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...

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.

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.

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.