Charlie Charlie

Saw 'Charlie Charlie' as someone with an appreciation for horror and who found the premise oddly interesting. Despite it not being a unique one and one that could have gone either way in execution, it sounded pretty decent and if done right could have made a guilty pleasure sort of film.

What 'Charlie Charlie' was instead was a very lame, if not irredeemable, film that did very little with its premise and its setting. The setting is the best thing about the film, to me also the only good thing, and is pretty creepy. Even that feels wasted, a shame because it was the one thing that was done pretty well and deserved better than what the rest of 'Charlie Charlie' turned out to be. Didn't get the sense as such that it didn't even try, other low-budget films seen recently have done a far worse job at that, but did get the sense that it didn't do what to do with itself.

The setting apart, 'Charlie Charlie' looks cheap. Photography was drab and the editing, while not incoherent as such, was sloppy. Faring worst were the special effects, their ineptitude and intelligence insulting cheapness being an assault on the senses.

'Charlie Charlie' was not menacing or threatening, actually veering on the goofy side of things. In all fairness the material was cheesy and lacking in suspense, and the action was not disturbing, brutal or scary.

Its obvious and over-bearing sound really annoys and hinders the impact of any scares or suspense when they are telegraphed when being built up that they become predictable. The music is forgettable and doesn't always fit.

Script constantly sounds stilted and even cheesier than a large cheeseburger. The story is dull, lacking in any kind of atmosphere, tension or suspense and insults the intelligence by how ridiculous and confused it tends to be.

No better news about the characters or acting, the latter being one of the worst assets of 'Charlie Charlie'. The characters are bland and obnoxious, either or and in a few cases both, with truly dumb illogical decision making that makes them and even the viewer stupid and make one endear to them even less (and you don't even like them in the first place). The acting is a bad mix of over-compensating and disinterested, the female cast are just terrible.

Overall, poor. 2/10 Bethany Cox

This film is just awful. Everything about it is bad, from the lousy plot, to the poor acting, to the 90s effects. Low budget films don't have to let their budget define them, but this one sure did. It wasn't even so bad that it was good, it was just super bad. What a pain.

I decided to watch this movie based on a IMDb score well over 6. I figure now that this was some sort of mathematical anomaly caused by the entire cast, crew and their families getting on and scoring it 10. I'm scoring 1 to try and help get to the 3 it richly deserves.

I won't bore you to death - I allow the movie to do that for me - but among the reasons you should skip this rancid pile of feline excrement are:

1. editing - not bad - looks like what a child who was short of time and didn't understand the role of editing is in a movie would approach it - numerous times when we see the same scene cut together but overlapping shots - e.g. the tallest of the muppets roped into acting places things into his hat, then cut, and he's then asking the other people in the shot for the objects he's just put in his hat... 2. continuity - a guys gives someone his jacket - throughout the balance of the movie we see him with the jacket on, without the jacket on - needless to say this goes with the person he gave it too as well... 3. acting - clearly not something the humans in the movie were trained. 4. script - there are scenes that make no sense - an entire story line of two people in a car that has nothing to do with the story. 5. special (and i mean "special") effects - a child with a free ap from itunes would find something that could create better special effects...

all in all - one of those movies you hate yourself for watching - and then run to IMDb to give it a review in the vain home that maybe this will justify it.

it didn't.

The concept of this story is amazing! The idea of a failing haunted house owner trying to save his business in a last ditch effort is really cool.

Unfortunately, this film was marketed falsely as a Ouija film when it was a completely separate story. The direction was questionable and the main actor was not good.

The only redeeming qualities about this film are the cool location and some of the acting performances. The girl who played Sarah was really good and I loved both the actress and character of Gina. Such a good performance with what she was given. Sadly, all of the actors had stupid lines and were not given much character substance to work with. Great actors lost in a bad movie.

A haunted house attraction isn't generating revenue so they try a new angle with people playing Charlie Charlie instead. This game is a Mexican Ouija board sort of with two pencils balanced on each other forming a cross. You then ask Charlie yes or no questions. Five young adults play the game unleashing the Mexican demon.

This film is by the far the worst I've seen. The whole setup is just crap. I don't know who would pay twenty bucks to stack two pencils and watch them spin but that's just me. Charlie is always an unseen force (a blue laser light sometimes) that goes around killing everyone. The score is ripped from Full Moon's films and the acting is crap. This thing makes no sense and the ending didn't help.