A Glimpse Inside the Mind of Charles Swan III

This is an impossible review to write because this movie is just so weird. So weird in fact that I can't really compare it to anything. The closest thing that I can compare it to are Wes Anderson movies and that's because the director of this happens to be Roman Coppola, who is a frequent collaborator with Anderson. And I think that being around him for so long has rubbed off on Coppola in a great way. He takes everything that makes a Wes Anderson film so good like the whimsical nature and the quirky characters and creates his own wild ride.

The cast is quite good and filled with big names and even included two more Wes Anderson collaborators. Charlie Sheen plays the the man, the myth, and the legend Charles Swan. He leads the perfect life. He has a good job as a graphic designer and he has a great girlfriend named Ivana. His life comes crashing down, however, when Ivana finds out that he used to be a whore mongering booze hound. She breaks up with him and he can't handle it, which results in a health scare and he thinks he's on the verge of death. And thus begins this weird journey. Jason Schwartzman and Bill Murray pop up at different times throughout and their scenes are so strange that I can't even explain them. They are funny though. Several scenes like that peppered throughout the movie are just weird and out there and surreal that all you can do is laugh. Patricia Arquette plays Charlie's sister and they share a couple of the movies more normal restrained scenes together. Aubrey Plaza and Mary Elizabeth Winstead show up too in very small roles and don't really do anything that memorable.

This is my worst review by far and that's OK with me. Like I said in the beginning...this is just an impossible review to write just because of sheer nature of this movie. The review isn't anything more than a rambling mess and it does nothing to really tell you about the movie or to really sell you on it. And to be honest there really isn't anything that can sell you on it...you just have to see it.

It's weird and quirky, but god damn did I like it. Charlie Sheen is perfectly cast as Charles Swan. When you see the movie you'll know why. A lot of weird things happen without much explanation, but I'm guessing its all part of the wildness that is Swan's mind. Sooo funny. Sheen, Schwartzman, & Murray are classic. This is definitely a movie that's gonna have a cult following and isn't gonna make a dime at the box- office. I guarantee I'm one of the only people that praise it because it just so weird. It's like Wes Anderson lite meets The Brothers Bloom. Fantastic. I can tell you to see it just to decide for yourself, but keep a very open mind, give it time to sink in and maybe, just maybe it will surprise you.

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.

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!

The last time I was baffled by a film to this degree I had just sat through Wes Anderson's The Life Aquatic of Steve Zissou, a film to this day I can not extract anything from. Ironically, Wes Anderson and Roman Coppola, the director of A Glimpse Inside the Mind of Charles Swan III have worked on a few projects together and, possibly as a result, the film feels half-baked, incomplete, and inherently maddening, doing one of things that Wes Anderson did as well but at least in a somewhat bearable manner; draw its events brighter and more noticeable than the characters involved in them.

Our title character is played by Charlie Sheen, who presumably filmed this around that time where he wasn't a media figure for his outspoken drug use any longer and he was pretty much disregarded by all the public too as yesterday's news. I assume that because I'm sure it this film would've been swarmed with publicity at the time of its production, because anything Sheen seemed to do, rather it was create a Twitter account or make a disposable statement made headlines.

Sheen embodies without a doubt, the weirdest character of his career; an inconsistent graphic designer who has just been left by the love of his moment Ivana (Katheryn Winnick), and is feeling mixed emotions, frequenting suffering from terrors and surrealist fever dreams. His reality becomes twisted and indistinct, as things do not seem to have a time-frame and characters pop in and out with no rhyme or reason.

This is one of the least consistent films I've seen in a long time. A subplot, if you can call it that because the story's main plot isn't even worthy of the description of a plot, involved Jason Schwartzman's Kirby, an aspiring musician, who wants Charles to make him an album cover, but both men lack inspiration in their clearly eclectic lives.

I can't help but feel that this was the movie that Wes Anderson dreamed up but quickly abandoned when he discovered the plot didn't go anywhere quickly. Anderson is known for concocting whimsical setups, an immensely quirky environment, and framing and articulating his films' settings with impenetrable beauty and artistry. What he often neglects, although this hasn't been seen recently with his newest films The Darjeeling Limited and Moonrise Kingdom, is his characterization and situations, which are often underdeveloped or simply archetypes we have a difficult time feeling for. Writer/director/producer Coppola continues to persistently throw set pieces, situations, and stunt casting at the story, none of it generating any true excitement or nourishment for his audience members. The whole film plays as one long, tedious, incoherent stage show that goes nowhere quickly and doesn't seem to care.

Yet through all the mundane setups and unworthy payoffs, I found enjoyment in this film, mainly coming from Sheen, who is a charming screen presence here, playing a womanizing character, with a bit more of a heart and attitude than the usual snobs. But his character is still an undeveloped archetype we feel almost nothing for. And when the film gives us a maddening ending that breaks the fourth wall, we feel that either Coppola couldn't fittingly end the story or he simply got tired of the material.

A Glimpse Inside the Mind of Charles Swan III is, to put it simply, a mess of sizable proportions. If the film had turned its quirkiness meter about six notches down, and put as much heavy focus on its story continuity and characters as it does with detail and look, there would be a film here with some trajectory and formation rather than just scene after scene of disposable weirdness. I read that Roman Coppola hopes that those who have suffered through a bad breakup in the past or have been through rough relationships could sympathize with Charles Swan III. I'd believe that after they see this film, they'll feel that relationships are a waste of time and should get back to work.

Starring: Charlie Sheen, Jason Schwartzman, Katheryn Winnick, Bill Murray, Aubrey Plaza, Patricia Arquette, Dermot Mulroney, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Directed by: Roman Coppola.