Read Mixed User Reviews for Carol

5

BackhandSliceJan 6, 2016

I don't get critics' universal adulation for this film. Sure, it's a very pretty movie - the cinematography, makeup, etc. - but it is dreadfully boring. The film lives and dies by whether or not you find two hours of furtive glances betweenI don't get critics' universal adulation for this film. Sure, it's a very pretty movie - the cinematography, makeup, etc. - but it is dreadfully boring. The film lives and dies by whether or not you find two hours of furtive glances between illicit lovers stimulating or not - I did not. I felt like I was watching two mannequins play at being in love. Thank goodness for Sarah Paulson's and Kyle Chandler's scenes, whose performances were based on what actual human beings act and sound like, otherwise I might have fallen asleep.… Expand

5 of 8 users found this helpful53

All this user's reviews

6

RvwFromUpHereJan 12, 2016

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I am prepared for the amount of dislikes this review is going to get, and I do agree this is a very well made movie with outstanding performances, but I really didn't get the ending. Don't take my opinion into consideration %100 if you do plan on watching it, because regardless of my take on it this is definitely a movie worth watching and forming your own opinion about. So here we go. The movie tells a love story focusing on the young and romantically inexperienced Rooney Mara and the older and very romantically experienced Kate Blanchett who is divorced from a jealous man and has a daughter whom she loves very much. They go back and forth visiting each other randomly, getting each other gifts, you know, like lovers do. Then they randomly go on a road trip together, which is also fine, I'm still enjoying the movie. Then they sleep together which seems to be the climax of the movie. Then Carol (Blanchett) finds out her husband has been spying on her and will not let Carol see her daughter anymore because of her less-than-wholesome lifestyle. A few nights later Carol sneaks out of the room she is staying in with her lover and leaves. Rooney (I don't remember her name but it's not important for the sake of my rant) wakes up to find Carol is gone and has somehow magically arranged for a friend to pick up Rooney who is hundreds of miles away from home and drive her back to New York. Carol leaves her a letter that basically says "I really like you but I have this whole crazy thing with my daughter going on right now so don't call me." Rooney is heartbroken, she tries to call Carol over the next few months but Carol ignores her. Then Carol straightens out the issues with her daughter and out of the blue contacts Rooney and invites her to dinner. She says she's sorry for everything and wants everything to go back to normal. Rooney's like "Idk you were kind of really mean to me," and Carol responds, "Well I'm gonna eat dinner with some friends so stop by if you're still in love with me." Rooney leaves Carol and goes to a party and can't stop thinking about her so she ends up going to Carol's dinner and the movie ends with them staring at each other with fresh love in their eyes. WHAT THE HELL TODD HAYNES?! Carol treats Rooney like a tissue (or whatever the female equivalent of a tissue would be) then all is forgiven? It's that easy? What's to stop Carol from changing her mind again and leaving Rooney all alone forever? How are critics okay with that super simplistic Disney ending? Actually it's not fair to compare it to Disney because when someone like Aladdin F#$%'s up he has to prove to Jasmine how great he is before the movie's over. I understand there's a lot to like about this movie, and maybe I am missing a few things but based on what I've seen I cannot give it more than a 3 out of 5 for the awful taste in my mouth Carol has left.… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

5

cwdzDec 28, 2015

A "love story"? Really?

I saw an unequal relationship of convenience; the older woman in transition and looking/susceptible to a diversion and the younger ingenue exploring an expanding world. There was a considerable power imbalance rightA "love story"? Really?

I saw an unequal relationship of convenience; the older woman in transition and looking/susceptible to a diversion and the younger ingenue exploring an expanding world. There was a considerable power imbalance right to the end and I didn't see any blossoming or character growth/development associated with the "power of love" in either. I couldn't see a successful future going forward nor a terrible shame if it didn't work out. Actually, I'm assuming that it didn't work out, that each got bored or restricted by the obvious mis-match, turning the story into a pretty pedestrian life event.

Great acting, great filming. Minor characters were merely one-dimensional devices.

Disappointed that it wasn't a bit more socially poignant, as I felt that the societal context was underdone.

I'm guessing that the story is getting more credit than it deserves (for PC reasons) due to it's "controversial" subject.

While the acting and filming are certainly first rate, the story isn't.… Expand

7 of 12 users found this helpful75

All this user's reviews

4

Rebagirl13Jan 17, 2016

I was so looking forward to seeing this film. I thought it would be a remarkable and tender love story. It was neither. Carol's character seemed to be far more emotionally involved and available to Abby, not Terese. I kept waiting for theI was so looking forward to seeing this film. I thought it would be a remarkable and tender love story. It was neither. Carol's character seemed to be far more emotionally involved and available to Abby, not Terese. I kept waiting for the two main characters to have something in common, something meaningful, some form of true intimacy. It never happened. "Carol" was a disappointment and not a movie I would recommend. The book was far more believable.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

5

chimovskiNov 30, 2015

I really can't understand the hyperbolic praise for this film. It's really beautifully made and on the whole is well performed, but there is a fundamental flaw…there is no chemistry between the two leads. I didn't buy into the relationship atI really can't understand the hyperbolic praise for this film. It's really beautifully made and on the whole is well performed, but there is a fundamental flaw…there is no chemistry between the two leads. I didn't buy into the relationship at all, it felt unrealistic and the film failed to fully show any real spark of romance.

I applaud the idea to feature a lesbian romantic story and the most interest for me lay in the forbidden nature of that kind of relationship in that period. Its period detail did seem to drip off the screen and it has some really well crafted scenes, I especially liked the last scene.

But, for me, because the relationship lacked chemistry I found myself left cold, even bored at times hence why I started noticing the period detail rather than being lost in the romantic story. I wasn't the only one to think this, my girlfriend felt the same as did some others who were in the cinema I overheard as we left. I think Rooney Mara wasn't the best cast here and I think if I had to blame anyone I'd blame her, she just failed to sparkle.… Expand

9 of 19 users found this helpful910

All this user's reviews

6

hotfromcauldronDec 7, 2015

Cate Blanchett is my favorite actress - The Talented Mr Ripley - one of my favorite films. So it's sad to say Carol is a disappointment that never reaches the heights or depths of Brokeback Mountain. Yes, it reeks of atmosphere, style andCate Blanchett is my favorite actress - The Talented Mr Ripley - one of my favorite films. So it's sad to say Carol is a disappointment that never reaches the heights or depths of Brokeback Mountain. Yes, it reeks of atmosphere, style and subtleties but never seduces us. Blanchett ( a smoldering Rita Hayworth) and Mara (an innocent Audrey Hepburn) enter into a forbidden love that leaves their significant others whirling in an unaccepting world. Yet the lingering pace, the spit focus and a simple narrative kept me interested but never riveted. Good is not great - but gushing critics only help foster the mediocre product we have gotten from Hollywood over the past year. Mr. Haynes - please , sir, I want some more.… Expand

4 of 14 users found this helpful410

All this user's reviews

5

quillberDec 22, 2015

This film looks beautiful and the acting is of course brilliant but thats where it ends, I cant believe how overhyped this is! It has almost no plot and is so dreary and depressing throughout. Ugh!

3 of 12 users found this helpful39

All this user's reviews

6

swingDec 14, 2015

Dull, slow moving, plodding, dark, but well acted. I was expecting alot more. It was true to the 50's but still it could have and should have had more to say and more emotional changes. It was boring in places, but it was a well done movie.Dull, slow moving, plodding, dark, but well acted. I was expecting alot more. It was true to the 50's but still it could have and should have had more to say and more emotional changes. It was boring in places, but it was a well done movie. The music was also overdone and too dramatic. Even in places for a bit up spirit, it sounded down. Would I see it again, even on cable? Not likely.… Expand

3 of 14 users found this helpful311

All this user's reviews

5

netflicDec 14, 2015

This is a drama about two New York women from very different social circles in the fifties who fall in love at the time when that was not socially acceptable. It's a sequence of sorts to director's Todd Haynes prior movie "Far from Heaven",This is a drama about two New York women from very different social circles in the fifties who fall in love at the time when that was not socially acceptable. It's a sequence of sorts to director's Todd Haynes prior movie "Far from Heaven", which also raised a topic of homosexuality.

This film is very good creating an atmosphere of New York in the fifties. Great cinematography, excellent sound track. Kate Blanchett is a talented actress. Having said this, the movie did not impress me, it just lacked depth. I did not feel empathy towards any of the protagonists. The movie was too long; when it was finally over, I felt relief.… Expand

2 of 12 users found this helpful210

All this user's reviews

6

Mickey_oJan 3, 2016

Oscar worthy cinematography, lousy sound editing (I like to hear what they're saying). But basically this movie should have been titled "Blue Jasmine takes a road trip."

1 of 6 users found this helpful15

All this user's reviews

6

jrodfilmsDec 31, 2015

its a well done movie. it looks good, it sounds good, and its a good story until the end. it became a bit cheesy when the big drama happened. also i think hollywood loves to see two lipstick lesbians. when was the last time a male gay romanceits a well done movie. it looks good, it sounds good, and its a good story until the end. it became a bit cheesy when the big drama happened. also i think hollywood loves to see two lipstick lesbians. when was the last time a male gay romance was seen on screen?… Expand

1 of 7 users found this helpful16

All this user's reviews

6

Brent_MarchantDec 27, 2015

A lesbian melodrama that's beautiful to look at but not much else. In many ways, this film echoes many of the "forbidden relationship in an intolerant time" movies from years ago with a more upbeat conclusion. It's also reminiscent ofA lesbian melodrama that's beautiful to look at but not much else. In many ways, this film echoes many of the "forbidden relationship in an intolerant time" movies from years ago with a more upbeat conclusion. It's also reminiscent of director Todd Haynes' earlier far superior work, "Far From Heaven," but he offers precious little that's especially new here. The stylish period production values, while visually opulent, ultimately aren't enough to carry a story based on an inherently thin, predictable narrative.… Expand

1 of 8 users found this helpful17

All this user's reviews

5

GreatMartinJan 9, 2016

""Carol" is an excellent movie with one major negative aspect and two minor quibbles but more about those later. There is no finding fault with the cast as Cate Blanchett a wealthy married woman seeking a divorce from her husband Kyle""Carol" is an excellent movie with one major negative aspect and two minor quibbles but more about those later. There is no finding fault with the cast as Cate Blanchett a wealthy married woman seeking a divorce from her husband Kyle Chandler. Blanchett has previously had an affair with Sarah Paulson, a school friend, and is now embarking on an affair with young, not rich, department store clerk, Rooney Mara. The latter is going with a dapper, rich, sort of snobbish boy played by Jake Lacey, though it is Blanchette who buys her the expensive camera she needs to further her pursuit of a career as a photographer. There is also John Magaro a poor, nice guy who works at the New York Times who might be able to help Mara get a job there but he also has feelings for her. Along with the minor figures in "Carol" each and every performer gives their best and in the case of Blanchett, Mara and Chandler that is high praise indeed.

The director Todd Haynes, the screenwriter Phyllis Nagy, the perfect production design by Judy Becker, the camera work by Ed Lachman along with the costumes by Sandy Powell and the period music by Carter Burwell bring us a perfect picture of the early 1950s. Not only do we see the right cars like Blanchette's Packard and her full length creamy mink coat but the streets of New York, the Oak Room of the Plaza hotel but even more important the morality of that time regarding homosexuality and the blackmail that can ensue even from people who love you. Though wealth and class levels are brought forward they are done in subtle ways still getting the message across.

There is nothing salacious or predatory about the older woman/younger woman really drifting into an affair with the older woman being who she is and the younger woman finding out who she is. Blanchett and Mara are completely believable in this journey they are taking together.

Now we come to the negative aspect and the quibbles mentioning the latter first. It is very perplexing considering her love for her child that Blanchett would allow her child to be driven by Chandler who is drunk. Another 'driving' incident is that though we know they are wealth there is never any hint, suggestion, showing that they have a chauffeur though we do see the other household staff and yet in another scene we see Chandler stepping into the rear of a car and being driven away. Petty? Quibbling? Possibly but this is part of the negative aspect that found my very disappointing in "Carol". I am a sucker for a love story, whether it be between opposite or same sex couples, and yet, in spite of their top rate performances, and even their non-threatening sex scene, I felt nothing for this couple. I didn't, couldn't, find myself rooting for them.

It is because of this feeling, this lack of being emotionally involved with what was going on in the film I find myself in a very small minority and would only recommend "Carol" if you have a 'thing' for the early 1950s!… Expand

0 of 8 users found this helpful08

All this user's reviews

5

CPD98Jan 5, 2016

Sobrevalorado romance. Blanchett hace un gran papel, pero el resto es frío y aburrido. Nada que ya no hayamos visto en el género. Al tramo final le sobran como 20-30 minutos.

0 of 5 users found this helpful05

All this user's reviews

4

DarylZer0Feb 21, 2016

This movie is SOOOOOOO overrated. I wish Anthony Minghella or Sydney Pollack were alive to direct this. The movie had very good art direction and little else going for it. There was little to no chemistry between leads. Sarah Paulson andThis movie is SOOOOOOO overrated. I wish Anthony Minghella or Sydney Pollack were alive to direct this. The movie had very good art direction and little else going for it. There was little to no chemistry between leads. Sarah Paulson and Ellen Page should've been in the leads as they really are lesbian. And like others have said, there was little to know about Rooney's character so how would Carol even love her so immediately, let alone love her over Paulson's more interesting character? The movie was TOO slow. The music was a little too intrusive at times, though mostly beautiful. And the script needed a lot more subtext; especially for that era. I'm going to have to watch The Talented Mr. Ripley again just to wash the mediocre taste out of my mouth from this. Matt's a lot more convincing as gay than Rooney was in Carol.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

KaptenVideoDec 4, 2016

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. 1950's postcard USA. The wife is gay and finds love with pretty young girl. Husband doesn't approve and means to take the custody of their daughter. Starring Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara. "Carol" is a major critic darling, even more so than 2002's "Far from Heaven", director Todd Haynes's similar and also highly acclaimed drama. This time, he didn't write this, only directing a story based on seminal Patricia Highsmith novel.

I understand why it's an important message movie and quality work in every aspect. I just didn't click with it personally. Perhaps I do not have the taste for this kind of beautifully stylish but emotionally detached approach. It didn't work for me in "Far from Heaven" as well.

The performances are good but the power of the drama lies mostly in direction mixing American imagery with decidedly un-Hollywood approach which favors restrained characters and subtle details over going big and provokingly dramatic. Despite being much loved by critics, the movie didn't win any of the 8 BAFTAs, 6 Academy Awards or 5 Golden Globes it was nominated for. This would be kind of weird if one didn't notice that on some level the movie is more about majestic mosaic of director's vision of 1950's USA than two main characters who fill the screen almost constantly. They are like vivid puppets in grand-scale orchestration which may explain why actresses are not scoring big on this project. This movie is not as much about flexing that good old acting muscle than one would expect.

The real conundrum for me here is the rising star Rooney Mara who got her second Academy Award and Globe nominations for this role. (The first pair came from 2011's "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo".)

I don't understand her appeal. She's OK but why do people think so highly of her acting? I've seen her in 9 movies by now, including two mentioned just above, and I just don't get it. She's like a less lively Zooey Deschanel.

Don't mean to be hating, just wondering aloud. Always have liked her sister Kate Mara though!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

kino_avantgardeDec 8, 2022

It is a film that is neither deep enough to be praised nor shallow enough to deserve unfair knocking. While the presence of Cate Blanchett adds value to the film, she shows a bit too much in the foreground, which reduces the depth I believe.It is a film that is neither deep enough to be praised nor shallow enough to deserve unfair knocking. While the presence of Cate Blanchett adds value to the film, she shows a bit too much in the foreground, which reduces the depth I believe.

It has been stated that smoking is used as an element of nonverbal communication rather than a masculine symbol. Carol smokes when she is self-confident or she wants to impress someone else. Likewise when she is very tense and distressed. Yet not when she is very happy, calm and content; eg in the car, restaurant, motel / hotel. It is observed that she did not smokes for a long time until she had to return home.

Maybe the book is more impressive, so the movie may have fallen short of expectations. However, for a movie that made such a big impact (77 wins & 255 nomination), it could have been so much better in my opinion.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

rmurray847Aug 10, 2023

I'm a big fan of Cate Blanchett, and have loved her in almost everything she does. Her ability to make a low-key character as credible as a high-energy character. Or to make a working class woman as believable as a wealthy and powerful women.I'm a big fan of Cate Blanchett, and have loved her in almost everything she does. Her ability to make a low-key character as credible as a high-energy character. Or to make a working class woman as believable as a wealthy and powerful women. She's great in pretty much anything, and I've bought movies knowing nothing about them except that they starred Cate Blanchett.

I don't care for her too much in CAROL, and in fact, I don't care much for the film. I can accept a film that is quiet, where passions are banked and never allowed to burst into full flame (or at least, not often). But I don't actually want to be lulled to sleep by the film. But there are long stretches that are infuriating because they are a) slow paced & b) there doesn't really seem to be anything happening in the inner-lives of the characters either. CAROL takes the concept of meaningful glances or the exchange of smoldering looks to a degree where sometimes it feels that this is all the film is really about.

Blanchett plays a bored wife (Carol) of a well-to-do man (Kyle Chandler) who is under something resembling occasional house-arrest for a "romance" she had with an old female friend (Sarah Paulsen). Essentially, she had an affair, one exacerbated by the fact that it took place with a woman (oh, did I mention, this is the early '50s). On one of her rare trips "into the city", Carol shops in the toy department of a big department store, and exchanges glances with the shopgirl (Rooney Mara) who helps her decide on a gift for her daughter. The scene clearly must mean something, because it goes on for a long time. Yet I never felt any passion stirring or smoldering or any HEAT. But Mara is clearly stricken by Blanchett, and when she realizes the lady has left a personal item behind on accident, she sends it back to Carol, and this small kindness leads to Mara spending more and more time with Carol. Apparently, they have the hots for each other, but we sure don't see it for the LOOONGEST time!

I get it...in the '50s, feelings of desire for the same-sex were, shall we say, frowned upon and needed to be kept carefully hidden. But CAROL fumbles because it takes so much time avoiding anything coming to the surface even when the two women are alone together. Mara's character is conceived as a bit of a simpleton (in my mind). I suppose she's supposed to be naive and that these feelings are new to her (except they aren't, as we find out in scenes with her friendly but oblivious boyfriend). She seems somewhat out of touch with her own feelings. And occasionally she sounds like she's drunk...her speech slurs and her articulated thoughts meander.

But Blanchett is the biggest miss here. I would have expected those relentlessly silent scenes, or the ones where characters talk about one thing when clearly they're thinking of something else, to have had more impact thanks to her ability to convey her inner life so well. She's done it before (NOTES ON A SCANDAL jumps to mind). But here she seems nearly vacuous. She seems to be striving towards a sensuousness that she's having to keep hidden...and she certainly keeps it hidden (I feel bad bashing her so much, but in my opinion, she is just simply not that good here.)

The movie essentially follows the development of their relationship and also shows its impact on the lives of the men who love them. The ending is actually interesting and in some ways a bit surprising and unexpected. It might even have been stirring if only we cared one bit about these two characters.

So why do I even give the film as many as 3 stars. Well, first of all, the production & costume design is impeccable. The toy department in which Mara works is a nostalgic delight (I wasn't alive then, but it just felt so completely RIGHT). Mara, despite my overall dislike of her character, has moments that are quite nice. The final 20 minutes or so of the film finally kick into a bit of a higher gear (thank goodness) and rescue it from complete forgetability.

I know that this film just racked up some Oscar nominations, including for Blanchett. So clearly I am not in the majority regarding this film. But when a film is about PASSION, whether on open display or carefully hidden, I still need to feel that passion, either because it's openly represented, or clearly building beneath the surface. Instead, I'm left to infer what these characters are feeling, and if I don't care about them much, I'm not willing to make that kind of effort or investment. When the film was over, my wife and I discussed the film for awhile...we were both in agreement that it was not great, and so our discussion was about why the film was held in such high acclaim. We never settled on a definitive answer, because this is so subjective to start with. But in the end, I have to stick with my gut feelings...CAROL just doesn't work.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews