Dans la tête de Charles Swan III

A Glimpse Inside the Mind of Charles Swan III (2012)

1/2 (out of 4)

Writer-director Roman Coppola quickly made this thing during the time that Charlie Sheen was going through his mental breakdown. In the film Sheen plays Charles Swan, a man who gets dumped by his girlfriend and begins to act in a variety of strange ways so us lucky viewers get the chance to look inside his mind to see what makes him tick. Okay, who in the hell really cares what makes Charles Swan III tick? I'm going to steal from Roger Ebert's review of this movie and he's right when he said a movie is a sad thing to waste. Not only is Coppola's talents wasted but so are Sheen's and Bill Murray's. Mr. Murray doesn't make too many movies these days and it's rather sad to see him wasted his talents in this film. I'm really not sure what Coppola was going for, although I'm quite certain somewhere down the road this here will be a cult movie with fans dropping acid and smoking joints to it. What we've basically got are a lot of small scenes where Sheen gets to act out a wide range of things. He would be dancing, flirting, find himself in a dangerous situation or he might just be looking at the ladies. The problem is that none of these "visions" are funny and after about ten-minutes it becomes clear that you don't care about Swan or anything in his head. He's a rather boring character who I'm guessing is loosely based on Sheen but I think the film would have perhaps worked better had they really gone after Sheen and the mental state he was in when all of this stuff was going on. I think that would have been a lot more interesting than what we get here. The only reason I don't give this thing a BOMB is that I'm going to at least give the filmmakers, actors and producers some credit for at least trying something different. However, just trying something different doesn't mean you're going to end up with anything good.

A GLIMPSE INSIDE THE MIND OF CHARLES SWAN III is just that. A quick glimpse inside the mind of a self-obsessed, sex-addicted album cover artist who's sanity and life are put into question after his latest girlfriend breaks up with him.

Charles Swan III is lightly played by Charlie Sheen, who, looking worse than ever, might seem perfect for the role but only makes it that much harder to care for the character. His mind, life and the film are a chaotic mess. His regrets, his pain and loss come off so insincere, it's boring to watch. What keeps us watching the film is the genuine laughs brought by Jason Schwartzman and Bill Murray, who play parts in Swan's real life and multiple roles inside his warped mind. It is the scenes they are in that save the entire film from being a complete failure.

Roman Coppola's bizarre odyssey never takes itself too serious, creating a world where anything goes. That, in itself, is a great achievement for a writer/director. It's hard to tell if it's Charlie Sheen's lack of a performance or if it's the written character's lack of genuine heart that holds this film back from becoming what it was hoping to be: a film for those of us who crave originality and appreciate dark chaotic comedies no one else dares to make.

It helps when you are not sober when watching this out of whack cheesy flick, directed by the son of the all time great Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather). Roman Coppola even starred (as a little curly boy) in the all time classic The Godfather, but Roman has mostly been making music videos while wearing Italian clothes and he hasnt inherited the talent his father had to tell a coherent story, because this movie is all over the place, but in a good cheesy way...

A story about heartbreak, starring the ultimate friendly whacko Charlie Sheen, who is still so cool, calm and collected as ever before. Terrific supporting roles by Bill Murray and Patricia Arquette. Great soundtrack. Wacky photography. And filmsets and props that are to die for!

Best consumed when one is NOT sober...

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!

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.