An extremely unpleasant movie, I get that is kind of the point but I think that the screenplay does get a little repetitive. Fortunately the performances are top notch across the board suggesting deeper complexities in the characters.

While it was interesting to see Art Garfunkel's and Jack Nicholson's characters change over time, I found this movie to be largely adolescent. The emotional manipulation carried out by the male characters was hard to watch, without any of the development or depth of Five Easy Pieces (1970). The swing music was enjoyable, the technicolor film was enjoyable. But overall, one of those movies made purely for the male gaze.

This is a perfect film. The script is as tight as a script can be....and it's from Jules Pfeiffer. The direction is as good as it gets for 1971.....or for any year.....and that's Mike Nichols at the absolute top of his game. Ditto the cinematography from Giuseppe Rotunno whose other credits include The Leopard, Satyricon, Amarcord, All That Jazz. And the acting. Jack Nicholson notching up yet another incredible performance. Art Garfunkel, Candice Bergen and Ann Margaret are perfectly cast, as are Rita Moreno, Cynthia O'Neal and Carol Kane who is completely memorable with not one line of dialog. If you're going to study the work of ANY of the names I just mentioned, there is no way around this movie. If you want to see the absolute greatest films of 1971, there is no way around this movie. If you want to see the absolute greatest films of the 70s....or ever, there is no way around this movie. It's essential. Add to that it's sociological importance, both as a groundbreaking work of 1971, but as a period piece, documenting the social mores that changed so much and so fast over a short time span. Not to mention male/female dynamics; two guys, one puts women on a pedestal, one treats them like crap. If this doesn't dissect that premise down to a tee, nothing does. Ann Margaret's greatest performance, bar none. And Jack Nicholson.....he had blown the world away in "Easy Rider" in '69, then again in "Five Easy Pieces" in 1970. And this was his third groundbreaking, iconic performance, it almost became an annual thing. He would continue to do groundbreaking, iconic performances in '73, '74 and '75. And not just performances in good movies, but high-caliber classic masterpieces of cinema. Like "Carnal Knowledge". A perfect movie. How this film does not have a perfect score on Rotten Tomatoes is beyond me. There is no way this movie could be more perfect. If I had to point to perfection in cinema, this is one example I'd point to. It achieves what it set out to do 100%, and whether or not one "likes" it or "gets" it or wants to project something on to it doesn't really matter.

A powerful study of misogyny.

A brilliant film that still lacerates 50 years after its release. Sometimes funny but really remarkably sad. The saddest character of them all is Bobbie played by the gorgeous Ann-Margret --- proving for the first time what an excellent actress she is. She has no sense of self and her desperation is palable. Everyone knows she is every man's fantasy but her. Nicholson is so brave to play such a despicable man but he is brilliant. A classic.

A film that starts off well with an intriguing college love triangle relationship. However, the rest of the film is dead boring. I suppose Nichols wanted to show the downfalls for these male characters only looking for women based on their looks. I believe he wanted to show this for Nicholson's character who was portrayed to be only interested in a woman's appearance. Nicholson and Margret's interactions are quite interesting but these scenes go on for so long that I lost interest in these characters. It was disappointing that Bergen's character disappears halfway through the film as I wanted to see how her character evolved. Garfunkel's character hardly appears in the film as well after the college scenes. The last two scenes of the film, while showing how these characters have aged, is so quickly wrapped up and poorly executed. Ann-Margret was nominated for Best Supporting Actress at that year's Oscars and, while she was good, she was not as good as Leachman and Burstyn in The Last Picture Show. Overall, a disappointing film from Mike Nichols that starts off well but has some serious pacing issues in the film's second half.

Mike Nichols directs a young Jack Nicholson, Ann-Margret, and Candice Bergen in the 1940s Two young men want to become men and experience everything with women But the issues might come out given one of them engages in infidelity after marriage We've all had our days in the past gathering some form of carnal knowledge Whether it's love, dating, sex, adolescence there's still a lot to learn Maybe being pressured into getting into college as almost like losing your virginity There's a lot to expect and to live up to This movie has so much talking it's a bit of a chore, but it is quite the battle of the sexes It even acts a a reflection of the relationship between men and women even if it does more from the male perspective More philosophical than anything but the actors all get their share of feelings on the subjects

Mike Nichols' Carnal Knowledge is a stinging and insightful examination of the friendship between two men, Jonathan (Jack Nicholson) and Sandy (Art Garfunkel), who, over a period spanning two decades, obsess over their conquests of the women in their lives. Nichols directs with a deft hand, allowing the camera to linger over faces to allow the audience time to grasp the depth of the emotions being expressed. Jack Nicholson, as would be expected, steals every scene, including one in particular in which he lets rip with one of his more notable but lesser-known trademark freakouts. The script, filled with meaningful dialogue and awkward humor, will leave the viewer with the feeling that, despite their escapades and conquests, Jonathan and Sandy know less about women at the end of the film than they did at the beginning.

An extremely unpleasant movie, I get that is kind of the point but I think that the screenplay does get a little repetitive. Fortunately the performances are top notch across the board suggesting deeper complexities in the characters.

A Mike Nichols classic with a solid and interesting cast. Controversial as it's focused on two buddies trying to get laid and eventually get laid quite a lot as they hook up with some girs and starts relationships. The men change and even if they get what they want they still want more and tend to treat the girls badder, especially "Jonathan". Jack Nicholson does a very solid performance as the mentioned character and it's fun to see Art Garfunkel as the sidekick "Sandy" here. Also a bit confusing since it's normally a girls name. Cool film, carried by both performances and plot. Pretty girls, especially Ann-Margret as "Bobbie" is a hit as she got her sex symbol status from this film. Pretty unique film, almost dreamy at times as the strenght of the Jonathan character seem unreal and very much presents him as the center of this film Some very strong scenes here as well, especially in the last half. A cool film and another superb Nicholson role. 7.5 out of 10 pairs.

The script doesn't work because of its one sided narrative.

it doesnt sound like the sort of thing i would like, but i did like it

The best romance movie ever made!

Mike Nichols's daring, defiant, and unquestionably provocative follow-up to "Catch-22" is as frustrating as it is frank. "Carnal Knowledge" may not necessarily have the pace or panache as other efforts from the director's oeuvre, but with the philosophical spine that the film possesses, there's enough here to keep you in your seat. It's an interesting study of the kinds of people -- specifically men -- who are destined for an eternity of failed relationships and why they are the way they are. From the objectification of the opposite sex, to morally basic interpretations of gender roles, this movie kind of covers all of the main pitfalls of masculinity -- and not in a finger-wagging sort of way. Is it entirely enjoyable? Not really. But I was, for the most part, there for the whole film.

must be in school program. disillusion of "relations"

And-Margaret in her best screen performance. Rita Moreno in a stand out cameo.

This film is heavier than one may think. It goes all the way from the humorous exchange of the discussion of sex, to the consequences of completely putting one's sexual idealisation into action.

Little film showing the progression of sexual desire over decades following two sad guys. Beautiful girls, but the film mostly sucks except for hilarious bouts. That film is so past millenium. meh.

Active camera, writing the themes with movement and performance. Idiosyncratic portrayals of absurd, contradictory characters. The ending feels a bit rushed. Some big piece is missing here. Top notch Nicholson. Garfunkel is tremendous in this and Bad Timing. Eerie foreshadowing when Jack says "Heeere's Bobby" late in the film.

What matters here is the acting, which is great, specifically by Jack Nicholson, Candice Bergen, and Ann Margaret. But the film isn't just dated. Even if taken within the context over the era, it simplifies relationships between men and women to a one dimensional point of view. Mike Nichols is a great director, and even though direction is fine in this film, it's just not his best and doesn't survive the test of time.