User Reviews (425)

Add a Review

  • cowfeet1 November 2015
    I loved this film for the subtleties. Lots of lingering, carefully framed shots and closeups. Lots of quiet scenes. Lots conveyed through looks and innuendo.

    Rooney and Cate captured what it's like to be nervous yet excited while falling in love. It felt real. It felt like two people unsure of themselves, offering up just a bit of their true feelings at a time and waiting for the other person to do the same before revealing more.

    Kyle Chandler's performance hasn't been commented on as much as the leads, but he was just as excellent. He played the part of tortured husband well without coming off as a mere villain. I sympathized with him and even understood where he was coming from.

    I thought the film captured the time period in a very unique way. Nothing was overtly flashy or Normal Rockwell 50s, and at times it even felt gritty compared to most depictions of the era, but it was really beautiful.

    The film stayed with me on the ride home, and I drove in silence while I reflected on it. That's how I judge a movie. If you are the type that loves character driven films, I'd very much recommend it. If you don't handle slow burn movies well, it might not be for you.
  • Carol is a good film, with a very important subject, and the script never addresses it head on, rather with class, elegance and subtly.

    It's a great love and life story about one woman fighting for her right to be happy and another trying to figure out how can she really be happy. Each of them is the answer to the other.

    The script could feature more insight, but then again, the film is supposed to be subtle and let the images speak for themselves. The cinematography is outstanding and the score is downright superb. There's a feeling, a certain atmosphere that makes the film truly peculiar and one of a kind.

    But in the end, i think that it all comes down to Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara, as they give unforgettable, brilliant performances. They are always perfect of course, but here there's something one of a kind about their performances. Its not only the characters that fall in love with each other, but also you who fall in love with them.

    Its charming, important, powerful, resonant, and features two one of kind performances.
  • It's an inevitability that Carol will face categorisation as an LGBT film, but that's not the limits of how it should be considered. It's simply a heartfelt and deeply human love story where the principle couple confronts insurmountable odds. In Carol's case, these obstacles are the prejudices of the time and culture they live in. The film frames this discrimination in a tangible and legal way, as the titular Carol is accused of a morally indecent lifestyle by her ex-husband in order to win custody of their daughter. The film isn't interested in being a courtroom drama though, instead focusing on the blossoming relationship between Rooney Mara's Therese and Cate Blanchett's Carol.

    Todd Haynes is known for his heightened style that evokes the melodrama of Douglas Sirk, for instance. His 2002 film Far From Heaven feels plucked from the cinema of the 1950s. However, Carol is a film that feels plucked from the New York streets of the 1950s as the aesthetic here is surprisingly naturalistic. It doesn't quite breach a documentary-esque style with Edward Lachman's understated and pleasantly grainy cinematography, but it all comes organically and authentically with the elegant fashion of production and costume design and the atmosphere that its cold Christmas setting provides. It's a very restrained film – as there are only two particularly intimate scenes – but the film carries an air of sexual and romantic tension throughout.

    As Carol, Cate Blanchett challenges her polar opposite and equally excellent work with Haynes as a Bob Dylan incarnation in I'm Not There here. By nature of the film's structure, the first half is in the perspective of Therese and the second focuses on the perspective of Carol. There's an interesting inaccessibility about Blanchett in the first half that draws you into Therese's infatuation. Mara, one of the most promising actresses of this decade since her small memorable part in The Social Network, uses her own reserved detachness – something she's been frequently criticised for – to her own advantage. To watch someone like Therese open up after being so repressed is thoroughly cathartic.

    However, Blanchett whips the film from under her feet in the second half. She litters the first half of the film with nuanced hints and clues to her past desires, also communicating so much with very little. She's elusive, but Mara is a key source of intrigue at that point due to the honesty in her performance and unexpected dry wit. Once Carol is struggling to deal with her own internal conflicts, Blanchett is on fire and burns the house down with her ultimate rebuttal of the accusations against her. Kyle Chandler, her suffering husband soon to be ex-husband, shows such painful anguish in his brief outbursts. It's a measured performance that anchors the film and the stakes of the relationships. Every performance of the ensemble – from extras to bit parts – are delivering among their finest work.

    It's an all-rounder in terms of Oscar-contention, with Haynes perhaps being a more likely bet for Best Director than the film is for Best Picture. Blanchett has won too recently but if Weinstein works his magic, Mara would be a strong contender in either leading or supporting. Phyllis Nagy will certainly duel with Aaron Sorkin in Best Adapted Screenplay, even if her work is more patient, while the production and costume design ought to destroy competition. A sure bet should be Carter Burwell for his beautiful score that sunk my chest with its few powerful notes. It's an achingly tender film that will be timeless, even if it doesn't resonate with everyone with such specificity. Carol shouldn't just be a statement for our time and a condemnation for past mistakes, it's a demonstration that love is a part of the human condition regardless of sexuality.

    8/10
  • Kirpianuscus5 August 2019
    After you read the novel, your expectations about its adaptation are not small. The lead actresses are a good promise . But is it enough ? No doubts, yes. Because, for me, it is more than inspired adaptation of a good book. It is a gem, from performances to elegance, atmosphere, flavors and tension, from grace to bitterness. Rooney Mara and Cate Blanchett are the best options and you know that if you read, again, the book. It is a love story but it becomes, scene by scene, more. Maybe, a sort of confession. About a world, a meet, a clash and few people. And, not the last, in special manner, about yourself.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The opening shot of Carol focuses on what seems like an ornate, wrought-iron pattern, before pulling back to reveal filth: a forgotten floor grate on the streets of New York City, and the millions that have walked over it. The camera then follows one gentlemen as he enters real luxury, the restaurant of the Ritz Tower Hotel, and interrupts an intimate reunion. The two women swiftly abscond as if not to provoke further questioning. Much of Carol is concerned with these issues of appearance and reputation, and how people can be more than meets the eye. The film's favourite motif is to shoot Carol and Therese from and behind grimy windows, on the reflections of mirrors and glass, squeezed through gaps and doorways so we almost have to crane our necks to get a peek at their full profile. This partial obscuration reflects their fragmented sense of self in their everyday performance, to have to hide who they truly are. The seemingly single break of character from Carol comes in their second meeting at the diner, where she (once again) takes the initiative to push their relationship beyond simple gratitude, and nervously throws out a proposition for Therese to visit her home (lamely advertised to be pretty scenery, unable to fully hide her true intent), and for a tiny moment is breathless as the question hangs in the air. We get the impression that her life of luxury doesn't usually confront her with these types of odds. But more than that, she is putting her emotions on the line and risking losing it.

    Certainly the production has captured the allure of the angelic Carol and her sensuous beauty in its most potent form: the textural, tactile sensations which Therese is intoxicated by and what men cannot provide. The soft fur in the mink coat she seems to don like wings, the wave of blonde hair, the immaculately crimson fingernails, and vitally, the weight and feeling behind a parting caress on the shoulder. The pair must initially resort to seduction without lingering touch, so each fleeting hand hold or rub of the shoulders must be accentuated in their gazes, and each casual action, say, a throwing back of the shoulder to waft perfume across the booth, calculated and precise. The waifish Mara is given less to do as per her written role, but sometimes her tentative nature can be mistaken for inertia, leading to some accusations of the relationship being predatory. In some ways, this could seem true; the exquisitely porcelain Blanchett just about eats the diminutive Therese up with her eyes at first glance, and at times Mara just goes along with it.

    Todd Haynes is openly gay himself, and much of his filmography has been dedicated to advocating for this cause and capturing its anxieties. His debut was the scattershot anthology flick Poison, in which the visible edge and improvisation of a young filmmaker was evident (I still have no idea what the mockumentary of the flying boy is meant to signify). There was also the glitter bomb that was Velvet Goldmine, which had energy and flash reminiscent of Bowie's glam-rock peak but became embarrassingly pretentious once it retreated into its frame narrative. His big hit was Far From Heaven, a formalist exercise wrapped up in the gloss of Douglas Sirk but with a homosexual twist. He took Sirk's issues of classism and updated the story with modern moral responsibilities but retained the style. But Sirk's reappraisals were earned due to the subversive smuggling of his critiques in what were considered to be merely soapy melodramas. Far From Heaven wasn't made in the 50s but in a time where audiences and critics have seen it all, and although Haynes intent is virtuous, the people who really need to see it didn't give the poster a second glance. Its irony forbids it. So Haynes' best and most incisive film is Safe, which doesn't resort to well-tread pastiche, although its existentialist tones are familiar.

    Carol has a similar notion of earnestness. Gone is the glossy, highly saturated Technicolor, and in its place an earthier palette of yellows, browns and olives. In Far From Heaven the hyper-expressionistic cinematography gave the characters no place to hide, but in Carol, the colours envelop them. Edward Lachman shoots in 16mm so that the grain is highly visible, giving each frame a impressionistic haze. It's the closest to realism that Haynes has gotten since his very early days. The New York landscape becomes a character in itself, mapping Therese's maturation and emotional development: early on timid in its gaze, mostly capturing obscured faces and turned backs, but after meeting Carol, the subjects and environments come to life.

    It's all still very pretty, and at times impenetrable. The script tends to hold them at arm's length, unable to replicate the inner retrospection of the novel. Blanchett and Mara are gorgeous, too gorgeous, in fact; they rarely break the pretense of these painterly pictures, even as they are alone and away from prying eyes. Carol is never more exposed than in that one moment at the diner, even when they are entwined together in bed. And for all the arguments of category fraud regarding the two's respective screen time, it is Carol's story through and through. Even when Therese is making her own decisions the film is pushing her towards a different goal (the 'painting' of her apartment is merely a slightly lighter shade of blue - intentional, but shallow). I'm mostly and pleasantly surprised at the treatment of the ex-husband, not as an antagonistic force but channeled through impotent rage and the confusion at having his picturesque family shattered. It's happened before, and he won't forget that feeling of helplessness. But Carol's choice is the correct one. What good is a mother's love if she cannot embrace another's?
  • Finally. FINALLY. This is the movie which completely overwhelmed my expectations and blew me away.

    Romance is actually one of my favorite genres, but unfortunately it has let me down a lot more than once. Not the case with Carol. This has a strong possibility of being the best movie of 2015.

    Therese is a woman working in a store who has an interest in trains and photography. But her hobbies is not enough to escape her boring and quite uneventful life. Carol has a wonderful daughter and is doing fine financially... but has an husband (whom she is trying to divorce) who won't leave her alone and makes her feel miserable.

    These two people meet, and... they connect.

    First off, the story itself is already incredibly captivating. It takes place during a time period where homosexuality was not only frowned upon, but there were even laws against it. So seeing the two of them facing struggles in order to keep in contact with each other is fascinating to behold. And it is because the love story is so damn beautiful. There is a lot of visual language. Eye contact and body language often speaks for itself. And it's excellently executed, as you sometimes know exactly how these two character are feeling without a single word spoken. And even the dialogue itself has subtlety to it. There are plenty of times where either Carol or Therese insinuate feelings by using seemingly casual sentences. "Your perfume... it smells good." is really just a synonym for "I want to kiss you". "Oh stop it, you look perfect!" can very well mean "I want to spend the rest of my life with you." The lines are not obvious giveaways and I love it. The audience gets to think for themselves.

    But what really makes this movie work is the acting. It's absolutely amazing. Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara are at their best ever. They make the characters so real, so human, that you wish they actually existed. Kyle Chandler also throws in a remarkable performance as the husband. You root for the two girls... but you don't hate Harge either. There is one scene where he has gone so far as to get himself to the house Carol and Therese is staying at for the weekend. And when he's told he can't have her, I was really feeling bad for the guy!

    I can't remember the last time I have been as touched by a movie. It hit my heart just in the right places, and when I walked out of the theater I felt like I had just experienced someone else's life.

    Okay, the trailer revealed too goddamn much from the movie, so several important plot details I already knew beforehand. But even that couldn't stop the perfectly orchestrated ocean of emotions it bathed me in. Carol will stick to your brain like glue after you've watched it. Oh and the movie too ;)
  • 'Carol' is a fine film. The juxtaposition of the lavish costumes and production design with the grainy look of 16mm film sells the film's old-fashioned aesthetic. It is a well-shot film that is pleasant to look at. All of the individual performances are pretty good.

    The best part of the film is the opening sequence. The credits play over a continuing shot of fifties New York accompanied by Carter Burwell's fantastic piece 'Opening'. This shot brings us to a scene in a restaurant. This is a flash-forward that we revisit later on in the film. Our first sight of the main couple occurs when a man at the bar looks around the restaurant and spots them at a table. In this shot, Therese (Rooney Mara) and Carol (Cate Blanchett) are sitting at a table. Therese is sat facing away from the camera and towards Carol, who we can see clearly. My immediate reaction to this sight was "Wow, Cate Blanchett genuinely looks like she's in love." It felt real.

    Unfortunately, I didn't get this feeling from the rest of the film. I couldn't feel any chemistry between Therese and Carol. Mara and Blanchett do their best with what they are given, but they aren't given enough. Their characters don't feel fleshed out. I didn't feel like I knew them as people by the end. The film's technical achievements can only lift a film so high. If you love this film then I'm glad, but I can't love it when I couldn't grow attached to the characters. This is especially a problem as this feels like a film driven more by character than by story.

    Despite what I have said, this film didn't bore me. Mara and Blanchett are both engaging actresses who command your attention even if they aren't given enough to work with. The film is on the slow side but it goes at the right pace for what director Todd Haynes and screenwriter Phyllis Nagy were going for. Overall, it was an interesting experience that felt a bit empty.

    You can see more reviews at http://letterboxd.com/lloyd_morgan/films/reviews/
  • Nxlly9 October 2015
    Thanks to the New York Film Festival I got the chance to see this perfectly crafted film early.

    Carol's nothing short of fantastic. It's story is one of the best romances i've seen put on the big screen. What I love is how nobody makes it a big fuzz about the two lovers being females. It's treated with the same respect as any other romantic drama, and it's done better than most of them.

    The film is on another level when the two leads Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara are on screen together. Both undoubtedly gave two of the best performances of the year.

    It's pace is slow, but never boring. Giving us some intense slow-building moments that leaves us smiling or shedding tears.

    Carol's great. Watch it.
  • karolina_si2 January 2023
    Warning: Spoilers
    Movie is an adaptation of Patricia Highsmith's novel. I couldn't find the novel online, so I have only seen a film. To be honest I was expecting for some another boring, romantic movie, but that was a nice surprise.

    New York, 1950s; homosexuality were treated like some kind of sickness or disease, but it wasn't the only reason why love between Carol and Therese was forbidden. Carol has the husband that she tries to divorce.

    (spoilers) The first glances, the first meeting, the first conversation, we already feel the chemistry and tension between these two women. They can't fight with their feelings, maybe they don't even try to? Therese says "I can never say no", but she can't say "No" only to Carol, she is able to do it with men. Even though Therese doesn't know Carol for too long she agrees to meet her several of times and then travel with her. The tension made me so unpatient for something more between them. We can notice how their relationship evolves and goes on different levels.

    When Abby asks Carol "I hope you know what you're doing", she answers "I never did". It shows how much their love is out of control and. It doesn't always allow you to think rationally. The kiss&sex scene was the moment we've all been waiting for during whole movie. The fact that it was not just a fleeting adventure, but something stronger, we find out when both of them can't forget about each other during separation. Carol leaves letters, worries about Therese, asks Abby to look after her; and Therese goes through all the photos with her beloved, calls her, agrees to coffee. Seems like they are just meant to be. Two beautiful lines.

    Therese: "I miss you... I miss you" Carol: "I love you"

    Therese is much younger, she is sick when Carol leaves her. After months of not seeing Carol, Therese has devoloped, she is more mature etc. But one thing hasn't change- she still loves Carol and can't refuse her. It's just the power of love.

    It's subtle movie, with great class, a classic from the 50s, the topic is still taboo-breaking. Acting of Cate Blanchett is... incredible and I would rate is as 10. I forgot Carol- that person on the screen - can be just someone playing that role... Catherine bravo. Amazing job.

    It's the movie worth to watch, the chemistry is on point, scenerio is good, there is also ?one? Plot-twist. I recommend it, maybe it isn't the movie, it isn't anything "special", but it's worth to watch. Romances and love movie content can be considered as boring or basic, but how love can be basic at all? Try it, watch it, I enjoyed it, but I don't think it impacted on my whole life. I don't believe I will watch it again too. But it's good!

    P. S: I don't know if it's 7/10 or 8/10. I couldn't decide.
  • Others have already mentioned the film's beauty, elegance, attention to period detail, acting etc. All amazing. As a gay man "of a certain age" I felt deep gratitude for the gift given by the artists who created this film. The direction is so subtle and effective, using the all the tools of film making to communicate information, meaning, and emotion.

    Like Brokeback Mountain, this film turns cliché on its head and transcends the particulars of the protagonists' lives by illuminating more universal themes. It is a period/genre film that acts to balance well established tropes of its genre, a powerful corrective to SO MANY previous films that repeated the same old false, stereotypical, and often tragic images of gay lives. Beyond merely telling some real truth, Carol has so much to say about strength, resilience, and the possibility of finding joy in difficult circumstances. As such, it was deeply satisfying to this viewer.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    A well-made, workmanlike disappointment, much inferior to Haynes's Far From Heaven. You knew where it was going and it went there. Along the way there are no surprises from the two lead characters. The most surprising thing, which lifts it above Lifetime territory, is that it does not villainize the male characters. They have the values of their time, to be sure, but the husband and the boyfriend mean well, while the detective and Carol's lawyer are both matter of factly professional. Her lawyer, in particular, does an excellent, nonjudgmental job with what looks like a hopeless case.

    The most erotic scene in the movie is not the consummation but rather the first lunch date, where Carol looks ready to swallow Therese alive and Therese seems ready to jump right down her throat. The imbalance of power in that scene is distasteful. As I grow older, I find that love stories of any gender between an older sophisticate and a young naif have either a predatory or a transactional vibe to them that puts me off. Throughout, Carol knows exactly what she wants and is cool and composed enough to wait for Therese to figure herself out, catch up and provide it. At its least exploitative, this kind of relationship is a bargain, where the elder provides education in return for rejuvenation. And since this is a Patricia Highsmith story, material concerns are part of the bargain. Carol's standard of living makes a powerful impression on Therese from the outset, and she quickly grows used to what it can provide By the end, Therese understands perfectly well who she is, and some other women can perceive it. But the ending, when Therese moves from a Greenwich Village party of impecunious young bohemians to join Carol for dinner at the Oak Room, is set up in such a way that we don't know whether Therese is opting for true love or for the bigger and better deal. I'm not sure Therese knows either.

    For what is supposed to be a story of amour fou, it isn't fou enough. The basic setup is Anna Karenina, but Harge isn't Karenin and nobody throws themselves under a locomotive. The ending is not quite a happy ending, more like happy enough given the circumstances. That may be real life, especially in the social circles of Carol and her husband, but, unlike Far From Heaven, there's no pathos here and no tragedy. I give it a B.
  • artscommented7 November 2015
    I watched Carol at the New York Film Festival, days after watching Freeheld. Since both movies talk about love relationship between two women, I was afraid I was going to see the same thing. Gladly, I couldn't be more wrong. Carol is such a beautiful movie, subtler than I had expected.

    Even though I loved the movie, I'm aware that it's not for everybody. It's not fast paced, as current films tend to be. It takes its time to carefully construct the characters and to make us root for them. Credit is due to the cast, as Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara are brilliant, and to the director Todd Haynes, who conducts well the story.

    Moreover, the film is visually stunning, with impeccable make-ups and wardrobes, not to mention the beautiful locations covered in snow while they take a road-trip. Finally, the soundtrack is equally wonderful, with songs that correctly set the tone of their relationship.

    It probably won't be a box office hit, but I do hope everybody gets a chance to see it eventually.

    Full review: http://wp.me/p5Rk4c-f6
  • Warning: Spoilers
    In 1950s America, Carol is nearing the end of a quietly unhappy marriage to Harge, and trying to retain custody of their daughter Rindy. There is a morality clause and Carol's lesbian tendencies bring this to bear, especially when she falls for Therese, and a relationship gradually begins to blossom.

    I was expecting great things from this film: Cate Blanchett as Carol and Rooney Mara as Therese have both been getting glowing notices. And those notices are richly deserved: both women are first rate. I wish I could say the same for the film. There are two strong plot elements here: the legal wrangle and the growing (and forbidden) relationship. The film should have been electrifying. But it is slow and, regrettably, boring. I know that you don't have to take a film at breakneck speed but, given the drama inherent in the two major plot threads, not only does not very much happen, it happens very slowly.

    I'm sure this will be up for bags of awards (I get the impression that it regards itself as Important), but I was disappointed.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    **WARNING: Contains plot spoilers**

    I don't normally write reviews but this is a case where the critics seem to be totally disconnected from what they are supposed to be reviewing. It is weird to see so little dissent in the press about this film. Carol has many good points but more bad points.

    The good points are the amazing production design and costumes, and the interesting 16mm cinematography (which does get quite grainy at times). The technical side of things is fine, it looks very beautiful and old-fashioned.

    The main problem is that there just isn't any emotional connection established between the two main characters, or between anyone really. The film doesn't make you care about people or their fates, and doesn't explain why they would care about each other.

    The very first meeting between Carol and Therese highlights this. Carol tries to seduce Therese because... well, she just does, from the very first moment she lays eyes on her in the department store. We don't know why, Carol has never met her before so presumably it's just because Therese is young and pretty. We don't even see Carol reacting to Therese's beauty, Carol just has this predatory gaze from the very first frame, as if she was determined to find someone, anyone. How much sympathy would we feel for a middle-aged married man doing these things instead of Carol?

    Because of the way the story unfolds, it is also very hard to shake the feeling that Carol is a rich person who is, in the end, able to get whatever she wants.

    There ought to be sympathy for Carol being stuck in a dead marriage, but she is getting divorced and already having an affair.

    There ought to be sympathy for Carol losing custody of her daughter Rindy, but we never really see the mother-daughter relationship enough to understand what this means to her. For example, in the first scene Carol buys her daughter a train set instead of a doll in order to impress the young shop assistant that she lusts after. We later see Carol playing with the train set by herself while thinking of her own problems, we never see the daughter using it. The daughter seems to be little more than a plot device or a prop.

    There ought to be sympathy for gay lovers being parted by a bigoted 1950s society, but we never really see them as lovers. We see them make love, but there isn't really a scene where they display any kind of chemistry or deep affection. They come together because... well, they just do. To make matters worse, they split up almost as soon as they have got together, so we don't really get the time to feel anything significant has been lost.

    The saddest part is when Carol dumps Therese so she can go to fight for her daughter's custody, but then when, thanks to her lawyer's manoeuvrings, Carol has a realistic chance of getting joint custody of her daughter, she waives her rights to it. Why? Because it means she can avoid the hassle of a nasty court case. How deep can Carol's love for Rindy or Therese really be if these are her priorities? And why tell us that the custody of Rindy means so much, more than her love for Therese, and then show her abandoning custody? Perhaps the novel explains why this makes sense, but the film certainly doesn't.

    The two hour running time should have been long enough to get proper emotional connections built up, but instead the director squanders it on overextended scenes that should have been much shorter. It makes the whole film drag on without any character development.

    At one point Carol's husband Hodge has a door slammed in his face, it ends on a nice shot of his partially-covered features, but it then goes on to show him walking away from the house, getting in a car and driving off. Extending the scene didn't serve any purpose, we know he's annoyed and isolated but he's been annoyed and isolated for the entire film. Another example has Carol and Therese arriving in a hotel, they enter the lobby, they enter the room, they admire the room and then... it cuts to them leaving the hotel. What did we learn about them from this? That they enjoy the decor of expensive hotels? Wouldn't, for example, adding a scene earlier in the film showing Carol doing nothing but playing with her daughter Rindy been a better way to build up the emotional stakes?

    "Carol" seems to be the kind of film where the subject matter and the reputation of the participants has totally replaced objective assessment of the work itself.

    Gay rights are important, Blanchett is a great actor and Haynes is a great director. "Carol" is not an important or great film though, it's telling the story of an affair without telling us why the affair happened or why we should care. Its reviews seem to be based on what "Carol" should have been, rather than what it actually is.
  • Imagine how The Blue Angel Marlene Dietrich meets Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast At Tiffany's. Two goddesses in love affair. An essence and definition of love in its core distilled through different bodies and remaining a mutual enjoying of the heart. There is some cold classical feeling from the 30's in this movie, though it was set in the early 1950s in the McCarthy's era of witch-hunts. No answers are provided here and no stretched details. All is centred around Kate Blanchet and Rooney Mara.What you have to do is just to sit down,relax and enjoy the smoky narrative with a scarce dialogue.The 16 mm grainy picture, Sandy Powell's period costumes , cinematography and film editing from Edward Lachman and Affonso Gonçalves ,all well fitted in Patricia Highsmith's "The Price Of Salt" novel deliver a new conversation between the movie and the viewer. It's not about others but it's all about us. This message is truly important these days. No satisfaction in the sense and laws of tradition but how tradition have shaped us to rethink the history. As John Grant sings in Glacier "Don't listen to anyone, get answers on your own/Even if it means that sometimes you feel quite alone,No one on this planet can tell you what to believe,People like to talk a lot, and they like to deceive". There are echoes of other movies here such as the cold sentimentality of Savage Grace , Far From Heaven (from same director Todd Haynes) - another forbidden love story, Brokeback Mountain and A Single Man - both tragic waste of lives. Carol in some ways captures few finest moments from all these movies but as mentioned before it transcends one step further. It neutralises the bitter ends replacing it with hope. It's not the usual Hollywood hope but your own personal hope.It inspires you to decide,design and photograph your life. Don't wait,do it now!
  • Carol is the story of forbidden love in the 50's between Carol, played by Cate Blanchett and Therese, played by Rooney Mara. The film is made from the book The Price of Salt, written by the renowned author Patricia Hightower famous for other works such as Strangers on a Train or The Talented Mr Ripley. The Director Todd Haynes has previous experiences with the genre especially in the great film Far From Heaven, so I had some expectations. Roney Mara and Cate Blanchett both play their characters superbly well and Haynes has really succeeded in creating a good personal chemistry between them.

    Carol is a well made film combined with great cinematography and beautiful music by Carter Burwell. We are quickly introduced to Therese and realizes that she isn't comfortable with her relationship with Richard. When she meets Carol, sparks fly and we can tell they have got an attraction. However, Carol has a heavy history and Therese gets drawn into a divorce, a custody battle and a jealous ex-lover. I think this is where it gets problematic because we know so much about Carol and her background, but we are left to draw our own conclusions and make guesses about Therese's past life. Perhaps we would have better understood and known Therese, had we got to know more about her life. I also don't feel like we really understand why Carol is drawn specifically to Therese. Is it love or just mere passion? She has a past of female lovers and doesn't appear to have felt the same thing for them.

    As Carol reaches the end I still don't feel like the main characters faces any real trouble. Carol's husband appears to be relatively understanding and we don't know anything about Therese's life and her social circle, and can therefore only speculate on how they would react. It is really not that much standing in their way and yet they mess it up. I think if their love would have been made an even greater struggle and faced with larger obstacles it would have felt more stronger and important. Plain and simple, the film would have needed to be a bit more dramatic. But, still it is a good film and I do get drawn into their story.

    David Lindahl - www.filmografen.se
  • I love this movie. You do not need to be a lesbian to adore it. It is just the perfect mix between beauty, love, music ,hope. It flows like a poetry .Great end and great director. Of course great actors. To see and review.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Todd Haynes ? Yeah I remember him . Something of an auteur when it comes to independent film making , but just because someone is an auteur it doesn't make them superior to the journeyman type of director . Indeed auteur can defined as "A director who is somewhat unimaginative in telling a visual narrative" . He also directed SAFE one of the most frustrating films I've ever seen . With CAROL Haynes directs a film featuring a lesbian love story . As the opening credits rolled I also found out it was a Film 4 production . Todd Haynes , lesbians and Film 4 Productions . I don't want to sound like George Dubya Bush but if there was such a thing as an axis of film evil this might just be it

    !!!! SUGGESTIVE SPOILERS !!!!

    I'm very surprised then as to how much and how quickly CAROL drew me in to the story . Of course it's somewhat predictable in the early stages with a young shop worker Therese noticing and becoming infatuated by an older woman called Carol but everything is done with a deft , delicate slightness of touch it's difficult not to be caught up in the story . This is down to Haynes and the two protagonists played by Rooney Mara as Therese and Cate Blanchett as the titular Carol . It's rare that I see a film where an actors expression says a thousand words but you're able to instantly see thought and subtext being portrayed without a single word being spoken . It's also rare for a film nowadays to be poignant without lapsing in to manipulation and grief whoring

    It's not perfect . It gets a bit melodramatic towards the end and the slow languid pace will undoubtedly put some people off but it's not a film produced for the local multiplex . Likewise if the protagonists had been a middle aged straight man and a hetrosexual young woman we'd have an entirely different and possibly as unlikely story but let's appreciate CAROL for what it is - subtle Oscar bait material that might just surprise the Oacar board in 2016
  • gsygsy9 November 2015
    A perfect marriage of director and material, I can't think of anyone else but Todd Haynes for this story of love and desire blossoming in a desert of repression. Set in the era of the McCarthy witchhunts and the post-war obsession with - one might as well call it panic about- gender roles, CAROL is based on a Patricia Highsmith novel. Playwright Phyllis Nagy's screenplay pays Highsmith the compliment of maintaining the psychological conflicts and complexities. In particular, the character of Carol's conventional husband, Harge (played by Kyle Chandler) could have, in lesser hands, received much shorter shrift than here.

    Beautifully photographed, designed, edited, scored and acted, there's no reason to give it anything less than full marks. I was completely engrossed by it from start to finish.
  • When I saw this movie I knew it's considered one of the best of 2015, and among the favorites for many prestigious awards. The story seemed interesting, and so it was, but the film itself was rather boring.

    Inspired by a 1950's novel by Patricia Highsmith, Carol portrays an eccentric lesbian love story between two much different women. One of them is the titular character, an elegant woman in her forties whom the experienced and brilliant Cate Blanchett portrays beautifully, especially her sentiments and passions. The other is Therese, a weak and introvert young woman portrayed by Rooney Mara. The two stars of the film play their parts fine, both individually and combined as there seems to be good chemistry between them.

    However, I strongly believe that the analysis of the characters, both the two women and the others, is not as deep and touching as it could - and should- have been, and the inevitable result is that the viewer fails to identify themselves with anyone. You just sit and watch their adventures and misfortunes, but, other than a mere sympathy, you can't feel much about them, or even for them. Furthermore, both the relationship between the two main characters and their relationships with other people (Carol's family, Therese's boyfriend and few friends) are left unexpanded and unclear.

    I know that the LGBT subject of the story is very subtle, and it was even more when Highsmith wrote the novel, and it's natural for a film depicting such a story to attract attention. If you have read other novels written by the same author (or watched the film adaptations), such as "Strangers on a Train" or "The Talented Mr. Ripley", it's nothing of the kind. And that's another fault of the film; while Highsmith's novels are based in suspense, this one fails to attract your interest and make you anxiously wait to see what happens.

    In the end the result is a decent but mediocre film. Blanchett and Mara, especially the former, do their best but the screenplay is somewhat weak and unable to keep the viewer's attraction. If you can identify yourself with the characters and see "between the lines", if there's anything important there, you'll probably like it. Otherwise, there's not much too see.

    6/10
  • I've watched many, many lesbian movies, and sometimes there is a good one, but this is a gorgeous movie with two recognizable stars in that are so talented that I forgot I was watching people act; it felt more like I was peeping in on their lives. The movie is realistic. The sets are remarkable and so well-done, the costumes, make-up, everything suitable for the time frame. Cinematography is gorgeous, and the plot is both suspenseful and thoughtful at the same time. I've been waiting thirty-five years for a producer to take lesbian love seriously, and it has finally happened. Hooray!
  • The seduction and hypnosis of a Todd Haynes film is hard to deny. His attention to detail in such films like "Far from Heaven" and "I'm Not There" are simply superb, and one cannot overlook the vision he engulfs upon as he directs each one of them. In his newest venture, "Carol," which is based on the book "The Price of Salt" by Patricia Highsmith, the luxurious command in which he approaches the material is confident and pristinely evident once again. He pulls out some outstanding performances, especially from Cate Blanchett and Sarah Paulson, and crafts another multi-layered deconstruction on love during a time where it was simply one note to modern society. With all that said, there's a barrier between the film's central characters and its audience, resulting in a good, not great cinematic endeavor.

    "Carol" tells the story of Therese (pronounced TER-REZ and played by Rooney Mara), a department store clerk who dreams of a better life outside the normalcy of work and her persistent beau Richard (played by Jake Lacy). Set in 1950s New York, she falls for an older, married woman names Carol (played by Blanchett), and the two embark on a journey of forbidden love.

    "Carol" is as lusciously made as you come to expect from any Haynes film. Sexy, sultry, and vibrantly crafted, Haynes pours his heart and soul into each frame he directs with generous and respectful admiration. He transports us to a time we can only see in our dreams, with stunning cloths of the 1950's, thanks to outstanding Sandy Powell, and gorgeous set design, thanks to Judy Becker and Heather Loeffler.

    The script by Phyllis Nagy, whose only credit is the TV Movie "Mrs. Harris," which she also directed and was nominated for an Emmy, is profound in parts. It's natural to go back to something like "Brokeback Mountain" for comparison, a story that succeeded so much on the subtle and quietly spoken thoughts of its characters. We see their love present in a secret kiss on the side of an apartment, or on a quiet standing by a camp fire as Ennis goes to take care of the caddle for the night. These are factors that add to up a forbidden love.

    In "Carol," there's a missing variable in Carol and Therese's relationship. They meet, flirt awkwardly, and then suddenly are together in a strange circumstance. Now, one can argue that love knows no boundaries of time nor space. Perhaps you would be correct in that, but the main difference between Ennis and Jack versus Carol and Therese, is that the love in the former felt just as high-stakes at what they threatened to lose. Ennis loses his family, wanders the Earth essentially, still unsure of his own place, even without theoretically any more obstacles. Yet, Jack visits him upon the news of his impending divorce, and with still a real fear of exile and being true to himself, Ennis sends him away. Jack is heartbroken by this behavior, that translates well into one of the most iconic lines, "I wish I knew how to quit you."

    Carol feels like Ennis in this regard, destined to live alone despite embracing her own sensibilities and self. However , in Therese's young, unconfident mind, she doesn't equal or amount to the yin, of Carol's yang. Her exploration comes off like curiosity rather than love. Perhaps that's the intent, and if it is, then I applaud it, but when the film reaches its conclusion, nothing supports that claim. I find little reason to root for these two to be together. "Blue is the Warmest Color," even with intense and ill-fitting explicit scenes, manages to show the passion between the two main characters. I think that's the key word that's missing from the film: passion.

    With those hurdles, some of the performances surpass any and all expectations. With a stellar year in hand with James Vanderbilt's "Truth" already loved by so many, Cate Blanchett delivers an even more breathtaking portrayal in Haynes' film. Blanchett captures the lioness quality of Carol, steaming forward with blinders on as she finds herself entranced by Therese's innocence. Her slow, sultry hand moving across her lover's shoulder is a vibrant action that speaks impeccable volumes. I thought it was one of her best performances ever.

    Rooney Mara's sensitive yet disengaged nature from her surroundings is particularly moving as she walks through the film. Her quiet breakdowns are felt in the moment but have no lasting effect for the rest of the story. With such strong Supporting Actress buzz for the performance, I'm a little baffled by its unanimous love fest. Especially when standing next to the great Sarah Paulson, whose role and performance will hawk back to Patricia Clarkson in "Far from Heaven" but with such depth and assurance. Not exactly developed to its full potential, but as Abby, Carol's best friend and former flame, Paulson engages it all with a vigorous and palpable energy. As Carol's husband Harge, Kyle Chandler's desperation and urgency is lively and vivid, but with not enough substance and time to really make an impact.

    "Carol" is fruitful in the cinematic capacity of its structure but it leaves some things to be desired. For a Haynes enthusiast, they'll likely run the gauntlet on its construction and performances, eating every morsel of it up with a spoon. For others, the appreciation will surely be clear, but there may be some that are left out in the cold.
  • I had the chance to see this movie during the Dutch film festival.

    I want to start by saying that this is a "must see". I am very critical about my lady loving movies, and the way Cate and Rooney portray their characters, and their on screen chemistry is absolutely breathtaking.

    Rooney and Cate captured what it's like to be falling in love. You'll get taken away with how this all develops and affects their lives.

    It's an easy-going, subtle movie but never gets dull, it keeps you hooked from beginning to end.

    Also the parts played by Sarah Paulson and Kyle Chandler are worth mentioning. It's been a while, if ever, since such a loving movie was released in this genre.
  • A story of love and change, "Carol" was incredibly moving. The taboo subject of sexuality during the 1950s is explored in this film and the relationship between Carol (Cate Blanchett) and Therese (Rooney Mara) is deep and endearing. Blanchett and Mara both gave amazing performances in this film. Such an important subject and story to tell, they did it with grace and compassion. Todd Haynes did a wonderful capturing the varying emotions throughout this film as well. Nominated for multiple Oscars, I can understand the Academy's approval of this film. It was extremely well done and it's great to see films like this that can open people minds and hearts to the definition of love.
  • Arvo_Diri3 March 2016
    First my opinion of the movie without the lesbian theme.

    Great cinematography. The reconstitution of the 50's was perfect. Splendid work.

    The adaptation of the novel however was terrible. As another reviewer very aptly said, the novel lines that are in the mind of the director are rendered through long pauses and stares. You are supposed too guess the lines when that happens.

    The directing makes it worse. Both lead actresses seem to play in different movies, answer to different people, react to different situations. You don't understand how the passion evolves from the movie only. The stages and pace of the relationship are not explained.

    Now the lesbian theme.

    I am surprised that it was unconditionally applauded by most LGBT reviewers. In fact it could be understood as as much homophobic as liberal. It revives the myth of the lesbian as a predator. Carol is a mature lady who seduces an inexperienced girl. Carol is a wealthy lady who seduces a poor employee. Also the acting by Cate Blanchett is explicitly predator- ish, and the acting by Rooney Mara explicitly victim-ish.

    The exposition of the judicial trouble facing lesbians at the time is ambiguous as well. The husband and the lawyer are presented as very moderate. In fact you could almost root for them, in the context of the time.

    Carol is not placed in an insane asylum, she will keep her wealth and have the good life. She does not really lose her daughter either, the daughter is not placed in an orphanage. And Carol will be able to see her all the time when the daughter is of age. Plus Carol is not shown as very determined to keep her daughter eventually.

    The whole results in a dull and morally too cautious movie. No sides are taken, no passion is really dealt with. Very ambiguous.
An error has occured. Please try again.