Dans la tête de Charles Swan III

It's hard to tell whether "A Glimpse Inside the Mind of Charles Swan III" is a good-natured bit of self-parody on the part of Charlie Sheen, poking fun at his reputation as a compulsive womanizer, or a vanity project designed to showcase the actor's now-legendary sexual prowess and playboy image. I suspect it's the former, but even if it's the latter, it still doesn't make for a very entertaining movie.

In plot, the movie feels an awful lot like a full-length version of "Californication," as a middle-aged, sunglass-wearing Angeleno laments how he's screwed up with the love of his life (Ivana played by Ketheryn Winnick) because he's never grown up enough to stay committed to a monogamous relationship.

Writer/director Roman Coppola's eclectic, scattershot approach alternates between scenes set in reality - or a close proximity thereof - and wild, but surprisingly flatfooted fantasy sequences heavy on op and pop visuals and graphics (Charlie is himself a successful graphics designer) and light on originality and cleverness. Apparently, there's not really all that much worth taking a glimpse of in ole Charlie's mind after all. Indeed, despite a big name cast that includes Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman and Patricia Arquette, the movie feels an awful lot like a third-rate film school project that somehow got green-lighted by an actual studio.

I have to agree with much of what (but not all) critics said about this film. Yes, many of the things they say are true. However, I also agree with what Hoop posted here about this film. There is a 70s kind of scattered filmmaking feel to it that has appeal in the format of this type of film.

It's one of those films I rate lower than how much I kind of liked it. It's not a brilliant work flawlessly executed, but it has a glisten to it in places, that kind of odd appeal that makes it worth having done it. You see, some projects I feel just had to be done so then we can move on. It's not that it shouldn't ever have been done, but that it allows for an entertaining time and it is merely what it was perhaps meant to be (which I'll leave to the viewer's POV).

I just kept thinking, wondering, while watching it (knowing it was probably slammed by the critics which I know now, it was) that it is going to be one of those films someday, slammed at release and yet rediscovered and rethought later, and more appreciated then perhaps in historical ignorance as happens. But through that objective hindsight kind of way that allows us to, at some point many years later, appreciate the currently appreciable. Cheers!

Well that's how the movie might have been promoted. But while "Being John Malkovich" actually was funny and enticing, this might have one good scene in it (involving Cowboys). It tries hard to be quirky, casting Bill Murray helps with that. But Charlie Sheen who is playing the character Charles Swan does not cut it. I like quite a lot of Charlies movies he has done. But he can't pull this one off (meta or not).

The problem of the movie therefor relies not in its incoherence (it has somewhat of a straight story line in between all the dream sequences or whatever you want to call them), rather in the lack of "good" incoherence. There is system and a plan when it comes to madness and trying to explore the mind as again "Being John Malkovich" has proved. Charlie Kaufman (another Charlie) is better suited in portraying this. I would suggest not wasting your time on this

The Wes Anderson link is obvious, it's less refined than his movies but in a strange way it also feels less constricted and therefore more free to go wild. Sure, it is self-consciously over-styled but it opened with a spirit that reminded me of late 60s movies like Head (The Monkees) or the kind of 'wry portrait of a groovy guy' movie that Peter Sellers could have starred in. The opening scene with Terry Gilliam style animation was promising. I was prepared to over-ride the cheese factor and enjoy an immersive ride into the quirky.

But for all the promise of ideas - it just wasn't fun enough.

The bulk of the movie (from about 20mins onwards) was basically a vague saunter through Charles breaking up with his girlfriend and thinking about making an album cover for his client/friend. Odd how the movie's initial wild spirit seemed to dry up.

Characters such as Bill Murray, Patricia Arquette, Aubrey Plaza and Jason S dip in and out of his life, all having boring conversations with him. None of them lifted it, Sheen was the best of a dull bunch. Even as you watch, so many scenes just slip through your fingers.

It feels mostly like a filmed rehearsal of a half-baked script, made using movie-world connections as if they were there as a favour to a friend. The only thing that stands out is the general plastic look and certain details (egg and bacon stickers on his car etc).

For a short movie, it really dragged. Falls uneasily between 'try hard' and 'didn't try hard enough'. Doesn't even qualify as a 'so bad it's good movie'.

And it's not even a glimpse into Swan's mind - he is impenetrable behind his permanent sunglasses - it's more of a glimpse into the mind of a movie-maker with money and connections who thought 'looking cool' was more important than deeper levels of development.

I'll give a star for Jason Schwartzman, a star for Bill Murray, a star for Aubrey Plaza and a star for the movie as a whole.

I'm entertained by Charlie Sheen and his antics. While I can't hate the guy because I don't know him personally, I don't want to watch a movie that seems to basically reflect his poor decision making, meltdown and turn around. Too much "nothing" happened. Plenty of fantasy sequences and flashbacks seemed to just emphasize Sheen's boisterous and lady killing ways. In the end it seems like an exaggerated and far fetched Charlie Sheen Documentary. Roman Coppola works much better with Wes Anderson.