grahamsmith-802-652796 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.

edula 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...

Chiefbukowski 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.

speakerstudio In spite of a ridiculous rant by a sad and pathetic fool called 'billy the hick' (Aptly named) I will keep this short and state that this groundbreaking movie has taken many of the staid opposition to change in any form by surprise. With the result that they can only comment on the negative. OK not everybody will enjoy this movie. (I hated 'The sound of music') but for a first time low cost incredibly well written, acted and directed film Charlie Casanover, has opened a door of hope for so many independent film makers with the courage to present their work on their own terms. you can like it or loath it, but you can't ignore Charlie Casanova.