Inadvands Boring, over-political, tech fuzed mess

Teringer An Exercise In Nonsense

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

edula 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...

pmckenna-2 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.

freddyfresh22 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.

blahblahblahtoby 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.