Charlie Casanova

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.

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.

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.

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...

Hands down the best and most interesting Irish film I've ever seen,I never thought that something so completely original could be created from the emerald isle. Right from the start i was floored,i thought it was going to wain due to my preconceptions but it only got better. Charlie is the depiction of unchecked ego,something most of the planet knows by now.A deleterious sham of a human who believes that words matter more than action,that perception can be fueled to the point of plausibility no matter what the circumstance. His world comes undone but no consequence follows which seems appropriate considering how the elite need only circumvent,using language and our expectations,the question of responsibility and reflection to continue their grip on position and control. I'll refrain from waxing lyrical on this most amazing work,Watch it!!!

Ignore all other reviews,If you are interested in an original voice no matter what the medium,this is for you.