WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Billie Morin This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

Red-Barracuda Carnal Knowledge is a decidedly downbeat film from director Mike Nichols. It's very obviously a product of the New Hollywood style of film, which was at its height around about the time its release. In actual fact this one pushed the boundaries even for a New Hollywood movie, with very frank adult subject matter dealt with in a fairly unsanitized manner. Its story follows two men from their post-World War II college days through to their middle-age in late 60's counter-culture years. It specifically looks at sexually dysfunctional and emotionally stunted males, one a sensitive idealist, the other an aggressive predator. The story is essentially a study of relationships from their skewered perspective. In fact, we are only ever witness to these characters talking about or interacting with women; we never see anything of their college, work or social lives beyond this.Jack Nicholson puts in a strong performance of a somewhat unpleasant character, the dominant side of the friendship, while Art Garfunkel is also very good as his more passive buddy. The primary female roles are filled by Candice Bergen as a woman who both men have relationships with and Ann-Margret, who is particularly good as a woman emotionally damaged by her destructive relationship with Nicholson's character. The acting is very good on the whole and the drama is quite intense and compelling enough. It isn't exactly a comforting viewing experience, however, with a distinct lack of likable characters. It is commendable though that it isn't afraid to be this way though and this approach does give the film a certain bite that makes it distinctive and confrontational.

hou-3 This movie attracts quite a lot of admiration here which puzzles me. It is a kind of summation of the awfulness of the sixties sexual revolution - its sourness, acute misogyny, deep unhappiness and disconnect. The two male protagonists, well played by Nicholson and Garfunkel, though their roles are really nothing but stereotypes, are equally unsympathetic, self obsessed, selfish, duplicitous and vain, while the women are just there as sex objects. It's a deeply depressing movie. The film has dated badly, as one would expect, and with such a bleak message it's hard to see why anybody except an admirer of the lead actors would bother with it today.

sddavis63 You can only watch a couple of guys (neither of whom, really, are all that likable) go through women for so long without it becoming a bit of a drag. But basically that's what "Carnal Knowledge" does with the viewer. We follow Jonathon and Sandy from their time as room-mates in university to somewhere in middle age and we watch their relationships with women begin, evolve and end. I frankly didn't see a lot of point to this. No one really grew or changed (except for Sandy, who started off as kind of shy and awkward with women and ended up not much more appealing than Jonathon.) The women in these guys lives were a little more interesting, if only because they each had different ways of handling their always troubled relationships with them.The male leads in this were Jack Nicholson as Jonathon and Art Garfunkel as Sandy. Nicholson was good. He was given a somewhat more complicated character to play than Garfunkel, which reflects the fact that he was a more experienced and more accomplished actor. But there was little growth in Jonathon, and that just made the movie seem repetitive. I did like Ann-Margret as Bobbie, who was Jonathon's primary relationship in the movie. She was believable in the role, frustrated in the relationship - loving Jonathon but also angry with Jonathon. She did well. Candice Bergen as Susan was Sandy's primary love interest, although she disappears partway through the movie, and aside from picking up that they split up we don't hear much about her.The performances are the strength of this movie. It's fairly tame by modern standards, although it likely raised some eyebrows back in 1971, and I found the basic story to be lacking anything that would keep me glued to the screen. (4/10)

donwc1996 Mike Nichols has the dubious distinction of producing the two worst films in U.S. history - this one and The Graduate. How this man ever came to be respected is beyond me. I think Nichols is a perfect example of what we mean when we say there is an elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about because no one wants to be embarrassed by admitting there is an elephant in the room. Jules Feiffer, however,who wrote this piece of garbage should be hung out to dry in the public square. The fact that Nichols made this film simply demonstrates once again that the man has no conscience much less any moral or ethical compass. His cynical atheism more than shows here. Too bad. So much talent and so little character.