It is one thing to see a movie when you disagree with the director or actor's politics. Promoting a child rapist is a whole other level that I can't believe BH would stoop to. Polanski should be rotting in jail not be celebrated in this usually better discerning blog.
You are so full of s#!t. Bought any Frank Miller comics or watched the Dark Knight lately? Hypocrite.
"8 weeks ago @ Big Hollywood – Frank Miller to #OWS: … · 50 replies · -351 points
Remind me to wipe my ass with my first print of Dark Knight number one. Frank Miller has lost a fan. Terribly dissapointing that such a seemingly intelligent human being would fall into the helplessness created by the status quo when faced with actual change and has turned into such a right wing nut job. Good riddance!
I hope youre run out of Hollywood too. Oh wait, you were already were! The Spirit was a bigger turd than you are.
Maybe Miller should look at the facts too; this administration has done more to fight Al Queda than the supposed right wing one. Go back to writing your funny books moron."
____________________________________________
I'm not expecting anything more than a thumbing down from you.
So you think driving drunk…then blaming Jews for all the wars in the world…then calling a female cop "sugar t*ts"…is the same as drugging a 13 year old girl…then taking nude photographs of her…then vaginally raping her…and then sodomiizing her?
Really?
You mean…you haven't?
While she cried "No" and "Stop" the entire time, some people can take a stand when it comes to backing up their morals with actions.
death to hollywood
Welcome to BH!
What proof do you have that Polanski does not continue to engage in raping children? He does not show any signs of remorse or admittance that his actions were wrong and he fled from justice and continues to refuse to pay for his crime.
assigning the burden of proof on innocence now? He was tried and found guilty of the previous crime, yes. He has not served a just sentence for that crime, yes. But now we're going to assume further guilt and require that someone prove that he's not continuing the abhorrent behavior? Well let's just throw out one of the central tenants that makes for the best justice system known to man.
Hmmm, a remake of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf"….
"If you cannot see the difference is supporting people who exercise their constitutional right to free speech and people who perform criminal acts of the most disgusting kind, then to debate you would be an exercise in futility."
I don't think I'm following what you mean here. Of what "difference" are you speaking?
We have the ability to reason, the onus falls to Polanski who, to my last recollection, still refuses to serve his term for his crime. So, I should give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that recidivism is not an issue with him? Would you let him date your daughter?
"Of what difference are you speaking?"
As I said, an exercise in futility.
so, it's like Willie Wonka then?
absolutely no way
His politics are not the same as his behavior. And truth be told I just saw 300 again and enjoyed it. I might have made a remark based purely on a emotional reaction but within a week reason kicked in and I still enjoy some of Miller's work regardless. You on the other hand have made a lifestyle out of being a reactionary and an idiot.
And in Miller's case, his politics have become his work. Another caveat, whereas Polanski's misdeed has nothing to do with his work.
I think John is well aware of that. He's reviewing a film, not Polanski, BH readers are obviously informed of this fact.
Geez. Try classist, sexist, and narcissistic society
The "fact" being that Polanski is a pig.
you keep giving me these great hypothetical situations (first hitler is making movies, now I've got a daughter who wants to date Polanski…) which I know are just attempts to get me to say something contradictory, but that's fine because it at least gives me some chances to think and take this in a direction I never would have thought it would go. Again, I don't have a daughter, so don't know what it will be like to have one and how my reasoning and emotions will change if I'm ever blessed with one, but I'll play along.
No I would not want my daughter to date Roman Polanski, but wow what a horrible way to judge a man. There's probably a lot of people that I would not want to date my daughter, but may be otherwise fine individuals. I would never use that as a litmus test of a person.
Sure, recidivism is a concern, and often past behavior can be used as a predictor of future behavior. My point was that you can't assign burden of proof on innocence. Sure, you could have suspicions or doubts due to recidivism rates, but you asked me to PROVE that he hasn't committed further acts of statutory rape.
So everyone that's done something illegal or immoral in the past must prove that they no longer engage in those activities? We're gonna need a lot more courts, judges, and probation/parole officers. The current administration never met a government expansion that they didn't support, so your new standards for justice should fit right in to their agenda, and since we don't need a federal budget anymore, they can just pencil those expenses right in.
Is it just me or did your statement not make sense? Perhaps it was missing some punctuation, but the "If you cannot see the difference is supporting…" part threw me off. Should "is" be "between"? Clear writing is a skill not everyone possesses it seems.
Oh, you draw the line at politics but not morals. What he did to that child was not horrendous enough for you to refer to it as anything other than a "misdeed", sorta like going 5 over the speed limit.
Read her testimony and then make the claim that rape is just a misdeed. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/why-polanski-li...
BH readers, as your comment suggests, are informed of Polanski's vile history.
Thay_Li(v)e is the perfect reflection of the Progressive movement, wishing for that Theoretical Miracle written in his script.
Pretty much everything the idiot writes revolves around some fictional piece of work he read or saw.
I gave you an up. The kiddie's whole life revolves around Fantasy Island.
They are dying on their own, hosted on their own petard.
What I am saying is that I judge Polanski by his actions and his actions tell me that he is not the type of person I would trust nor associate with. I would not give him financial support either.
"My point was that you can't assign burden of proof on innocence."
Our society has deemed recidivism among pedophiles to be such an issue that they are kept on a nationwide database and banned from living in areas where children are likely to be. There is a website where one can find out if they live in your area. The burden of proof falls to the criminal to prove that they are no longer a repeat offender and especially to one who has fled justice and refuses to surrender.
Amen…you and me both.
For a child molester, the recidivism rate falls somewhere between 50% and 89%. It is difficult to get a solid number due to various factors, such as, whether repeat offenses are defined by convictions, arrests, or self-reporting offenses.
According to a study conducted in Washington state, the recidivism rate for a child rapist was reported between 18% and 45%. Recidivism rate here was defined as an arrest and conviction for rape and not conviction on a lesser charge.
"More than 1/2 of all convicted sex offenders are sent back to prison within a year. Within 2 years, 77.9% are back.
-California Department of Corrections."
"The typical offender is male, begins molesting by age 15, engages in a variety of deviant behavior, and molests an average of 117 youngsters, most of whom do not report the offense.
-Dr. Gene Abel in a National Institute of Mental Health Study. "
"The behavior is highly repetitive, to the point of compulsion, rather than resulting from a lack of judgment.
-Dr. Ann Burges, Dr. Nicholas Groth, et al. in a study of imprisoned offenders."
Polanski could do a team effort with George Lucas on a new Star Wars following the life of Boba Fett and I still wouldn't see it in the theaters or at home. I will never contribute one dime to this monster who deserves nothing less than a brimstone enema in hell.
Meh. I don't give my money to child rapists. If it is on in the background somewhere, I may watch it for free.
But I will not support a man who deserves to have his family jewels crushed in an auto shop vise.
Read the next eight pages of the court testimony where the child describes what Polanski did to her and see if your opinion of him changes.
How many times does a child have to say no before a pedophile stops?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/why-polanski-li...
Read the next eight pages of the court testimony and see if you can respond "snore" again.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/why-polanski-li...
Too bad that 97% of the comments here are not about the film or it's themes and primarily are focusing on what Polanksi did. I think Nolte knew this but wasted the bloggers time seeing and reviewing a film that he seemed to enjoy, like most reasonable people, regardless of Polanski's misdeed.
That's just it… I don't care if it's the best movie in modern history… its a child rapist… and I do not worship films or film makers.
Thank you for being way ahead of me and saying all anybody needs to know about him. Ugh.
What's weird about him and a lot of French directors is how much they sexualize the kids in the movies too. Polankski even married one that he'd sexualized on film as a youth.
If you think you don't get fed the mind of a freak when you watch their movies you'd be wrong.
"Pederanski" is not fit for humanity.
Voice of reason.
Thinking the same.
Nolte did not review the film. Pay attention…
"They are supporting a man who without compunction anally and vaginally raped a young woman…"
Correction: he anally and vaginally raped a thirteen-year-old CHILD.
-after doping her with alcohol and quaaludes
-forceably
-while she pleaded with him to stop.
Can't get past it, won't get past it. Why should I?
Oh, because, according to you, I am not a reasonable person.
Have you read what he did to the 13 year old girl? Here give it a read and then put forth your review, be sure and focus on his directing ability as he terrorizes a child while he drugs, rapes and sodomizes her. Let us know if he should receive an Oscar, or two thumbs up. Are you going to refuse to read it and comment on it again? Count the number of times she told him no while you read her testimony. Be reasonable and pretend it is a script.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/why-polanski-li...
Excellent commentary sheila.
"If you think you don't get fed the mind of a freak when you watch their movies you'd be wrong."
Sorry, Mr. Hanlon. I don't watch movies directed by child rapists.
Yeah I don't care if it is the most perfect movie in the world – I won't be seeing it. Sometimes I can separate the actors/directors/writers from the product…but not in this case.
My apologies. I overlooked my error. It should have said "the difference IN supporting". That being said, I don't think it is too difficult to deduce what point I am trying to make when you take the entire statement into account.
I agree with your assessment of Polanski's body of work as a film director.
My belief requires me to forgive Polanski on a personal level…
.. however it is not my forgiveness, or even anybody else's condemnation that matters. Polanski has a moral obligation to atone to society for his past.
Forgiveness does not alleviate one from responsibilty.
"It's out. Just sayin'. Something to avoid with the name Polanski attached to it."
YOURS would have been the best review on BH in a long time!
IF POLANSKI'S FACE WAS ON FIRE I WOULDN'T PISS ON IT TO PUT IT OUT
Quit giving Moral Degenerates front page splash!!!
The only thing barely worth printing about Roman is his Obituary, and that, should be as a strict courtesy for his family members.
Add me to that list…
Polanski = child rapist in my book
I agree with other posters. If Polanski directed it, I will absolutely not see it. I am surprised that anyone would give him press, but that's the choice of the author.
How about american film critics stop reviewing his films? He is a convicted child rapist, end of story. Who cares about his movies. My biggest question is how someone on Bighollywood, under the direction of John Nolte would review this pig's film. Once again, he is a convicted, child rapist. Keep in mind, this is the one he was caught doing. Does anyone think this girl is the only one. And yet people give him money, which he then uses to commit whatever crimes he may still be committing. What else may he have done over the years since child rape doesn't seem to make him think twice about his own behavior.
Um, what? Is there seriously a review on Big Hollywood praising a movie made by child rapist Polanski?! SERIOUSLY!? Maybe BH agrees with Whoopie Goldberg that what he did wasn't "rape" rape so it's no big deal, but the rest of us don't share any such view.
You sound like you're politically correct. You buy into the Big Collective concept of government–the world's biggest and longest-running death cult. You're just like all the other bubble-headed boobies out there in leftistland and Hollywood.
I love seeing stage plays put to film. The film maker's translation of the play to the screen always makes for an interesting element, and is usually what the film hinges on. I just read about God Of Carnage as well, and thought that it looked like something worth seeing. I had no idea there was a film version coming out. Neato.
As for Polanski, the guy is a pig and deserves some jail time… But he also makes really good film. I sometimes eat veal, even though I know that it is cruel. In a similar way, I'll watch a Roman Polanski film because I'm a film lover and his films are rare (oh so rare, especially in these dark days of fighting robots and caped crusaders) and delicious. In both cases I feel guilty afterwards about supporting something ugly, but it tastes good and, after all, the calf is already dead and the film is already made… Why let it go to waste? There are starving kids in Africa who would love to eat that plate of veal! The thing is, when it comes to good films, WE are the starving African kids!
Alright, I've officially stretched this metaphor well past the breaking point
.
Politics aside, I've been back and forth on this film. I wanted to see it but I've read some scathing reviews so I'm not so sure. It is under an hour and a half though so I'll probably check it out at some point.
How dare you even post a review of that child rapist's film here? You owe the whole Big community an apology. The implied attitude is despicable, "Well, it's Roman Polanski, and his films are important enough to review positively despite the fact that he's an unrepentant child rapist." That's exactly what we hate in mainstream Hollywood, that they're willing to give Polanski a pass. Don't bring that garbage here!
You must be logged in to post a comment.