Charlie Casanova (2011) User Reviews

I wanted to like 'Charlie Casanova', I really did...

[edula · 5/10 · 5 November 2012]

I've been a bit vocal in my urging for people to go and watch this film, purely as I feel that someone with the balls to make a movie for under a grand deserves to have their film noticed. Still, though, after finally getting to see it, I think that it could have been much more. Instead, could someone please explain to me how something so recent can feel like it has aged so terribly?

It felt dated like a late 80's TV play that may once have had something, but the years have worn away at its impact. A real shame, as with a little more care and attention, there could have been so much more power. Whilst I have nothing but admiration for McMahon's punk rock take on the "let's do the show right here" ethos, I just wish that the final result had been as powerful as his post-festival-screening campaign to divide the viewers and rile the critics.

The script had some wonderful moments, admittedly, but for my tastes came over a little stagy in places. However, despite this, Emmett Scanlan's delivery and performance were very deserving of all the accolades that have since come his way. Terry McMahon definitely has a way with actors, and gets the best out of his cast. Unfortunately his direction appears to be more towards what the cast do, and less to what we actually see in the frame. In the hands of another director, there may have been a different outcome - dialogue-heavy scripts are not always stagy, and can often provide an electric energy when combined with intense visuals (just look at the early films of Andrzej Zulawski for great examples of this). Perhaps it was due to budgetary constraints after all, but then again wasn't that one of 'Charlie Casanova's big selling points? Did adopting the punk ethic unwittingly sap it of all its punk energy?.

Maybe if the funding had come Terry's way before shooting, then this film might have delivered tenfold, with a little more time and a little more care. I've no doubt whatsoever that Terry McMahon is a great writer, and has a gift for directing actors. I'm sure that one day he will also be able to add great filmmaker to that list, and will one day make a film that delivers on all its promises. It's just a shame that this wasn't it. It could have been, and I really wish it had been...

Pants

[Chiefbukowski · 1/10 · 2 May 2012]

I agree with the other 1 star review. Don't judge a film on it's budget or production process, judge it on its merits as a piece of emotion inducing storytelling. The director wants you to love this or hate it, he has a immature need for you to have an emotional connection of some sort with his film, feeling that even if you hate it he has done a great job - truth is it's pants. I didn't care enough to hate it, it just made me go 'meh' and shrug my shoulders. It comes across like the director tried too hard to make something that jumps up and down and goes 'look at me, look at me, please notice me!'. He drew shock tactics from a number of well trodden paths and overused sources that seem to have distracted him from infusing his film with the most important ingredient - an engaging story.

The acting is so-so, nothing that would help this to stand out but, to be fair to the actors, they were hampered by the script or lack thereof, the main guy (can't remember his name offhand but apparently he was in Hollyoaks..) being the only one to get any sizable screen time, in which he proceeds to chew up the poorly lit scenery. As to the cinematography, well, let's just say there's hope for all those college films that are gathering dust in former film students back rooms - dust them off guys, if this can get a release there's a chance for all your short films shot on grainy minidv, lit with yer da's garden light, with the audio recorded on yer webcam mic.

You may ask why I write a review if the film meant nothing to me. Well, it's because I had the misfortune to attend a (free) screening of it with a q&a with the director afterwards. As I sat there in the audience, surrounded with cast and crew and competition winning Hollyoaks fans, listening to the director's expletive ridden pretentious ranting I felt something I hadn't in the previous 1 hour 37 minutes - emotion. And that emotion was disgust.

Or maybe I was just a little bloated from the curry I had beforehand. At least that part of my evening was enjoyable.

awful film

[billythehick · 1/10 · 14 November 2011]

A dreadful viewing experience, with a terrible script and poorly directed actors. The main character is a screaming, gurning, nonsensical monstrosity. I don't give a s*** what the message or the intention of the film was, it's f***ing poorly made and an utterly meritless viewing experience.

The "cards fall where they may" thing was over-egged, felt stupid, ridiculous, and repetitive. It is a bewildering and alienating film, the characters are not recognizable as human, they're weird cartoon characters. And they talk too fast too, it was incomprehensible.

I respect the fact that they made a film for next to nothing. I don't respect the film on any level.

Cinematic Toxic Waste

[pmckenna-2 · 1/10 · 23 August 2012]

I like to keep an open mind when going to the cinema. I generally avoid all reviews and press relating to movies on show, depending on word of mouth and personal recommendation instead. I arrived at the cinema expecting nothing, and it dutifully delivered. It was easily the worst film I've ever had the misfortune of seeing.

The only positive I could draw from this movie is that it is mercifully short, although seemingly endless when you have to sit through it. Most people didn't bother (there were probably 20 people at the beginning of my showing and around 12 by the end). The dialogue was unintentionally hilarious at times, but mostly cringe-worthy. The acting is of an impossibly low standard. The story line is confused and forgettable. Even the movie itself looks extremely amateur. I'd imagine they were intentionally going for a dark and gritty look, but the technical expertise obviously wasn't there to pull it off.

Avoid this film at all costs.

N.B.: Aside from the disingenuous 10 star reviews of the film on this very site, the IMDb score is also massively misleading. It has the same ratio of 10* reviews as The Shawshank Redemption, IMDb's number one film of all time. If only real votes were counted, I'd say it would be in the 2 star range.

It's all about the voice.

[Fatboydim · 9/10 · 9 July 2011]

When I first started out as a writer, producers and directors would tell you that they were looking for an original voice, however they rarely meant it, which is why we are subjected to so much pap on our TV and Cinema screens. In Terry McMahon we find an original and exciting voice, that may grate on some, but will find fertile purchase in open minds. I was lucky enough to see the film in Galway at the Film Fleadh. I doubt it will get a general release, but it deserves one. Emmet Scanlan plays the eponymous Charlie a character who feels increasingly embittered by his emasculation through conformity to a society that seems to pander to the underclasses. Of course all fascists need someone to blame their woes upon and here it's the tracksuit mafia. I believe the correct slang term is "Scangers". However it's clear that Charlie has trouble feeling anything at all. After accidentally running a person over in his car he crosses a line - there is no guilt, no remorse - he abdicates responsibility for his actions. From that moment on his decisions are determined by the turn of a playing card. Sometimes the results are amusing, sometimes tragic. Charlie pulsates with anger and venom as he exacts revenge on a boring life. Willing to gamble everything in order to feel something. His superiority complex a cover for deep insecurities that his 187 point IQ cannot get to grips with. He literally doesn't know whether to laugh or cry, can fake both and feel neither. It's a powerful, mesmerizing performance by Emmet Scanlan. Leigh Arnold and Ruth McIntyre are the tragic women in his life. Damien Hannaway is a fantastic foil to the flamboyant Charlie and turns in a beautiful performance. The star however is the script and Terry McMahon's voice as a writer / director.

The film was made for little or no money. This however suits the movie as the camera is almost always in the face of the characters creating a very claustrophobic feel. There are very few cutaways to scenery, sets or indeed wide shots. Mostly I suspect because there were no sets or scenery. It's a film that could have been shot anywhere. Generic hotel bedrooms and bathrooms mean there's no relief in the surroundings. You are trapped in this world just like the characters. The only scenery is a motorway at night, and that seems more like a barrier than a road to anywhere.

The lighting in the film is minimal, but again that adds to the feel. The look of the piece is reminiscent of Mean Streets. It almost has a late seventies feel. This could be Scorsese's New York, but for the Dublin accents.

It is very wordy and theatrical. That alone won't appeal to many. The subject matter will also put some off. After the screening, which invited us to love or hate the film, some people may well have hated it, a few people were sitting on the fence.... It's clear that I and many others loved it. I was buzzing after the event... so much so that I'm writing this review after the long drive home.

I would love to see more from Terry McMahon.

Brilliant, uncomfortable viewing

[blahblahblahtoby · 7/10 · 29 July 2011]

This is an awkward film, very difficult to enjoy in the traditional sense and once more difficult to categorise. It's part psychotic breakdown, part political dissection, part kitchen sink domestic drama, part offensive (a large part at that,) part nightmare.

Charlie Casanova, played by Emmet Scanlan in a career making performance, is an extremely charismatic yet supremely unlikable person. He defines himself as a member of the middle class, with flash cars, flash suits, an IQ of 187 (maybe my IQ isn't high enough but I don't know what this number actually means, what is the difference between 187 and 170?) a seemingly close group of friends and a loving wife. Yet he is bored with his life and proposes a game involving playing cards quite similar to that proposed in the Luke Rhinehart novel The Dice Man - ask the cards a question with a yes or no answer, the card you turn over is either a yes or a no. Most of the questions asked seem to involve illegal acts and sexual behaviour.

The journey Charlie takes is occasionally slow moving but largely a difficult watch because his behaviour is so often completely abhorrent. What makes it watchable and in it's own way enjoyable is the incredibly powerful performance from Scanlan and the mostly tight direction from McMahon. He shoves the camera in the characters faces, you feel claustrophobic more often than not, you even (and maybe this is just me) find yourself identifying with the lunatic on screen before realising that his words are just an excuse for his behaviour, this I am pretty sure was intended by McMahon.

There is a scene in which Casanova tries some impromptu standup in a working class club, ripping the patrons apart with some very well observed humour before being dragged out of the bar. This scene feels like the one that the movie was written around, it's the strongest in it's content and the way that it was filmed and really pushes the movie forward in to the final act and the (at this point) slightly confusing ending.

At times it is a little difficult to understand some of the dialogue; as I have found from my personal experience of the Irish accent, sometimes they speak too fast for me to catch every word, other times the choice of slang is too confusing. But this doesn't actually detract from the film in any way. It may even add to the flavour, the realism of the piece.

The final 2 scenes are fantastic and have you leaving the film on a high note; Charlie is on a roof, talking to a camcorder, wild eyed and frantically spouting his political ideals, urging the masses to take some responsibility for their lives, defending his actions, an incredible piece of cinema to end with. And then there's a piece of broken domesticity, a beautiful piece of art that the camera holds on until we fade to back, nothing happens but you can't tear your eyes from it, mesmerising.

I would definitely recommend watching this film if you are partial to watching great acting performances in difficult films. It's certainly not for everyone but it is worth your time.

A fractured view of Charlie Casanova

[farrell-caroline · 23 February 2012]

Up to the point of me getting along to the Irish Film and Television Academy premiere of Charlie Casanova, the hype had been immense, much to the credit of Writer, Director and Producer, Terry McMahon, who kept pushing forward with his challenging, and yes, abrasive exploration of morality. Not just talking the talk of controversy for the sake if it, he has created a piece of independent, Irish cinema that we have not seen before, and will, I certainly believe, elevate to cult status for future generations to dissect, critique and quote from. And it seems, Terry's incredible gift as a writer, as well as his tenacity, is paying off. To the right of him, there is the camp of fans that love the film with such enthusiasm, that collectively, they have become a major marketing tool in spreading the word. And to the left of him, the ones who hate the film; don't get it, walk out on it, fear it, or simply can't understand what the hell this character is on about. Whatever their feelings, they are still managing to generate just as much hype!

Terry describes his film as being a fractured narrative about a fractured man with a fractured mind. His description is very appropriate, and it got me wondering as to how many of his audience would go home with fractured thoughts of their own! As a film-goer, my quest, for ninety minutes or so, is to empathize, to live vicariously through another life, to walk in their shoes as I re-imagine through the writings of another. Why then, as I settled in to watch this movie, could I not shake an annoying discomfort? I did not like Charlie from the get go, but he's a sociopath, so that's a no-brainer! And kudos to Emmet J Scanlon for his skill of transformation; from a well-heeled, over-educated, arrogant, yet strangely charismatic man, to a dangerous, viscerally ugly psychopath, and with such unrelenting realism that I truly believed the madness that was unfolding behind his eyes.

Leaving Charlie aside however, I could feel no empathy for any of the other characters. I did not like his wife, her responses to Charlie irritated me. Same for his friends, couples themselves in different forms of crisis. Why were they all so trusting of Charlie, so easily led by him? It irked me, a lot! So what the hell was I still sitting there for, in a cold, half-filled cinema, as the director said himself, for an hour and half of my life that I'll never get back? What kept me hooked? Yes, I got it, the subtext and metaphor that Terry has spoken of many times, his reflection on society, and how, as a nation, we have allowed previous governments, without accountability, to kick the shite out of us, the immorality, and amorality of the continued criminalization of the poor, the very fabric of 'family' constantly under attack, and how we, as a society, continue to allow it, with no consequences and very few raised voices. So, in the thematic knowing of the piece, why was I feeling a tad troubled, yet compelled enough to stay on for the final gut-wrenching scene? (Even if it does end with the hauntingly beautiful and pure lament of Damien Dempsey!)

The answer? FEAR…the recognition of the trait that ironically, was the reason I so disliked the characters in Charlie's life. So here's my tuppence worth of fractured thought, brought to the fore by the menace to society that is Charlie Casanova. Terry made reference to the fact that the characters in the film needed to be in their thirties, because to be older, they would have experienced the Ireland of the eighties, and therefore, they would have known too much. Through the decades of the boom, a large proportion of the current middle classes (now the hidden poor, in many cases) have come from the working classes of that decade, as indeed, did Charlie's people, so for me, the nail on the head has been truly hammered, and perhaps is where my own discomfort came from. In knowing too much from our past experiences, we can hardly bear to see it happening again. Even though it is happening. And if we cannot bear it, then we cannot face it, and so we bury the unease and carry on, minding our own and protecting what we have left with a societal and political lethargy that keeps that hammer raining down on us. And of our future, and that of our children, we blindly trust the universe, and get up each morning to salvage what hope we have left. Yes, we are fractured, as is our nation, but even in fear, it is the man and woman who get back up every day, get the kids to school and get on with their crappy paid and taxed-to-the-hilt jobs, who will keep that hope alive; but in the doing of the active citizen, the fear of change, and of fear itself, will also continue to thrive…

Footnote: I was recently at a writer's event, where Terry, in his unique delivery, and I paraphrase here, stated that some people would like his film and some wouldn't, and if they didn't, F***k them! I have to admit, the comment riled me up. If I didn't like it, then it would be right back at him.

I DID like the film, very much, so f**k you anyway, Terry!

http://carolinefarrell.wordpress.com/2011/11/

A ballsy-as-hell, uncompromisingly brilliant piece of cinema. Think 'Bronson'...'A Prophet'...'Fight Club'.

[freddyfresh22 · 10/10 · 23 February 2012]

If you're the type of movie-goer who demands a rosy-feel-good-Hollywood-faux-glow-flowery feeling, put the popcorn away. This one's not for you.

If you're a ruling-class conservative uptight planet-ruiner, this movie will especially drive you nuts.

The dialog in particular is pure genius.

McMahon (director/scriptwriter/producer of Charlie) is THE word wizard of our time, and those who miss the point of Charlie's intentional machine-gun-mouthed verbosity will be left bewildered and confused by its real purpose (think of the crap you're fed daily by your elected political leaders) - think obfuscation, smoke-screen hypnosis, hyperbolic nonsense.

Emmett Scanlan is nothing short of mesmeric in his portrayal of the utterly reprehensible, but spell-binding Charlie. This is the type of movie you'd never see on telly, except maybe in the old days, at 2 in the morning on Channel 4. If I saw it in that context, I'd be raving about it for a month.

The suits will want to kill Charlie's creator, Terry McMahon, because that seemingly is what Terry McMahon would like to do to them.

Charlie Casanova and his suited lackey 'friends' portray the nihilistic, consequence-less recklessness of the young Irish ruling-classes who were partly responsible for bringing Ireland to its financial knees. Everyone and everything is fair game to Charlie, especially the 'track-suited scum' on the poorer north side of the city he thinks his speculated wealth subsidizes.

One of the great things about this movie is the way the writer succeeds in challenging even the most politically-correct bleeding heart into admitting that for all one's outrage and achy-breaky heart, one ultimately does very little to halt the march of financial despotism.

The movie validates AND dismisses in equal measure, both arguments presented by the 'track-suited scum' and their suited rulers. This is where the real genius of the script lies. Charlie Casanova poses many questions and answers none.

The movie is a moral and philosophical treatise on the ruling haves and the powerless have-nots, in the context of the writer's city - the north and south-side of Dublin. The Dublin McMahon shines the light on, is every city, every man, and Charlie is all of us in various guises. What you get to see is yourself on the big screen.

I'll be buying this on DVD, after I watch it another four times in the cinema.

An important and unprecedented piece of filmmaking.

[dnspattison · 10/10 · 6 May 2012]

Charlie Casanova is an angry film that challenges an apathetic audience. Written in response to events more shockingly relevant than ever before, the subject matter deals with a class system and the ramifications of such a system and its inevitable misuse of power.

Using close shots to give an uncomfortably claustrophobic feel, the film follows a group of friends over the course of a weekend. Lack of a budget was no hindrance to this film; clever use of white noise in the sound design helps build tension and low lighting adds to the taut, uneasy mood. With raw and at times iconic performances and a muscular yet beautifully crafted script, this is a film that connects and resonates.

Using Brechtian technique to alienate the audience, McMahon gives us a new anti-hero in Charlie Barnum, played with force and true vitriol by Emmett Scanlan. We watch as Barnum lies and manipulates, is revered and reviled in turn by each of his companions. We see him destroyed and reborn in Donald, played with understated malevolence by Tony Murphy. Unshackled from the usual ties of empathy for a central character, given this unfettered clarity of objectivity, we are free to despise this eponymous creation; to know his form and ultimately to rise up against him and his type. "He doesn't know you but he already hates you." A fitting yet chilling tag-line to an important, unprecedented piece of filmmaking.

Best Irish Film I've Seen

[grahamsmith-802-652796 · 10/10 · 27 September 2013]

Hands down the best and most interesting Irish film I've ever seen,I never thought that something so completely original could be created from the emerald isle. Right from the start i was floored,i thought it was going to wain due to my preconceptions but it only got better. Charlie is the depiction of unchecked ego,something most of the planet knows by now.A deleterious sham of a human who believes that words matter more than action,that perception can be fueled to the point of plausibility no matter what the circumstance. His world comes undone but no consequence follows which seems appropriate considering how the elite need only circumvent,using language and our expectations,the question of responsibility and reflection to continue their grip on position and control. I'll refrain from waxing lyrical on this most amazing work,Watch it!!!

Ignore all other reviews,If you are interested in an original voice no matter what the medium,this is for you.

Perfection.

[seanahampstead · 10/10 · 7 November 2012]

I heard about this film simply because Emmett J Scanlan is my favorite actor, and as an actor myself I like to watch every type of film I can possibly find. It was just a bonus really that I found one with him in it. I waited a year and a half to see this film because of where it was being shown before it was released on DVD, and it was well worth my wait. I think that some people are focusing too much on the budget details. The story line was interesting and intense, the script was amazing and the performance from Emmett was just flawless. I would recommend this film to everyone and anyone. Charlie Casanova has an intense feel to it all the way through it, and you don't know how it's going to pan out. So, if you're the type who like predictable, not very well thought out films, don't watch it. If you like original story lines, intelligent and performances like no other, then get this film! There is no other film like this and I think it was harshly judged by some. Whether you love it or hate it, you have to admit, the story is like no other. Absolute perfection for me.

A classic medium years before its time

[speakerstudio · 10/10 · 23 February 2012]

In spite of a ridiculous rant by a sad and pathetic fool called 'billy the hick' (Aptly named) I will keep this short and state that this groundbreaking movie has taken many of the staid opposition to change in any form by surprise. With the result that they can only comment on the negative. OK not everybody will enjoy this movie. (I hated 'The sound of music') but for a first time low cost incredibly well written, acted and directed film Charlie Casanover, has opened a door of hope for so many independent film makers with the courage to present their work on their own terms. you can like it or loath it, but you can't ignore Charlie Casanova.

if at first you don't succeed do a chris ashton

[lime-rick · 8/10 · 26 December 2012]

The only true reaction one can have after watching Charlie Casanova is a neutral reaction. You won't love it or hate it. A couple of moments will stick in your head. One moment in the picture is hilarious. You will however feel duped. You will feel duped because the film is talking to your head and not to your head, heart,gut and lets just say some other places.

Charlie Casanova - The Emotional Experience (Take Two) Charlie Casanova must and I mean must be seen for a second time. Once you watch it again the female and male characters make more emotional sense and their own personal situations are heartbreaking and gut wrenching. Of course your heart won't break but the dams of your eyes will.

Like all great films; "Charlie" is a sensual experience - it uses the senses well. The use of sound and silence is used quite well in the film. The attention to detail of male/female behaviours is well brought out.

People will highlight certain scenes to champion "Charlie" but as always like "Midnight Cowboy" the scene after the famous scene will be the most memorable. Moments of female anquish and male chameleon contorsions will be bypassed as secondary on first viewing "Charlie" but like cream, will rise to the top on the second viewing and will emotionally stun you. This puppy was stunned by the male chameleon contorsions first time round and was emotionally floored by the female anquish scene the second time round. I had to pause the screen.

Charlie is the joker in a joker society and we love the joker. The joker has replaced the royalty but the joker is taking royalty payments.

We desire the joker and want to be the joker and that is cool but we need to infuse the joker with wisdom, charisma and intelligence in that order to free us from the sexual insanity that is trashing our bodies and our minds.