SYNOPSICS
Charlie Casanova (2011) is a English movie. Terry McMahon has directed this movie. Emmett J Scanlan,Leigh Arnold,Damien Hannaway,Thomas Farrell are the starring of this movie. It was released in 2011. Charlie Casanova (2011) is considered one of the best Crime,Drama,Thriller movie in India and around the world.
Poster boy for the ruling class, Charlie Barnum has it all, the perfect wife, the property portfolio and the loyalty of his best friend. The fact that Charlie requires Viagra to have sex with his wife, is losing his properties, and has seduced his best friend's wife, means nothing to Charlie, because Charlie is living on dangerously borrowed time. An innocent working class girl is killed in a hit and run, and, as the blood pours from her injuries, Charlie, the man who knocked her down, consults his deck of playing cards and chooses to abdicate responsibility for all future deeds. Lies become truths, reality becomes fantasy, and, as Charlie embroils the three comfortable couples in the ugly excesses and sanctimonious prejudices of his new found power, they discover some deeply disturbing truths about each other. Employing dangerously subversive, provocatively dark, and satirically disturbing humor, Charlie Casanova re-imagines Billy Liar and Walter Mitty as a sickeningly compelling ...
More
Charlie Casanova (2011) Reviews
Pants
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.
awful film
A dreadful viewing experience, with a terrible script and poorly directed actors. The main character is a screaming, gurning, nonsensical monstrosity. I don't give a s*** what the message or the intention of the film was, it's f***ing poorly made and an utterly meritless viewing experience. The "cards fall where they may" thing was over-egged, felt stupid, ridiculous, and repetitive. It is a bewildering and alienating film, the characters are not recognizable as human, they're weird cartoon characters. And they talk too fast too, it was incomprehensible. I respect the fact that they made a film for next to nothing. I don't respect the film on any level.
Cinematic Toxic Waste
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 wanted to like 'Charlie Casanova', I really did...
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...
It's all about the voice.
When I first started out as a writer, producers and directors would tell you that they were looking for an original voice, however they rarely meant it, which is why we are subjected to so much pap on our TV and Cinema screens. In Terry McMahon we find an original and exciting voice, that may grate on some, but will find fertile purchase in open minds. I was lucky enough to see the film in Galway at the Film Fleadh. I doubt it will get a general release, but it deserves one. Emmet Scanlan plays the eponymous Charlie a character who feels increasingly embittered by his emasculation through conformity to a society that seems to pander to the underclasses. Of course all fascists need someone to blame their woes upon and here it's the tracksuit mafia. I believe the correct slang term is "Scangers". However it's clear that Charlie has trouble feeling anything at all. After accidentally running a person over in his car he crosses a line - there is no guilt, no remorse - he abdicates responsibility for his actions. From that moment on his decisions are determined by the turn of a playing card. Sometimes the results are amusing, sometimes tragic. Charlie pulsates with anger and venom as he exacts revenge on a boring life. Willing to gamble everything in order to feel something. His superiority complex a cover for deep insecurities that his 187 point IQ cannot get to grips with. He literally doesn't know whether to laugh or cry, can fake both and feel neither. It's a powerful, mesmerizing performance by Emmet Scanlan. Leigh Arnold and Ruth McIntyre are the tragic women in his life. Damien Hannaway is a fantastic foil to the flamboyant Charlie and turns in a beautiful performance. The star however is the script and Terry McMahon's voice as a writer / director. The film was made for little or no money. This however suits the movie as the camera is almost always in the face of the characters creating a very claustrophobic feel. There are very few cutaways to scenery, sets or indeed wide shots. Mostly I suspect because there were no sets or scenery. It's a film that could have been shot anywhere. Generic hotel bedrooms and bathrooms mean there's no relief in the surroundings. You are trapped in this world just like the characters. The only scenery is a motorway at night, and that seems more like a barrier than a road to anywhere. The lighting in the film is minimal, but again that adds to the feel. The look of the piece is reminiscent of Mean Streets. It almost has a late seventies feel. This could be Scorsese's New York, but for the Dublin accents. It is very wordy and theatrical. That alone won't appeal to many. The subject matter will also put some off. After the screening, which invited us to love or hate the film, some people may well have hated it, a few people were sitting on the fence.... It's clear that I and many others loved it. I was buzzing after the event... so much so that I'm writing this review after the long drive home. I would love to see more from Terry McMahon.