dnspattison 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.

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.

blahblahblahtoby This is an awkward film, very difficult to enjoy in the traditional sense and once more difficult to categorise. It's part psychotic breakdown, part political dissection, part kitchen sink domestic drama, part offensive (a large part at that,) part nightmare.Charlie Casanova, played by Emmet Scanlan in a career making performance, is an extremely charismatic yet supremely unlikable person. He defines himself as a member of the middle class, with flash cars, flash suits, an IQ of 187 (maybe my IQ isn't high enough but I don't know what this number actually means, what is the difference between 187 and 170?) a seemingly close group of friends and a loving wife. Yet he is bored with his life and proposes a game involving playing cards quite similar to that proposed in the Luke Rhinehart novel The Dice Man - ask the cards a question with a yes or no answer, the card you turn over is either a yes or a no. Most of the questions asked seem to involve illegal acts and sexual behaviour.The journey Charlie takes is occasionally slow moving but largely a difficult watch because his behaviour is so often completely abhorrent. What makes it watchable and in it's own way enjoyable is the incredibly powerful performance from Scanlan and the mostly tight direction from McMahon. He shoves the camera in the characters faces, you feel claustrophobic more often than not, you even (and maybe this is just me) find yourself identifying with the lunatic on screen before realising that his words are just an excuse for his behaviour, this I am pretty sure was intended by McMahon.There is a scene in which Casanova tries some impromptu standup in a working class club, ripping the patrons apart with some very well observed humour before being dragged out of the bar. This scene feels like the one that the movie was written around, it's the strongest in it's content and the way that it was filmed and really pushes the movie forward in to the final act and the (at this point) slightly confusing ending.At times it is a little difficult to understand some of the dialogue; as I have found from my personal experience of the Irish accent, sometimes they speak too fast for me to catch every word, other times the choice of slang is too confusing. But this doesn't actually detract from the film in any way. It may even add to the flavour, the realism of the piece.The final 2 scenes are fantastic and have you leaving the film on a high note; Charlie is on a roof, talking to a camcorder, wild eyed and frantically spouting his political ideals, urging the masses to take some responsibility for their lives, defending his actions, an incredible piece of cinema to end with. And then there's a piece of broken domesticity, a beautiful piece of art that the camera holds on until we fade to back, nothing happens but you can't tear your eyes from it, mesmerising.I would definitely recommend watching this film if you are partial to watching great acting performances in difficult films. It's certainly not for everyone but it is worth your time.