Charlie Casanova

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.