Az öldöklés istene

Közelebb egy megfilmesített színpadi darab volt, vagyis filmnyelvre lefordítva. Az öldöklés istene nem egy megfilmesített színdarab, hanem egy színdarab, amelyet a filmvászonra filmeztek és vágtak. A színházi színészek nem támaszkodhatnak az arckifejezésekre (amelyeket a közönség távolról nem láthat), ezért túljátszásra vannak ítélve - testbeszéddel és emelt hanggal kell segíteniük magukat. Az ölöklés istene nem fordítja le az előzményeket filmes nyelvre, és filmvászonra statikusan veszi a színházi színészi játékot (arcok közeli képekben). Ezért vádolják egyes nézők azzal, hogy egy felesleges film. Számomra azonban két okból nem felesleges: 1. Még ha valaki be is vitt volna a színházba, hogy megnézzem ezt a darabot, ezzel a szuper-négyes szereposztással aligha láttam volna. 2. Ezt a színészi szuper-négyest nézni azzal a tudattal, hogy Polanski kedvére honorárium nélkül is lelkesen játszottak volna, számomra nézői kiváltság. (2012.01.28)

What Polanski gains with Waltz's smirk or Winslet's unobservable expression, is destroyed by the overburned premise that could not work fully outside the theater. All the coming out of doors and calling the elevator is too stupidly unnecessary in the first half, when it is absolutely clear that it will lead to nothing and everything returns to the two rooms with incomprehensibly violent tricks. Without the convulsive lacing of the plot in one place, the sad irony with directly corrosive satire at its heart would work much better, like this the massacre only hints at. (2012.02.16)

Polanski et al. have the misfortune that I saw Carnage at the theatre. There, it made me almost die in laughter, at the cinema, however, I smirked amusingly here and there (mostly over Christoph Waltz’s smirks) and laughed (reminiscing the theatre play). It’s a good film, no doubt, with good performances and direction, but I can’t avoid being disappointed, even though I’m rationally aware that comparing a theatre play with a film is stupid. Though in this case is not that stupid actually, because you can really see the theatrical origin of the film… Some lines are clearly not uttered by a normal film character, but very “theatrically” by a character in a play. (2011.12.29)

Good dialogues are a good foundation of a high-quality dialogue-based movie. The premise itself takes the lead role here – it’s incredibly original – and the actors are doing such a great job it seems they loved the premise as well. My personal favorite was Christopher Waltz and his incredibly arrogant lawyer. Nevertheless, I believe that different viewers will fall for different characters. This movie literally lives and dies with the actors and I believe that a stage play with good actors could yield the same result. (2015.11.24)

Apparently, it doesn't take much to make a good and interesting film. And it doesn't need to burn either a budget or time. One apartment, four people, and well-written dialogue, where you know where it’s going but you still enjoy it. I was expecting a slightly different ending, God knows why, but I'm certainly not complaining. Pretty good, a strong 3.5 stars. (2020.12.07)